|
The war against terror (continued)
Continued
from this page
:
|
Community Coordinator, newsobserver.com and triangle.com
|
|
|
Yes
Doug,
Indeed.
"War" time often galvanizes people into such a supposed unity against a
supposedly easily identifiable enemy that they not only tolerate such
erosions, but encourage them.
The Taliban had originally been
at least verbally open (how much sincere tehy were is another issue) to
turning Osama bin Laden over to an Islamic court, but the U.S. said no.
The U.S. wants to be both police and judge on a geopolitical scale.
Imagine if that were the case in the courts you and I might be subject
to. The police officer who claims you are the murder gets to determine
your guilt or innocence and decide on your punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I guess a contradiction in higher ethical
standards vs acts of terroism. No matter what the act of terror,
internal or external I find no ethics in the type of suppression
internally or attacks externally in the attempt to defends their
beliefs.
Well yes! But what I meant was that
we'll need to develop cross-culture consensus on ethical standards in
order to prevent exactly those things. Of course, until they are
prevented they'll need to be suppressed.
The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western culture.
Christian culture is evolving at a much faster pace and
foundamentalistic Christians do not have a qualified minority that
would help them to prevent that because our culture isn't threatened.
Islamic foundamentalists DO have a qualified minority that provides
them with moral support, because that minority feels bullied and
threatend by a US attitude that they see as imperialistic and
suppressive (westernism).
That's why the terrorist attacks are to be interpreted as against westernism - not against western civilisation.
The US could change their attitude without compromising their values.
It's a question of communicative skills and consideration for the other
culture.
This will allow the development of a cross-culture
consensus on ethic principals, where the negative differences will
disappear and the positive differences will be celebrated.
One end result will have to be that all cultures show restrain when
operating within another culture, in order to not endanger the peaceful
evolution of the other culture.
There are two other scenarios:
We
could slip into chaotic dark ages where religious fanatics on all sides
force the intellectual development to freeze in numbness.
Or
western civilisation could overrun all other cultures completely and
cause the cultural flavors (including the Christian one) to fade. If
this happens, many people will have a major spiritual void that they
will need to fill by joining religious splinter groups. These groups
will form again a qualified minority that will fuel fanatic sects that
operate in the underground and we'll have the same problem all over
again.
Besides, it would be sad to loose the cultures as
strong elements that give societies their unique flavors. There is
nothing wrong with spirituality. Science provides knowledge - but their
is another side to the coin. Our societies should stay intouch with
what we don't know, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Community Development, WCI
|
|
|
One end result will have to be that all cultures show
restrain when operating within another culture, in order to not
endanger the peaceful evolution of the other culture.
Sounds like the Prime Directive
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Sue writes:
"Sounds like the Prime Directive
"
And finding some good excuse to break the Prime Directive formed the core plot of how many episodes?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Community Development, WCI
|
|
|
Doug:
And finding some good excuse to break the Prime Directive formed the core plot of how many episodes?
Janeway, on Kirk's generation: (pretty close paraphrase - I just saw this episode the other night)
"It
was different then... They were a little less eager to invoke the Prime
Directive and a little more eager to draw their phasers. Of course, the
whole lot of them would be drummed out of Starfleet today. Still, what
I wouldn't give to ride shotgun with some of those officers..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
More violent disagreements
But what I meant was that we'll need to develop
cross-culture consensus on ethical standards in order to prevent
exactly those things.
I think that the first
rule of culture is that you'll never come to a consensus on anything.
That's why we have international law to deal with how nations deal with
each other, and we leave national law up to each nation. There are
enough cultural disagreements between
Europeans
; you expect to come to a global consensus? There's a reason why you don't see the UN being run on Quaker meeting rules.
The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western culture.
So, how is saying that Islamic culture "needs to do" anything NOT imperialistic and bullish, Chris?
Christian culture is evolving at a much faster pace and
foundamentalistic Christians do not have a qualified minority that
would help them to prevent that because our culture isn't threatened.
OK,
that's the second or third time you've used that phrase, and can I just
say how much that bothers me? I don't know about you, but *I* don't
live in a Christian culture. I'm Jewish, my culture is secular. Lots of
people in my culture are Christian, of course, and twice a year they
tend to jam this down my throat, which makes me rude and irritable and
extremely Scrooge-like.
But please don't tell me that
Christian culture is any better than Islamic culture. Every time I've
seen a Christian culture in action, it's tended to be as repressive and
militant as the worst examples of Islamic cultures.
That's why the terrorist attacks are to be interpreted as against westernism - not against western civilisation.
Ok,
let's be clear. The terrorist attacks were against 4,603 PEOPLE from
around 60 different nations. Not against westernism, not against
western civilization, but against people. Any other description begins
the process of rationalization and desensitization.
The US could change their attitude without compromising their values.
It's a question of communicative skills and consideration for the other
culture.
This isn't about culture. Trust me,
if Switzerland were harboring bin Laden and refused to negotiate, we'd
probably be bombing the hell out of you. We were perfectly happy with
the Taliban for the past five years, for better or for worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
There are enough cultural disagreements between Europeans; you expect to come to a global consensus?
Yes, most certainly I do!!! There is a cross-cultural consensus on ethics that could be reached (
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/
). And the political model that could administer this exists as well:
The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on
subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in
concordance.
So, how is saying that Islamic culture "needs to do" anything NOT imperialistic and bullish, Chris?
If we tell them that they need to change, it's imperialistic. If we encourage them to evolve, it's not.
I don't know about you, but *I* don't live in a Christian culture. I'm
Jewish, my culture is secular. Lots of people in my culture are
Christian, of course, and twice a year they tend to jam this down my
throat, which makes me rude and irritable and extremely Scrooge-like.
I
understand. But just step back a bit and look at the full picture. The
jewish culture has a long history of existing 'surrounded' by the
christian one (being more or less tolerated at different times). I
believe there is nobody that knows that better than the Jews. The
secularization was made possible mainly by the enlightenment which
allowed the individual to turn against institutionalized religion. The
secular model that is so dominating at this time is one that evolved
out of christianity. I'm not saying that it could not have or would not
have evolved from Judaism or any other religion - but it was the
christian reformation that did it. I'm no Christian and the 'secular'
label that you prefer to use is fine with me. In the context of my
postings it was however important to point out that the christian
culture had an easier time to allow a secular society to evolve than it
is now the case for the Islamic culture.
But
please don't tell me that Christian culture is any better than Islamic
culture. Every time I've seen a Christian culture in action, it's
tended to be as repressive and militant as the worst examples of
Islamic cultures.
I agree, Jeff - I agree!
Ok, let's be clear. The terrorist attacks were against 4,603 PEOPLE
from around 60 different nations. Not against westernism, not against
western civilization, but against people. Any other description begins
the process of rationalization and desensitization.
I
don't think you're serious about that. It was a highly symbolic act by
an extremist believe system against another believe system.
This isn't about culture. Trust me, if Switzerland were harboring bin
Laden and refused to negotiate, we'd probably be bombing the hell out
of you.
We're harboring Mark Rich - that causes already enough trouble
Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.
We were perfectly happy with the Taliban for the past five years, for better or for worse.
I
think the international community including the US has been negotiating
with the Taliban about handing out bin Laden since 1997. But yes, the
US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first
place (unintentionally).
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a cross-cultural consensus on ethics that could be reached (
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/
). And the political model that could administer this exists as well:
The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on
subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in
concordance.
Chris, at least here in the US,
there's a sort of osmotic membrane between how political scientists
look at the world, and how "regular educated people" look at the world.
Your language is on the other side of my membrane.
Don't get
me wrong, I'm proud of my academic background and I like to talk theory
when it's appropriate. I also believe that theory can get in the way
sometimes, as I'll point out below.
In any case, that's the
context for what I'm about to say: I went to the site, saw that tenet
#4 was "the transformation of consciousness!" and immediately dismissed
the document, sight unseen. It's written in a language designed to be
dismissed as crackpot here.
The jewish
culture has a long history of existing 'surrounded' by the christian
one (being more or less tolerated at different times). I believe there
is nobody that knows that better than the Jews.
