tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post116067364947060864..comments2024-03-28T08:37:58.136+01:00Comments on Limited, Inc.: a non-contrarian, going with the crowd on moral relativsm, kind of postRoger Gathmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-1160703763492167462006-10-13T03:42:00.000+02:002006-10-13T03:42:00.000+02:00roger--I admit to not knowing that much of his wor...roger--I admit to not knowing that much of his work, whereas you definitely do. Sometimes he has been tough, but I do admit to not having read him regularly, and may well not take the time to try to prove a point that I don't cherish that deeply...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-1160698337209151972006-10-13T02:12:00.000+02:002006-10-13T02:12:00.000+02:00Mr. NYP, you surprise me. This is the same Jacob W...Mr. NYP, you surprise me. This is the same Jacob Weisberg? Well, every dog has its day, I guess. But I've been reading him for a while on slate, and his article today is his usual m.o. - first, disentangle an issue from straw man objections, and then, in a tone of contrarianism, drum out a message that was D.C. CW two months ago. <BR/><BR/>However, I will look try to be fair about the next thing I read of his.Roger Gathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-1160685645714849102006-10-12T22:40:00.000+02:002006-10-12T22:40:00.000+02:00I've read very good things by Jacob Weisberg. He ...I've read very good things by Jacob Weisberg. He wrote the best piece in New York Magazine after OJ walked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-1160683109706439632006-10-12T21:58:00.000+02:002006-10-12T21:58:00.000+02:00Good morning all. "Plenty of career" was taken fro...Good morning all. "Plenty of career" was taken from Stirling Newberry, who summed up his ventures into the field applications of ideology with that as a motivating factor. My impression of the guardians of the status quo, and the aspirants to be its arbiters, is that their ideology consists of passive necrophilia (the fucktoy for the undead critique), fear, rage and narrow greed. The intellectual content with which they lard their screeds consists mainly of shopping for justifications after the fact. It's a disservice to what's left of their humanity, and semantics, to call that ideological. The late Frank Zappa correctly identified their program as sinister potty training, currenly playing out in the infamous enema kidnappings. They can quote Zizek, Nietzsche, Kant and Habermas all they like, revile Strauss and Schmitt or praise them, but these simple truths still hold up. In others words, I agree with Roger. It's a mistake to reduce it solely to the profit motive.Arkadyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05838423612315386095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-1160680445862092742006-10-12T21:14:00.000+02:002006-10-12T21:14:00.000+02:00ps - oops, that reply looks rather opaque! I hope ...ps - oops, that reply looks rather opaque! I hope it isn't, but - for instance -- recognizing, say, Libya doesn't mean that the people who profited before we recognized (or desanctioned) Libya are now out on their ass. They are the very people who are making money. Haliburton recently tried to make some money in Iran and were scared off from doing so. <BR/><BR/>Which means, simply, that profitmaking requires an ideological instance shaped by other factors to really determine some course of action by the Gov.Roger Gathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-1160680206397055182006-10-12T21:10:00.000+02:002006-10-12T21:10:00.000+02:00Brian, while that is true, it would also be true i...Brian, while that is true, it would also be true if we recognized Iran. It is simply - true. I think the automatic reduction of ideology to profit can go too far. In fact, there are other markers of advantage than money. It is odd that the criticism of neo-classical economics so often accepts the main idea of classical economics -- that all motives boil down to more money. I don't, though, although I think the embedding of the social in the market is an attempt to enact just that.Roger Gathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11257400843748041639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3077210.post-1160676882094813242006-10-12T20:14:00.000+02:002006-10-12T20:14:00.000+02:00You forget the overwhelming reason for said hostil...You forget the overwhelming reason for said hostility: Plenty of short term prfiteering opportunities and, to borrow Mr. Scruggs' lovely term, Plenty of Career. There need be no other reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com