Subject: [IP] more on more on frequent fliers
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2email@example.com> Date: September 29, 2005 5:14:43 PM EDT To: firstname.lastname@example.org, 'Ip' <email@example.com> Subject: RE: [IP] more on frequent fliers
It's worth trying to respond to this is a widely held view. It's a form of
profiling that focuses more on others' perceived advantages in a zero sum
world. Ad hominem attack can displace effective criticism.
The attitudes can and do have a serious impact on public policy though
often in distorted forms such voting against welfare queens but in favor of
lifting the inheritance tax. Or banning immoral cell phones.
Many frequent flyers are oppressed workers traveling from meeting to
meeting spending days away from their family. Must they stand in line
beyond privileged travelers who can move about at their leisure?
Is taking a nap at 5AM between plains in O'Hare a luxury? Why the road rage
at a few who travel a lot to earn status flying or a few who pay for
Is wealth just privilege and not something earned? I'll leave out the word
"deserved"? Is wealth immoral per se? A while go Peter Denning recommend I
read "God Wants you to be Rich". If we get past the title it's about the
stakeholder argument and the assumption that not-wealth is morality.
I recognize some of moralistic traits in myself -- wanting to block the
person using the breakdown lane to get ahead of traffic while I'm resigned
to waiting with the pack. But if I see an exit is it a privilege to use my
navigation system to take advantage of local streets as a bypass? Would it
be different if I had memorized the streets? All-to-often knowledge is seen
as privilege - the Ivory Tower.
Like wealth, technology is often seen as privilege. I see it as the real
source of complaints about cell phones. A few years ago I was told that I
was showing off when I was simply making a few calls to coordinate with my
wife and kids.
Wealth can indeed be very distorting as can having the right relationships.
Wealth can also be liberating and give people the freedom to contribute to
society. Many of the great scientists of the past were privileged to
indulge their curiosity.
The current administration might be in its position because of wealth but
that's not enough to explain their policies. In many cases people actually
want to give the rich privilege -- it's a proxy for their own dreams and
hopes. After all, why should anyone care what a Hollywood star after work?
-----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 15:44 To: Ip Subject: [IP] more on frequent fliers
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joyce <email@example.com> Date: September 29, 2005 12:53:34 PM EDT To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [IP] more on frequent fliers
As our country becomes more stratified and as wealth and resources become more concentrated in the hands of an elite, these special people expect not to have to put up with the inconveniences the rest of us see as part of our daily life. They truly become privileged and live in a totally separate world.
One part of me says they should go for it. What is the use of wealth and power if you cannot buy with it the luxuries that make your life easier? The other part of me says, "Wait a minute. When the people who have influence don't have to put up with the mess the other 98 percent of us put up with, they don't become involved in solving the problem."
This is supposed to be a republic. We are all supposed to be in this together. I'm not naive. I know that there have always been privileged people. I just hate to see it institutionalized in so many ways and at an increasing pace. It is en the end dysfunctional and creates more problems.
Joyce Murphy . . . just an interested person
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Powered by eList eXpress LLC