Actually,
we have a far better track record of being tolerated by Muslims than
Christians. It was the Christians who historically expelled and
massacred us. And it's not lost on many Jews that we didn't get our own
nation-state until we adopted the militaristic and oppressive tenets of
our adversaries.
I don't think you're serious
about that. It was a highly symbolic act by an extremist believe system
against another believe system.
And I don't
believe you're serious about THAT. A symbolic attack could have been
done with FedEx jets at 2 AM, with loss of life in the dozens. This is
where academia gets in the way of intelligence; the symbolism, whatever
might have been intended, is utterly dwarfed and made meaningless by
the loss of life.
Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.
Bin Laden is a mass murderer. You can call him symptom, problem, cause, or cup of Swiss chocolate, and I really don't care.
Where
I *will* be glad to argue with you is about what things made the US in
general and the WTC in particular the focus of the attack. I still
think it's because we have the audacity to be rich while the world is
poor, and because we have a society that values freedom of movement
over security and hence made these ripe, juicy targets.
Our
culture is more or less dominating the world in exported media and
promotion of free trade. We weren't attacked by the Chinese, the
Russians, the Africans, or anyone else whose culture is threatened. We
weren't attacked by the Islamic nations of Bosnia, Pakistan, or Saudi
Arabia. We were attacked by a deranged madman whose wealth and
political protection gave him the opportunity to lash out.
Any
chance bin Laden might have had for a fair hearing of his views, he
forfeited. I don't care if he actually is channeling the word of God.
To try to understand how he thinks -- to even acknowledge that he has a
point of view -- is to encourage others to use the same means to gain
the attention of the world stage.
But yes, the US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first place (unintentionally).
No,
it was pretty intentional. There's all sorts of documentation that the
rise of the Taliban is exactly the sort of blowback caused by poorly
designed US policies. Bin Laden's first training camps were built by
the CIA for the Taliban when it was us against the Soviets. This is
exactly the sort of thing that should cause the "tapping on the
shoulder" of the US that I wrote about earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
Chris, at least here in the US, there's a sort of osmotic membrane
between how political scientists look at the world, and how "regular
educated people" look at the world. (...) I went to the site, saw that
tenet #4 was "the transformation of consciousness!" and immediately
dismissed the document, sight unseen. It's written in a language
designed to be dismissed as crackpot here.
OK. Can we translate the core message to the other side of that membrane?
Background references:
United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations
SECRETARY-GENERAL ANNOUNCES MEMBERSHIP OF GROUP OF EMINENT PERSONS FOR YEAR OF DIALOGUE AMONG CIVILIZATIONS
Declaration Toward a Global Ethic
The following are some bits and pieces from the latter document:
<Quote>
From:
The Principles of a Global Ethic
Time and again we see leaders and members of
religions
incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia - even inspire and
legitimize violent and bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused for
purely power-political goals, including war. We are filled with
disgust.
We confirm that there is already a consensus among the religions which can be the basis for a global ethic - a minimal
fundamental consensus
concerning binding
values
, irrevocable
standards
, and
fundamental moral attitudes.
(...)
By a
global ethic
we do not mean a global ideology or a
single unified religion
beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the domination of one religion over all others. By a global ethic we mean a
fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes.
Without such a fundamental consensus on an ethic, sooner or later every
community will be threatened by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals
will despair.
(...)
Historical experience demonstrates
the following: Earth cannot be changed for the better unless we achieve
a transformation in the consciousness of individuals and in public
life. The possibilities for transformation have already been glimpsed
in areas such as war and peace, economy, and ecology, where in recent
decades fundamental changes have taken place. This transformation must
also be achieved in the area of ethics and values! Every individual has
intrinsic dignity and inalienable rights, and each also has an
inescapable responsibility for what she or he does and does not do. All
our decisions and deeds, even our omissions and failures, have
consequences.
Can you point out more precisely where that membrane comes into play when reading the above?
And did your 'osmotic membrane' comment also pertain to my statement regarding the system...
The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on
subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in
concordance.
...or did it only pertain to the world ethos site?
Jeff writes:
the symbolism, whatever might have been intended, is utterly dwarfed and made meaningless by the loss of life.
Sorry, but I don't think that is the case, unfortunately. But let's move on.
I still think it's because we have the audacity to be rich while the
world is poor, and because we have a society that values freedom of
movement over security and hence made these ripe, juicy targets.
I don't think it's because of ANYTHING you have or are. It's because of what THEY do NOT want to have or be!
Any chance bin Laden might have had for a fair hearing of his views, he forfeited.
I
am not suggesting that we negotiate with terrorists. We need to
suppress terrorism. But we also have to address the problem... we need
to build consensus with their society so the 'qualified minority'
disappears that provides them with the 'legitimatization' for terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Chris writes:
"The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western..."
Getting on very thin ice here, but... Islam seems to me to be the religion least likely to ever "open up"...
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Islam has some built in machanisms that are designed to prevent it
from evolving. But as with so many things in religion, there are a few
open doors that leave room for interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Chris writes:
"Yes,
Islam has some built in machanisms that are designed to prevent it from
evolving. But as with so many things in religion, there are a few open
doors that leave room for interpretation."
The ones I know of are:
(1)
Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, which is taken to be "inspired by God
and written by man", the Koran is taken to be the literal word of God,
memorized by the prophet Mohammed and transcribed literally word for
word - thus leaving less room, if any, for interpretation.
(2)
Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, which foresees new prophets, the
Koran imposes a lock-down feature that demands that Mohammed be
recognized as the
final
prophet and that the Koran be the last word.
Any others?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is some room for interpretation whenever the Koran has various
laws that apply to a situation and the Koran isn't clear as to the
order or preference that should be given to the various laws. But
that's about it, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not quite
You're being unfair, Doug. Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians
all believe that their bibles are the literal word of God. In fact, the
defining line between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judiasm is how
they view and interpret the Old Testament.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
"Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians all believe that their bibles are the literal word of God."
I thought the Ten Commandments were supposed to be the only literal words of God in the Old Testament.
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just the only words He signed.
AFAIK, the ten commandments were the only incidence of God actually
WRITING something. But the entire Bible is said to be written by people
who were "inspired" by God, which is to say that the words are His even
though the anonymous people who held the quills were human.
Anyway, the formal divisions between the Jewish groups, in case it helps:
1)
Orthodoxers believe that the Bible is the word of God, and all rules
laid down in Biblical times are now and forever inviolate.
2)
Conservatives believe that the Bible was a set of rules given at a
certain period of history, and that they may be interpreted for the
present day based on the original intent of the laws.
3)
Reformers believe that the rules in the Bible were valid in their day,
but that some rules no longer apply and others may be interpreted.
Hence
the whole "word of God" idea varies widely. Note that no Jews
"interpret" the ten commandments; the rules I talk about are the myriad
others scattered about.
Keeping kosher's a good example:
Reform Jews almost never keep kosher, on the theory that it was meant
as a public health code that no longer applies. Conservatives keep
kosher to feel more adherent to the laws, but don't feel a requirement
to do so. Orthodoxers always keep kosher, as it's the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com
|
|
|
Keeping kosher's a good example: Reform Jews almost
never keep kosher, on the theory that it was meant as a public health
code that no longer applies. Conservatives keep kosher to feel more
adherent to the laws, but don't feel a requirement to do so.
Orthodoxers always keep kosher, as it's the rule.
This
is incorrect. Specifically, the values and view of halacha imputed to
Reform and Conservative Jews are wrong. I can't imagine a more bizarre
forum to discuss kashrut than WebX Harbor, but I wanted to point that
out.
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that's a tad too vague
The problem with the term "presidential" is that it doesn't MEAN
anything. Clinton was always presidential, even as he did things that
are inimical to being president. Meanwhile, Carter was rarely
presidential, but did all of the business of the presidency quite well.
So
once you remove the word "president" from "presidential", you're left
with zero meaning. In my experience, "presidential" is a word the media
use when they have nothing left to say but have to fill up airtime
regardless. When non-media people use it, they're parroting what
they've heard to sound informed.
