> It seem that most of the socialists on this list

Interesting. Have you mayhaps a socialist detector there :-) ?
I would have great difficulty being sure (or even fairly confident) that a
particular opinion here was being expressed by a Socialist. I imagine that
you are not falling into the trap of labelling people XYZalists because they
are expressing an opinion different than your own or attempting to discern
"truth' in an admittedly muddy arena. Do my views trigger your Socialist
detector? I would not so label myself but I'm happy enough to wear the label
if it helps someone else understand me. Trouble is, most labels are more
useful in helping us categorise others so that we can reject them rather
than try to see things from theor perspective.

> think these changes occur instantly

Interestingly, I haven't concluded that anyone who has posted on this thread
so far holds this opinion. I suspect that even the most starry eyed amongst
us is well enough versed in the real world that they know what it takes to
change things. Are you *seriously* suggesting people think this ?

> and as if the 'norm' has been THE NORM since time immortal

this is liable to be truer. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking
history only extends as far as our unsupported memories will reach.

>- and that ALL societies ought to be changed NOW,

are you suggesting that desirable changes that COULD be achieved "now"
SHOULDN'T be achieved "now" ? Why?

> as if a switch could be thrown and all things made 'right'.

This is risking confusing what "ought" to be done with what "can" be done.
The two seldom match exactly. The problem with the above argument is that it
encourages people (not necessarily the writer) to argue (or rather, act)
along the lines "This should be done but it can't be done now so I don't
need to do it now so I don't need to do anything".

There are, of course, no "could" or "should" or "right' without absolute
terms of reference. If one does not acknowledge the existence of absolutes
(even if they exist)(or of they don't)  then one can skip from one argument
or defence to the next and, if there are no absolutes, that is indeed an
entirely valid thing to do, for on what grounds is anyone to say otherwise.
In the absence of absolutes I (and we all) have no obligations to anyone
else, be they kin or countryman or person_somewhere_far_away, EXCEPT that
which they can compel us to have. Which is in recent times a sore point
indeed and two other topics (almost) entirely.

> And that seems to be how TV news seems to portray it too ...

Just turn it off (or watch BBC)   :-)


            Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body