Watch GW Bush on cspan.org
the day after the attacks, when he's in an undisclosed location, eyes
wide with fear and stammering, and tell me that's presidential.
And
in answer to your question: what made Bush more electable than Quayle?
Two things: 1) Bush had money, Quayle didn't. Bush had so much money
that most of his opponents dropped out because of THAT before any
actual campaigning started.
2) Quayle had an image as an
unlovable idiot. Bush had an image as a lovable idiot. Had Bush not
been the front-runner, I suspect that he would have appeared much less
lovable in his common portrayals, but once it became clear that he was
the standard bearer for the party, the Republicans adopted stupidity as
being more American than anyone who had the audacity to be educated at
Harvard. (Whoops -- my mistake, that's where BUSH went to school. See
my point?)
So, with 'presidental' I'm not
referring to professional qualifications but to the symbolic status
that the presidency has in the US society.
Again,
that's fairly vague. Herbert Hoover set out to be presidential the way
history dictated it, and didn't notice he was living at a time when
something new was required.
Essentially, we want only a few
things from a president: 1) make us feel safe, 2) make us feel listened
to, 3) make us feel powerful and proud. Clinton was popular because he
never forgot those things. Bush runs the risk of losing on all three.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
The problem with the term "presidential" is that it doesn't MEAN anything.
What
I meant by it was the sum of all adjectives that the american public
associates with a candidate and that they think 'qualifies' him/her for
the job. As opposed to the qualification in the professional sense.
Quayle had an image as an unlovable idiot. Bush had an image as a lovable idiot.
Thanks,
Jeff! That's exactly what I mean. Some american people saw Gore as an
unlovable unidiot and Bush as a lovable idiot. And they valued the
'lovable' adjective higher over the 'idiot' adjective when determining
who was more 'presidential'.
Would be nice if the US system would have allowed a Gore/Nader coalition. 9/11 'just maybe might' never have happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belated reply
Chris --
Sorry I've never responded to your posts. This is the first time in a while I've checked messages far enough to get here.
Would be nice if the US system would have allowed a Gore/Nader coalition. 9/11 'just maybe might' never have happened.
Seeing
as how Nader spent all of last year spouting how Gore was no better
than Bush, I can understand why the Dems wouldn't touch him with a
10-foot pole. I voted for Nader (in a Gore-safe state) out of sympathy
for the Greens, but based on how the horror stories about the Green
vote tipping Bush into office all came true, and Nader's deplorable
post-election comments, I'm never voting for them again.
In
any case, I think any analysis that says that we were attacked because
of Bush is way short of the mark. And I'm a Bush antagonist.
|
|
|
|
|
Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com
|
|
|
In any case, I think any analysis that says that we
were attacked because of Bush is way short of the mark. And I'm a Bush
antagonist.
I agree that making simplistic cause-effect statements are, well, simplistic. However...
If
the Congress and the Special Persecutor's office hadn't kept over 100
FBI agents tied up for years sniffing Clinton's panties...
If
Bush hadn't ignored the Kerry (?) commission report on terrorism,
delivered last April, that concluded a large-scale terror attack on US
territory was imminent and suggested several simple, cheap,
common-sense security enhancements...
If the Republican
Congress hadn't ridiculed and stifled Clinton's attempts to tighten
airport and immigration security after the first WTC bombing...
If,
as recently as this summer, INS hadn't unaccountably released a bin
Laden relative with close ties to the Bush family being held on an
immigration violation and investigated for links to terrorist groups...
...who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
WebMD | Forumbuilders.com
|
|
|
but a contradiction in which way?
Hmmm,
I guess a contradiction in higher ethical standards vs acts of
terroism. No matter what the act of terror, internal or external I find
no ethics in the type of suppression internally or attacks externally
in the attempt to defends their beliefs.
As far as Nader goes,
I just think he would be a lose canon. I don't have specific examples
off the top of my head, its just my opinion.
I think that the Bush presidnecy has carefully evaulated each move and action. Again a good support staff factor.
Bush
is not the best public speaker, However that is not the total
presidency. I think theres a lot more to it than that. Look at Clinton,
He was an excellant public speaker, But his actions were the
embarassment.
ForumBuilders.com....
If You Build it... They Will Come!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, I guess a contradiction in higher ethical
standards vs acts of terroism. No matter what the act of terror,
internal or external I find no ethics in the type of suppression
internally or attacks externally in the attempt to defends their
beliefs.
Well yes! But what I meant was that
we'll need to develop cross-culture consensus on ethical standards in
order to prevent exactly those things. Of course, until they are
prevented they'll need to be suppressed.
The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western culture.
Christian culture is evolving at a much faster pace and
foundamentalistic Christians do not have a qualified minority that
would help them to prevent that because our culture isn't threatened.
Islamic foundamentalists DO have a qualified minority that provides
them with moral support, because that minority feels bullied and
threatend by a US attitude that they see as imperialistic and
suppressive (westernism).
That's why the terrorist attacks are to be interpreted as against westernism - not against western civilisation.
The US could change their attitude without compromising their values.
It's a question of communicative skills and consideration for the other
culture.
This will allow the development of a cross-culture
consensus on ethic principals, where the negative differences will
disappear and the positive differences will be celebrated.
One end result will have to be that all cultures show restrain when
operating within another culture, in order to not endanger the peaceful
evolution of the other culture.
There are two other scenarios:
We
could slip into chaotic dark ages where religious fanatics on all sides
force the intellectual development to freeze in numbness.
Or
western civilisation could overrun all other cultures completely and
cause the cultural flavors (including the Christian one) to fade. If
this happens, many people will have a major spiritual void that they
will need to fill by joining religious splinter groups. These groups
will form again a qualified minority that will fuel fanatic sects that
operate in the underground and we'll have the same problem all over
again.
Besides, it would be sad to loose the cultures as
strong elements that give societies their unique flavors. There is
nothing wrong with spirituality. Science provides knowledge - but their
is another side to the coin. Our societies should stay intouch with
what we don't know, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Community Development, WCI
|
|
|
One end result will have to be that all cultures show
restrain when operating within another culture, in order to not
endanger the peaceful evolution of the other culture.
Sounds like the Prime Directive
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Sue writes:
"Sounds like the Prime Directive
"
And finding some good excuse to break the Prime Directive formed the core plot of how many episodes?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Community Development, WCI
|
|
|
Doug:
And finding some good excuse to break the Prime Directive formed the core plot of how many episodes?
Janeway, on Kirk's generation: (pretty close paraphrase - I just saw this episode the other night)
"It
was different then... They were a little less eager to invoke the Prime
Directive and a little more eager to draw their phasers. Of course, the
whole lot of them would be drummed out of Starfleet today. Still, what
I wouldn't give to ride shotgun with some of those officers..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
More violent disagreements
But what I meant was that we'll need to develop
cross-culture consensus on ethical standards in order to prevent
exactly those things.
I think that the first
rule of culture is that you'll never come to a consensus on anything.
That's why we have international law to deal with how nations deal with
each other, and we leave national law up to each nation. There are
enough cultural disagreements between
Europeans
; you expect to come to a global consensus? There's a reason why you don't see the UN being run on Quaker meeting rules.
The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western culture.
So, how is saying that Islamic culture "needs to do" anything NOT imperialistic and bullish, Chris?
Christian culture is evolving at a much faster pace and
foundamentalistic Christians do not have a qualified minority that
would help them to prevent that because our culture isn't threatened.
OK,
that's the second or third time you've used that phrase, and can I just
say how much that bothers me? I don't know about you, but *I* don't
live in a Christian culture. I'm Jewish, my culture is secular. Lots of
people in my culture are Christian, of course, and twice a year they
tend to jam this down my throat, which makes me rude and irritable and
extremely Scrooge-like.
But please don't tell me that
Christian culture is any better than Islamic culture. Every time I've
seen a Christian culture in action, it's tended to be as repressive and
militant as the worst examples of Islamic cultures.
That's why the terrorist attacks are to be interpreted as against westernism - not against western civilisation.
Ok,
let's be clear. The terrorist attacks were against 4,603 PEOPLE from
around 60 different nations. Not against westernism, not against
western civilization, but against people. Any other description begins
the process of rationalization and desensitization.
The US could change their attitude without compromising their values.
It's a question of communicative skills and consideration for the other
culture.
This isn't about culture. Trust me,
if Switzerland were harboring bin Laden and refused to negotiate, we'd
probably be bombing the hell out of you. We were perfectly happy with
the Taliban for the past five years, for better or for worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
There are enough cultural disagreements between Europeans; you expect to come to a global consensus?
Yes, most certainly I do!!! There is a cross-cultural consensus on ethics that could be reached (
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/
). And the political model that could administer this exists as well:
The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on
subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in
concordance.
So, how is saying that Islamic culture "needs to do" anything NOT imperialistic and bullish, Chris?
If we tell them that they need to change, it's imperialistic. If we encourage them to evolve, it's not.
I don't know about you, but *I* don't live in a Christian culture. I'm
Jewish, my culture is secular. Lots of people in my culture are
Christian, of course, and twice a year they tend to jam this down my
throat, which makes me rude and irritable and extremely Scrooge-like.
I
understand. But just step back a bit and look at the full picture. The
jewish culture has a long history of existing 'surrounded' by the
christian one (being more or less tolerated at different times). I
believe there is nobody that knows that better than the Jews. The
secularization was made possible mainly by the enlightenment which
allowed the individual to turn against institutionalized religion. The
secular model that is so dominating at this time is one that evolved
out of christianity. I'm not saying that it could not have or would not
have evolved from Judaism or any other religion - but it was the
christian reformation that did it. I'm no Christian and the 'secular'
label that you prefer to use is fine with me. In the context of my
postings it was however important to point out that the christian
culture had an easier time to allow a secular society to evolve than it
is now the case for the Islamic culture.
But
please don't tell me that Christian culture is any better than Islamic
culture. Every time I've seen a Christian culture in action, it's
tended to be as repressive and militant as the worst examples of
Islamic cultures.
I agree, Jeff - I agree!
Ok, let's be clear. The terrorist attacks were against 4,603 PEOPLE
from around 60 different nations. Not against westernism, not against
western civilization, but against people. Any other description begins
the process of rationalization and desensitization.
I
don't think you're serious about that. It was a highly symbolic act by
an extremist believe system against another believe system.
This isn't about culture. Trust me, if Switzerland were harboring bin
Laden and refused to negotiate, we'd probably be bombing the hell out
of you.
We're harboring Mark Rich - that causes already enough trouble
Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.
We were perfectly happy with the Taliban for the past five years, for better or for worse.
I
think the international community including the US has been negotiating
with the Taliban about handing out bin Laden since 1997. But yes, the
US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first
place (unintentionally).
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a cross-cultural consensus on ethics that could be reached (
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/
). And the political model that could administer this exists as well:
The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on
subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in
concordance.
Chris, at least here in the US,
there's a sort of osmotic membrane between how political scientists
look at the world, and how "regular educated people" look at the world.
Your language is on the other side of my membrane.
Don't get
me wrong, I'm proud of my academic background and I like to talk theory
when it's appropriate. I also believe that theory can get in the way
sometimes, as I'll point out below.
In any case, that's the
context for what I'm about to say: I went to the site, saw that tenet
#4 was "the transformation of consciousness!" and immediately dismissed
the document, sight unseen. It's written in a language designed to be
dismissed as crackpot here.
The jewish
culture has a long history of existing 'surrounded' by the christian
one (being more or less tolerated at different times). I believe there
is nobody that knows that better than the Jews.
Actually,
we have a far better track record of being tolerated by Muslims than
Christians. It was the Christians who historically expelled and
massacred us. And it's not lost on many Jews that we didn't get our own
nation-state until we adopted the militaristic and oppressive tenets of
our adversaries.
I don't think you're serious
about that. It was a highly symbolic act by an extremist believe system
against another believe system.
And I don't
believe you're serious about THAT. A symbolic attack could have been
done with FedEx jets at 2 AM, with loss of life in the dozens. This is
where academia gets in the way of intelligence; the symbolism, whatever
might have been intended, is utterly dwarfed and made meaningless by
the loss of life.
Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.
Bin Laden is a mass murderer. You can call him symptom, problem, cause, or cup of Swiss chocolate, and I really don't care.
Where
I *will* be glad to argue with you is about what things made the US in
general and the WTC in particular the focus of the attack. I still
think it's because we have the audacity to be rich while the world is
poor, and because we have a society that values freedom of movement
over security and hence made these ripe, juicy targets.
Our
culture is more or less dominating the world in exported media and
promotion of free trade. We weren't attacked by the Chinese, the
Russians, the Africans, or anyone else whose culture is threatened. We
weren't attacked by the Islamic nations of Bosnia, Pakistan, or Saudi
Arabia. We were attacked by a deranged madman whose wealth and
political protection gave him the opportunity to lash out.
Any
chance bin Laden might have had for a fair hearing of his views, he
forfeited. I don't care if he actually is channeling the word of God.
To try to understand how he thinks -- to even acknowledge that he has a
point of view -- is to encourage others to use the same means to gain
the attention of the world stage.
But yes, the US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first place (unintentionally).
No,
it was pretty intentional. There's all sorts of documentation that the
rise of the Taliban is exactly the sort of blowback caused by poorly
designed US policies. Bin Laden's first training camps were built by
the CIA for the Taliban when it was us against the Soviets. This is
exactly the sort of thing that should cause the "tapping on the
shoulder" of the US that I wrote about earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
Chris, at least here in the US, there's a sort of osmotic membrane
between how political scientists look at the world, and how "regular
educated people" look at the world. (...) I went to the site, saw that
tenet #4 was "the transformation of consciousness!" and immediately
dismissed the document, sight unseen. It's written in a language
designed to be dismissed as crackpot here.
OK. Can we translate the core message to the other side of that membrane?
Background references:
United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations
SECRETARY-GENERAL ANNOUNCES MEMBERSHIP OF GROUP OF EMINENT PERSONS FOR YEAR OF DIALOGUE AMONG CIVILIZATIONS
Declaration Toward a Global Ethic
The following are some bits and pieces from the latter document:
<Quote>
From:
The Principles of a Global Ethic
Time and again we see leaders and members of
religions
incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia - even inspire and
legitimize violent and bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused for
purely power-political goals, including war. We are filled with
disgust.
We confirm that there is already a consensus among the religions which can be the basis for a global ethic - a minimal
fundamental consensus
concerning binding
values
, irrevocable
standards
, and
fundamental moral attitudes.
(...)
By a
global ethic
we do not mean a global ideology or a
single unified religion
beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the domination of one religion over all others. By a global ethic we mean a
fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes.
Without such a fundamental consensus on an ethic, sooner or later every
community will be threatened by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals
will despair.
(...)
Historical experience demonstrates
the following: Earth cannot be changed for the better unless we achieve
a transformation in the consciousness of individuals and in public
life. The possibilities for transformation have already been glimpsed
in areas such as war and peace, economy, and ecology, where in recent
decades fundamental changes have taken place. This transformation must
also be achieved in the area of ethics and values! Every individual has
intrinsic dignity and inalienable rights, and each also has an
inescapable responsibility for what she or he does and does not do. All
our decisions and deeds, even our omissions and failures, have
consequences.
Can you point out more precisely where that membrane comes into play when reading the above?
And did your 'osmotic membrane' comment also pertain to my statement regarding the system...
The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on
subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in
concordance.
...or did it only pertain to the world ethos site?
Jeff writes:
the symbolism, whatever might have been intended, is utterly dwarfed and made meaningless by the loss of life.
Sorry, but I don't think that is the case, unfortunately. But let's move on.
I still think it's because we have the audacity to be rich while the
world is poor, and because we have a society that values freedom of
movement over security and hence made these ripe, juicy targets.
I don't think it's because of ANYTHING you have or are. It's because of what THEY do NOT want to have or be!
Any chance bin Laden might have had for a fair hearing of his views, he forfeited.
I
am not suggesting that we negotiate with terrorists. We need to
suppress terrorism. But we also have to address the problem... we need
to build consensus with their society so the 'qualified minority'
disappears that provides them with the 'legitimatization' for terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Chris writes:
"The Islamic culture needs to evolve and open up if it doesn't want to be overrun by the western..."
Getting on very thin ice here, but... Islam seems to me to be the religion least likely to ever "open up"...
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Islam has some built in machanisms that are designed to prevent it
from evolving. But as with so many things in religion, there are a few
open doors that leave room for interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Chris writes:
"Yes,
Islam has some built in machanisms that are designed to prevent it from
evolving. But as with so many things in religion, there are a few open
doors that leave room for interpretation."
The ones I know of are:
(1)
Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, which is taken to be "inspired by God
and written by man", the Koran is taken to be the literal word of God,
memorized by the prophet Mohammed and transcribed literally word for
word - thus leaving less room, if any, for interpretation.
(2)
Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, which foresees new prophets, the
Koran imposes a lock-down feature that demands that Mohammed be
recognized as the
final
prophet and that the Koran be the last word.
Any others?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is some room for interpretation whenever the Koran has various
laws that apply to a situation and the Koran isn't clear as to the
order or preference that should be given to the various laws. But
that's about it, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not quite
You're being unfair, Doug. Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians
all believe that their bibles are the literal word of God. In fact, the
defining line between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judiasm is how
they view and interpret the Old Testament.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
"Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians all believe that their bibles are the literal word of God."
I thought the Ten Commandments were supposed to be the only literal words of God in the Old Testament.
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just the only words He signed.
AFAIK, the ten commandments were the only incidence of God actually
WRITING something. But the entire Bible is said to be written by people
who were "inspired" by God, which is to say that the words are His even
though the anonymous people who held the quills were human.
Anyway, the formal divisions between the Jewish groups, in case it helps:
1)
Orthodoxers believe that the Bible is the word of God, and all rules
laid down in Biblical times are now and forever inviolate.
2)
Conservatives believe that the Bible was a set of rules given at a
certain period of history, and that they may be interpreted for the
present day based on the original intent of the laws.
3)
Reformers believe that the rules in the Bible were valid in their day,
but that some rules no longer apply and others may be interpreted.
Hence
the whole "word of God" idea varies widely. Note that no Jews
"interpret" the ten commandments; the rules I talk about are the myriad
others scattered about.
Keeping kosher's a good example:
Reform Jews almost never keep kosher, on the theory that it was meant
as a public health code that no longer applies. Conservatives keep
kosher to feel more adherent to the laws, but don't feel a requirement
to do so. Orthodoxers always keep kosher, as it's the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com
|
|
|
Keeping kosher's a good example: Reform Jews almost
never keep kosher, on the theory that it was meant as a public health
code that no longer applies. Conservatives keep kosher to feel more
adherent to the laws, but don't feel a requirement to do so.
Orthodoxers always keep kosher, as it's the rule.
This
is incorrect. Specifically, the values and view of halacha imputed to
Reform and Conservative Jews are wrong. I can't imagine a more bizarre
forum to discuss kashrut than WebX Harbor, but I wanted to point that
out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is incorrect. Specifically, the values and view
of halacha imputed to Reform and Conservative Jews are wrong. I can't
imagine a more bizarre forum to discuss kashrut than WebX Harbor, but I
wanted to point that out.
I should point out
at this point that my understanding of Judiasm is based upon what I
learned in Reform and Conservative Hebrew schools, and could very well
be inaccurate in any strict sense. (I would never use the word halacha
in a sentence, for example; I only even know the word from context
usage by my more religious friends.)
In any case, what I
posted is how it was explained to me when I was a young pup. My
understanding is that there have been some "official" modifications in
the intervening 20 years (last I heard, the Reform conference
officially adopted stricter adherence to some rules), and I won't argue
that what I was taught was, excuse the expression, holy writ in the
first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Kashrut debate :-)
Michael writes:
"This
is incorrect. Specifically, the values and view of halacha imputed to
Reform and Conservative Jews are wrong. I can't imagine a more bizarre
forum to discuss kashrut than WebX Harbor, but I wanted to point that
out."
I don't know about Conservative, but I
believe one of the reforms of the Reform movement was to not require
adhering to rules of kashrut.
Kashrut trivia!
There are two animal products which are kosher, even though they come from living creatures which, themselves, are
not
kosher. What are those two animal products?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two animal products which are kosher, even
though they come from living creatures which, themselves, are not
kosher. What are those two animal products?
Rabbinically blessed bacon and unleavened lobster?
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Bzzzzzz.....
Any other guesses?
Give up?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That
is correct. There are some people who are Conservative who do practice
Kosher though. I tend to be partially Kosher as I feel many of the laws
came about when people ate from wooden dishes and the mixture of a meat
product to a dish that had a milk product on it hours or days ago could
be stomach turning.
|
|
|
|
|
Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com
|
|
|
I don't know about Conservative, but I believe one of
the reforms of the Reform movement was to not require adhering to rules
of kashrut.
That's correct, but the reasoning cited above for that decision is what I was objecting to.
Oh, what the heck, previous comments about the suitability of the venue notwithstanding...
Reform's
decision to make kashrut optional had nothing to do with believing it
to be an outmoded public health code. (No serious Jewish authority of
any stripe believes that health ever had anything to do with kashrut -
most likely it originally functioned as a way of separating the Hebrews
from the "pagan" tribes by making it impossible to sit at table with
them, thus severely limiting social interaction.) Rather, it's one
instance of Reform's overarching decision that halacha has "a voice,
not a veto" but that the individual's conscience is the ultimate guide.
The Conservative movement, on the other hand, believes that halacha
is
dispositive, but also that halacha evolves with the living community of
Jews. The individual is not free to disregard rules, but the community
of scholars is responsible for re-interpreting halacha in light of new
developments in society. Thus the Conservative acceptance of driving to
synagogue on the Sabbath and the ordination of women, for example. (On
the third hand, Orthodoxy [in my biased opinion] pretends that halacha
is a static, unchanging body of laws while ignoring the long history of
halachic change that created their movement.)
Observance, of
course, is an entirely different matter. Surveys show that the majority
of people who identify as Conservative do not live a very observant
lifestyle; in particular, something like only one fifth keep a kosher
house.
There are two animal products which are
kosher, even though they come from living creatures which, themselves,
are not kosher. What are those two animal products?
There
are any number of animal products for which this is true; once an
animal extract has been processed beyond a certain point, it is
declared to be no longer animal and hence outside the kashrut
prohibitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, PLEASE!
Responding to a bunch of posts:
"War" time often galvanizes people into such a supposed unity against a
supposedly easily identifiable enemy that they not only tolerate such
erosions, but encourage them.
Right. The big
problem here that few people seem to pay attention to is that this is
such an ill-defined war that who's to say when things go back to
"normal"? When the war in Afghanistan ends? When we pull back our
troops from whatever post-Taliban government (or anarchy) ensues? When
the terrorist threat is ended? (And how will be know
that
?)
The Taliban had originally been at least verbally open to turning Osama
bin Laden over to an Islamic court, but the U.S. said no.
Doug
already argued with this point, but I just want to add -- I don't
particularly agree with the Islamic way of thinking about these
matters. And I don't particularly trust a court that would have been
palatable to the Taliban.
The U.S. wants to be
both police and judge on a geopolitical scale. The police officer who
claims you are the murder gets to determine your guilt or innocence and
decide on your punishment.
The answer, of
course, is the International Criminal Court, which was created
especially for matters such as these. Of course, the biggest stumbling
block to the establishment of the ICC is the United States. How the
Bush administration manages to pull this off without public outrage is
beyond me.
One more point -- there's just no doubt in my mind
that the attack was of a scale that it can be called an act of war.
Warfare is not justice, and while it follows international law, it
DOESN'T necessarily have to abide by the US legal system. That's just
the way it is: declare war, and you get to kill people without
committing murder. That's one of the prerogatives of nation-states, and
has been since Westphalia.
On the other hand, we're now
subverting our OWN legal system BECAUSE of the war. That's a whole
'nother story, and extremely dangerous.
Unfortunately the US chose to show its uncommunicative, undemocratic, suppressive, ignorant, bullish, imperialistic attitude.
Um,
last time I checked, there was a rather large group of nations who were
signed up for this conflict. If we were really all the things you said
about us, would we have attempted to build such a coalition? Would we
have even cared what you said if we didn't?
You see, Chris, part
of why most Americans are so immune to criticism is that we get
criticized for EVERYTHING. If you want to criticize some aspect of our
response, great, I'll listen to you. But painting us with such a broad
brush just closes more ears and minds, and to be honest, it's the
standard line I hear from most Europeans about us, regardless of what
we're doing or the context.
The attitude that
got it into trouble in the first place. It's not the 'western
civilisation' that is under attack, it is that US attitude. When
islamic culture is endangered by 'westernism', it's clear that
fundamentalist extremists will rise.
Whoa whoa WHOA. Will you
please
explain how we attack Islamic culture? Can you name any other secular
country that has as large an Islamic population as we do?
Yes,
we tend to disagree with cultures that are ruled by religious
monarchies, and we have a natural bias towards democratic rule that is
inimical to the "fiat by mullahs" process. But as was pointed out in
the Washington Post the other day, our last wars were in defense of
Kuwait and Bosnia, both Islamic countries.
I wonder where we would be now in this regard if the US would have elected Ralph Nader rather than this behind the Bush guy.
That
was about as likely as Switzerland entering the war on the side of the
Taliban. And we didn't elect Bush, we elected Gore; Bush just won due
to election errors.
If the Taliban say 'we want
to negotiate' and the US say 'No, do what we said or we'll nuke you',
it sends a message to the members of that other culture, that will fuel
extremism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
You see, Chris, part of why most Americans are so immune to criticism
is that we get criticized for EVERYTHING. If you want to criticize some
aspect of our response, great, I'll listen to you. But painting us with
such a broad brush just closes more ears and minds, and to be honest,
it's the standard line I hear from most Europeans about us, regardless
of what we're doing or the context.
Yes,
you're absolutely right about that! But as I tried to clarify in
subsequent posts, I intended to point out the way it is perceived on
the receiving side, which - you probably agree - is as I described.
The
USA indeed IS seen to have that attitude. I know perfectly well that
the US doesn't intend to have that attitude - but it is perceived to
have it.
I'm married to a US citizen... so, I do see it from both sides - rest assured!
Whoa whoa WHOA. Will you please explain how we attack Islamic culture?
I
never claimed that the US does that. Islamic culture is in danger of
being overpowered by the success of western culture. Again, this is the
way they perceive it - I'm not claiming that western culture is
intending to overpower Islamic culture. It's 'westernism' (the US
attitude as they perceive it) that makes them think that.
Can you name any other secular country that has as large an Islamic population as we do?
Of
course, that depends on your definition of 'secular country'. But in
any case: The islamic population in the US is a perfect example of what
that 'qualified minority' in Islamic cultures fears: To drowned in the
underground of an agnostic christian culture. Again, (obviously I have
to point this out all the time) that's the way they see it - I'm not
claiming that it actually is that way. Often perception is everything!
If
the US would be able to further prevent the perception of an
imperialistic attitude (did I arrive at the correct wording?), other
cultures would not have a 'qualified minority' that gets fuelled by
anti-westernism and would have an easier time to evolve - and the
extremists wouldn't resort to terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the US would be able to further prevent the
perception of an imperialistic attitude (did I arrive at the correct
wording?), other cultures would not have a 'qualified minority' that
gets fuelled by anti-westernism and would have an easier time to evolve
- and the extremists wouldn't resort to terrorism.
Lots
to debate in your post, Chris, but I'll stick to this. We can control
what we do. We can temper what we do based on how we guess others will
perceive us. But we can't control how others perceive us. How much
bending over backward are we supposed to do to get people to like us?
There's
a great conservative columnist here named Charles Krauthammer who I
almost never agree with, but who argues his points so well that I feel
honor-bound to read his column. He recently pointed out that Islamic
extremists attacked *us*, and *we're* the ones who have, in response:
constantly reassured the Islamic nations of the world; sent aid and
food to Islamic nations, and generally acted as if the Islamic people
were the victims of the attack.
His point: if Christian
militants destroyed the Kaaba, every major Christian figure in the
world would have immediately denouced the attack and its perpertrators
as anti-Christian. Meanwhile, most major Islamic figures have remained
silent. He has no explanation why, nor do I. But it somewhat informs my
opinion of whether it's important or even possible to improve our image
overseas.
And I'll admit to a personal bias: everything I've
read in the papers about the Arab press (and personal experience while
travelling) indicates that most of their media is reminding their
readers on a daily basis to hate people like me -- one of the Jews who
dominates the United States and works daily to oppress the world. I'd
be quite happy if an "agnostic christian culture" and a free objective
press put an end to that.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
"And
I'll admit to a personal bias: everything I've read in the papers about
the Arab press (and personal experience while travelling) indicates
that most of their media is reminding their readers on a daily basis to
hate people like me -- one of the Jews who dominates the United States
and works daily to oppress the world."
Did you receive your notification the day before not go to work at the World Trade Center?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you receive your notification the day before not go to work at the World Trade Center?
No... my subcommittee of the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy now telecommutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
How much bending over backward are we supposed to do to get people to like us?
You
can't get them to like you. By working together and building more and
more consensus you can get them to hate you less. That's enough!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question for Doug or Sue...
my posts keep getting truncated. Is that happening on the server end or
here in my browser? I'm not hitting an upper limit on textarea size.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Community Development, WCI
|
|
|
I'm not aware of anybody else reporting that, and I haven't had it happen to me, so I suspect it's something on your end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm...
IE 5.1 native on OS X. Have you ever posted a really long post? I'm assuming you're on the same software.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Community Development, WCI
|
|
|
I usually use Opera...
But I *have* used IS 5.1 on OSX. Doug uses that and I haven't heard him talk about it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next time I get loquacious...
I'll post the message with Opera and see if it repeats.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
"Next time I get loquacious..."
You mean next time you get concise.
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mean next time you get concise.
I have many strong features, but brevity is not among them.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Brevity
At the end of a long letter to a friend, Blaise Pascal was said to have finished by writing:
"I am sorry this letter is so long. I didn't have time to write a short one."
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got clipped for some reason...
If the Taliban say 'we want to negotiate' and the US
say 'No, do what we said or we'll nuke you', it sends a message to the
members of that other culture, that will fuel extremism.
I
think extremism will get fueled by whomever stands to benefit from it
politically. I think the US will be target of extremism so long as we
have the audacity to be the richest nation in the world, and to export
the evidence of our wealth so obviously by dominating the world's mass
media. Note that all of this occurs before we say word one about US
policies or actions.
What angers me most is that, for all of
the bad things you can point at the US and accuse us of doing or NOT
doing... can you name any other nation in history which amassed the
power and influence which we currently enjoy, and which used it so
benevolently? Visit any European museum to see centuries of paintings
of massacres held when European nations were ascendant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
I think extremism will get fueled by whomever stands to benefit from it politically.
Yes,
you're right. We will need to arrive at a world order where nobody will
benefit from that! To a large extent this will be the US's
responsibility!
What angers me most is that,
for all of the bad things you can point at the US and accuse us of
doing or NOT doing... can you name any other nation in history which
amassed the power and influence which we currently enjoy, and which
used it so benevolently?
No I can't. But
don't let this get to your head! The reason why the US enjoys that
power and influence is BECAUSE it is using it so benevolently!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partial agreement
Yes, you're right. We will need to arrive at a world
order where nobody will benefit from that! To a large extent this will
be the US's responsibility!
I agree with you to some extent, but I also think that you need to cut us more slack.
First
of all, there will always be extremists, because there will always be
extremes. In Saudi Arabia, an extremist is someone who walks down the
street with a sign reading, "I politely disagree with the government."
Here, it's legal to carry a sign saying, "Fsck Bush."
In the
US and Switzerland, violence is extremism. That's also a cultural
construct, and also a Western construct (by which I mean, of course,
that it's not EXCLUSIVELY Western, nor do we have any particular moral
superiority because of it). Elsewhere, violence is the way of doing
business. If you want to promote nonviolence, you have to be willing to
say, "This is what my culture does, and
in this respect
I think my culture does it the right way and you should do the same."
"But
wait," Chris says, "I'm talking about the projection of violence
overseas! Surely you don't suggest nonviolence is part of the US
culture!"
To which I'd respond that we have a somewhat
schizophrenic way of dealing with our culture. If you're an American
citizen, you have one set of rights; if you're not, you have a subset.
If we're not at war, killing is murder; if we are, killing is rewarded.
This despite the fact that our founding documents state that everyone
is endowed by their Creator to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, regardless of birthplace or nationality.
The simple
fact is, the world has a millenia-long history of nations projecting
power through force, and a much shorter and spottier history of nations
projecting power through diplomacy and other means. The US believes
that its power stems from its ability to project force, and that surely
has the most immediate feedback of any use of power we have at our
disposal.
So while there are many of us in the US who work to
someday end war -- on the rationale that there are many parts of the
world where war is impossible (can you imagine a war between Geneva and
Zurich? why not? rule of law) -- you also have to reflect that asking a
superpower to change the way it looks at its role in the world is a BIG
task.
So what I'm asking is that you don't adopt the usual
European tone of, "You Americans are barbarians. Do things the way we
do, and beg us for our forgiveness." Better to lightly tap us on the
shoulder and say, "Ahem. Are you aware that some of these problems
might have been exacerbated by US actions in the past? You might want
to think about that next time." And remember that there are Americans
saying the same thing, and we need all the support we can get.
Now,
what I'd really like to hear from some non-English Europeans is the
following: "You know, compared to how the Soviets conducted war in
Afghanistan, or even how the Americans conducted war in Vietnam and
Cambodia,
they really are doing a better job
. They really do act on their principles to some extent. So let's pat you on the back, acknowledge your improvements, and
then
talk about where you still need to rethink a few things."
No I can't. But don't let this get to your head! The reason why the US
enjoys that power and influence is BECAUSE it is using it so
benevolently!
Most Americans think that our
power comes from our military, and that the world is free because we,
personally, saved the world from the Nazis in WWII. A large plurality
think that we, personally, saved the world from communism by
"defeating" the Soviet Union. Many feel that the only thing preventing
global anarchy is our ability to pretty much pave over any nation we
choose, at any time.
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuation
Anti-American rhetoric is lost on these people, and political arguments
meant to change US policy are doomed to fail if you forget that these
people exist and determine our government and foreign policy. Positive
change is achieved by working WITH these groups, not against them.
("You want the US to stop being called upon in foreign wars? Let me
tell you about the proposal for a standing UN army.") And the rhetoric
of many people outside the US makes the work of those of us on the
inside MUCH harder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Porten 11/28/01 6:10am
This
is exactly what I meant in regard to how 'the western world' needs to
communicate with the Islamic culture. Except, that will be a hundred
times more difficult and sensitive. But yes, Europeans too need to
learn to communicate with US-Americans in a way that incourrages the US
to evolve from and build on its own strenght - not slam them down. And
vice-versa, actually!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Porten 11/28/01 6:04am
Excellent
post, Jeff. I fully agree with you. Just some minor comments that in no
way are directed at the supstance of what you're saying:
First of all, there will always be extremists, because there will always be extremes.
But
if extremists do not have a sufficiently large support group that backs
there objective then they will not resort to terrorism.
Can you imagine a war between Geneva and Zurich?
Actually,
I can yes! It's only 'not possible' as long as we remember that it IS
possible and that we need to constantly work on consensus. If we fall
into complacence and take it for granted, things could quickly escalate
and shit could hit the fan before we know it. The same is true for a
war between France and Germany, for example.
|
|
|
|
|
WebMD | Forumbuilders.com
|
|
|
Tim, you work at a news organization. Surely you're aware that what
people are saying -- when they hear on the news that everyone LOVES
Bush -- are not necessarily their deepest held beliefs?
Actually
my point was in reference to outside news reporting. I was basing that
statement on personal conversations Of course I not vouch for how
people are forming their opinions. I wish I could remember the name but
my mind is mush at the moment, but there was one big radio talk host
that was totally anti Bush pro Gore that recently came out in favor of
Bush stating the same that Gore was not the man for this job.
Maybe
Bush's simplistic speaking is refreshing to many americans, I think
some people were ready for some one who speaks plain and simple.
At anyrate, Bush is there, Gore is not, neither is Nader so we have what we have
ForumBuilders.com....
If You Build it... They Will Come!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we're living in two different countries
I wish I could remember the name but my mind is mush
at the moment, but there was one big radio talk host that was totally
anti Bush pro Gore that recently came out in favor of Bush stating the
same that Gore was not the man for this job.
I fail to understand any
possible
evidence that Al Gore would have not been a good leader during this
crisis. Neither Bush nor Gore ever dealt with anything like this
before, so who's to say HOW Gore would have responded?
My
personal assessment of Bush is that the "true" Bush is the one who
appeared rarely before the cameras, and who had a
deer-stuck-in-headlights palpable fear about him in the early days of
the crisis. He's "fixed" that problem by getting decent scriptwriters
to crib from Winston Churchill, and by having the right fascists for
the job in Ashcroft, Ridge, and Thompson.
If I could jump into
my alternate universe machine and fetch you a CNN broadcast from the Al
Gore presidency, I guarantee you that Gore would have CNN commentators
falling all over themselves in amazement on how "humane and sensitive"
he had become. Why? Because we're reading into the president the
qualities we want to see in him. That sets us (and him) up for a big
fall if we ever look for those qualities and see them stunningly
missing.
Maybe Bush's simplistic speaking is
refreshing to many americans, I think some people were ready for some
one who speaks plain and simple.
In other
words, John Q. Public wants "someone as dumb and uneducated about the
big picture as I am?" Sorry, I don't buy it; we want capable leaders.
We're just not that dumb.
You want me to dig up my 2000
archive of times when Bush used "plain and simple" to cover up the fact
that he simply didn't know what the hell he was talking about?
Promising to cut carbon dioxide emissions when he meant to say carbon
monoxide, then not backing down and making it a campaign plank, then
abandoning BOTH in February, all spring to mind.
At anyrate, Bush is there, Gore is not, neither is Nader so we have what we have
And it doesn't cease to amaze me that although we have proof that a Gore win was intended in Florida, no one seems to care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that Sue or Doug would see a limit. As I understand it,
users have a size limit on messages. Hosts and sysops do not. At least
it seems to work that way on my system.
JC
|
|
|
|
Ah. Good point.
So, Sue, just make me a sysop here and all my problems go away.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Community Development, WCI
|
|
|
John, I just tested this and YOU'RE RIGHT! Believe it or not, I never knew that... <grin>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you documented this....
It's in the Guide somewhere, or the Control Panel documentation. I just forgot.
Anyway, if you're willing to bump up the character limit on posts, it'll save me some trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Community Development, WCI
|
|
|
bump up the character limit on posts
Done
|
|
|
|
|
WebMD | Forumbuilders.com
|
|
|
|
I fail to understand any possible evidence that Al Gore would have not been a good leader during this crisis
It just my personal opinion... I have mine, You have yours, We're both entitled
If
I could jump into my alternate universe machine and fetch you a CNN
broadcast from the Al Gore presidency, I guarantee you that Gore would
have CNN commentators falling all over themselves in amazement on how
"humane and sensitive" he had become. Why? Because we're reading into
the president the qualities we want to see in him. That sets us (and
him) up for a big fall if we ever look for those qualities and see them
stunningly missing.
Your opinion....
And it doesn't cease to amaze me that although we have proof that a Gore win was intended in Florida, no one seems to care. .
I
believe the courts decided that case. Like it or not thats how is.
There were a lot of inconsistencies in the Florida portion of the
elections, Maybe they were all over the country, and florida just
caught the limelight. I suspect things may be very different next time.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to Bush and Gore.
ForumBuilders.com....
If You Build it... They Will Come!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not really, Tim.
You're right that "Gore would have done a good job" is pure opinion.
But presidents getting popularity bumps in wartime is documented fact.
And you only have to go back 10 years to see what happened to a
politically popular wartime president named Bush who presided over a
recession.
As
for the election, it's factual that more people intended to vote for
Gore than Bush in Florida. (Recount statistics, plus even generous
estimates for Bush on how many votes Gore lost due to the butterfly
ballot. Mathematically, it's not even close.) It's factual that Gore
received more votes than Bush in the general election.
You're
right that it's factual that Bush was handed the election legally by
the courts; it's also factual that many legal experts looking at that
opinion have said it will go down with Dred Scott as one of the worst
(i.e., politically and personally motivated) decisions in Supreme Court
history.
It's my opinion that Bush is set up to be run out of
town on a rail; there are just too many ways he can fall off his
precipice, and I think he's got zero political experience in dealing
with the hard times that are coming. The only question as to whether
he'll pull off the next election is who the Democrats put up against
him, and whether any Republicans try to unseat him, which I think is
extremely likely. (Unless you think McCain has been lobotomized, or
that a war hero won't be all that attractive.)
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Jeff writes:
"There
are any number of animal products for which this is true; once an
animal extract has been processed beyond a certain point, it is
declared to be no longer animal and hence outside the kashrut
prohibitions."
I believe it is just two. But please - go ahead and list more!
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com
|
|
|
Actually, I wrote that, not Jeff.
Any*
chemical which is ultimately derived from an animal fits this bill -
the specific example I recall was something or other that's derived
from beef bones that it was ruled may be included in dairy foods - but
there must be hundreds of chemical food additives which qualify.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Well, I am talking about non-processed foodstuffs
There are two which come from non-kosher living creatures and may be eaten directly and are considered kosher themselves.
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
What?!
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft
lashed out Thursday at critics of the administration's response to
terrorism, saying questions about whether its actions undermine the
Constitution only serve to help terrorists.
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
Community Coordinator, newsobserver.com and triangle.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smash forehead on keyboard to continue....
|
|
|
In my opinion.....
It seems that the Taliban regime never expected that America would wage
all out war. They expected us to whine and moan and debate and send
letters of outrage. They never expected us to remove them from power
and wipe out their government. The next Regime that supports a
terrorist organization will look at what happened to the Taliban and
think twice about allowing an attack on America.
If they don't respect us then they can fear us...
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Forward this to John Ashcroft
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Oh, Goodie, boys and girls!
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
Smash forehead on keyboard to continue....
|
|
|
Yes there are many actions that could have been taken to help prevent
the 9/11 attacks. However, you can't turn the lack of prevention into
blame for the action. In the same vein that you can't blame me if my
house gets robbed, because I didn't put bars on the windows and buy an
attack dog. Lets not point fingers to the extent that we forget who the
criminals are here.
Doug, maybe I could build a nuclear bomb for home defense.
And
Jeff... Don't feel bad about your Nader vote. I voted for Ross Perot in
92, which put Mr. "I did not sleep with that woman." into office.
Todays mistakes, tomorrows regrets.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Robin writes:
"Doug, maybe I could build a nuclear bomb for home defense."
As long as you don't live in Chico, California. They have a city ordinance there prohibiting the detonation of nuclear devices.
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com
|
|
|
But he just said he's going to
build
it, not detonate it. Isn't that the whole point of the MAD doctrine?
I
voted for Ross Perot in 92, which put Mr. "I did not sleep with that
woman." into office. Todays mistakes, tomorrows regrets.
And what a mistake
that
turned out to be. Eight years of peace and prosperity, an
administration so ethical that not even 8 years, $100 million, and 100
FBI agents worth of investigation could turn up evidence of even one
incident of criminal behavior related to official duties, and for
entertainment a stumblingly inept attempted coup conceived, plotted,
and misexecuted by the biggest bunch of sleazebags, liars, and
hypocrites ever to grace the Beltway (and Pittsburg). Oh yeah, and blow
jobs. Blow jobs are cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh,
this
is good. Here you can say blow jobs. Yesterday on the Apple WebX site,
I couldn't post a message saying that I thought an application was
sucking up CPU cycles.
|
|
|
|
|
Community Coordinator, newsobserver.com and triangle.com
|
|
|
Fizz, boom
Doug writes:
As
long as you don't live in Chico, California. They have a city ordinance
there prohibiting the detonation of nuclear devices.
Hmmmmm ... wonder if that prohibits placing a M-80 in a microwave?
Not that I plan on it or anything .... though if I did live there, it would be tempting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not exactly...
And Jeff... Don't feel bad about your Nader vote. I
voted for Ross Perot in 92, which put Mr. "I did not sleep with that
woman." into office. Todays mistakes, tomorrows regrets.
The
Washington Post
published an article about this a few months back. The basic gist is
that there's a line of conservative thinking that says, "Well, OK,
maybe
you guys got rooked by a third party in 2000. But we got rooked in 1992, so it's all a wash."
The
problem with that line of thinking, the Post continued, is that it
assumed that all Perot votes would have gone to Bush Senior. In fact,
most vote analysis done at the time indicated that Perot votes drew
slightly from Clinton, but the others wouldn't have voted at all; the
drawn Bush votes weren't enough to tip.
On the other hand, in
this
election, just about any number of votes would have tipped it,
including the octogenarian lifelong Democratic Jewish voters who en
masse decided to vote for Pat Buchanan.
So I don't feel bad
for my Nader vote because I voted in DC, which went for Gore by 85%.
(We actually do get to vote for President -- but we still don't have
Representatives or Senators, despite the fact that Congress frequently
overturns local law.
http://www.dcvote.org)
The rest of your analysis, though, is a mite faulty.
|
|
|
|
|
Director of Education, WCI
|
|
|
Compensation for damages caused by misdirect bombs in Afghanistan
I am in favor of paying compensation to people who were hurt, families
of people killed and people who suffered other losses due to
misdirected U.S. bombs in Afghanistan. The so-called "collateral
damage".
There
is precendence for this - the U.S. payed millions for their mistaken
bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia. What a disaster that was.
I
can't help but thinking - if Osama bin Laden were hiding out in the
suburbs of, say, St. Louis, would the U.S. drop cluster bombs there as
well?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting thought.
But I'm not sure where to take that. Why would there necessarily be a
statute of limitations on such compensation? We've inflicted collateral
damage in
every
war -- Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki come to mind.
On
the other hand, we're the ones who are paying for the collateral damage
inflicted here -- you don't see Al Qaeda lining up to reimburse its
victims. And following that line of reasoning, we'd be rightfully able
to plunder our vanquished enemies for such monies, an old wartime idea
which has been thankfully laid to rest.
In other words, this
would further punish those nations who are currently (by and large)
conducting their wars by the "rules" and by certain widely adopted
notions of human decency. We care about not killing civilians and try
not to do it -- nations that don't care quite so much would never be
asked for this.
And -- to open a
big
can of worms, I'm
generally against the compensation funds that are being handed out to
US victims of terrorism, currently pegged at about $1.6 million each.
There's compassion, and then there's the buying off of the victims; I
think we're veering into the latter category.
But my big
question is what sort of precedent are we setting for future attacks?
If a nuclear bomb takes out Washington, are we going to be as generous
to the 2.4 million victims? And if we aren't, do those victims then
matter less?
|
|
|
|
|
Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com
|
|
|
if Osama bin Laden were hiding out in the suburbs of, say, St. Louis, would the U.S. drop cluster bombs there as well?
Ever been to East St. Louis? It looks like they already have.
|
|
24.12.2001, 10:54
|
Manifesting
Freedom and Solidarity
since 1985
|