zumbrunn.com - The war against terror (continued)

> Chris Zumbrunn's personal think tank

The war against terror (continued)

Continued from this page :

Monty Hobbs - Nov 16, 2001 11:27 AM ( 1. )

Community Coordinator, newsobserver.com and triangle.com

Posts: 430

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.

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:23 PM ( 6.1 )

Posts: 1191

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.

Sue - Nov 18, 2001 11:56 PM ( 6.1.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

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

doug - Nov 19, 2001 01:45 AM ( 6.1.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Sue - Nov 19, 2001 05:23 AM ( 6.1.1.1.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

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..."

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:54 PM ( 6.1.2 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Chris - Nov 27, 2001 10:51 PM ( 6.1.2.1 )

Posts: 1191

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).

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 07:16 AM ( 6.1.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Chris - Nov 29, 2001 12:51 AM ( 6.1.2.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

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.

doug - Nov 18, 2001 08:42 PM ( 7. )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:46 PM ( 7.1 )

Posts: 1191

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.

doug - Nov 18, 2001 08:51 PM ( 7.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:58 PM ( 7.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:56 PM ( 7.1.1.2 )

Posts: 1623

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.

doug - Nov 26, 2001 12:49 PM ( 7.1.1.2.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:32 AM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Michael D.Landis - Nov 28, 2001 06:49 AM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:55 AM ( 5.1.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Chris - Nov 28, 2001 09:42 PM ( 5.1.2.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

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.

Jeff Porten - Dec 19, 2001 08:40 PM ( 5.1.2.1.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Michael D.Landis - Dec 19, 2001 09:41 PM ( 5.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

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?

Tim - Nov 18, 2001 08:17 AM ( 6. )

WebMD | Forumbuilders.com

Posts: 1078

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!

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:23 PM ( 6.1 )

Posts: 1191

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.

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.

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.

Sue - Nov 18, 2001 11:56 PM ( 6.1.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

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

doug - Nov 19, 2001 01:45 AM ( 6.1.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Sue - Nov 19, 2001 05:23 AM ( 6.1.1.1.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

Doug:

And finding some good excuse to break the Prime Directive formed the core plot of how many episodes?

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:54 PM ( 6.1.2 )

Posts: 1623

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.

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.

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.

Chris - Nov 27, 2001 10:51 PM ( 6.1.2.1 )

Posts: 1191

Jeff writes:

There are enough cultural disagreements between Europeans; you expect to come to a global consensus?

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.

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 07:16 AM ( 6.1.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

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.

I don't think you're serious about that. It was a highly symbolic act by an extremist believe system against another believe system.

Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.

But yes, the US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first place (unintentionally).

Chris - Nov 29, 2001 12:51 AM ( 6.1.2.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

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

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.

doug - Nov 18, 2001 08:42 PM ( 7. )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:46 PM ( 7.1 )

Posts: 1191

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.

doug - Nov 18, 2001 08:51 PM ( 7.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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."

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.

Chris - Nov 18, 2001 08:58 PM ( 7.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:56 PM ( 7.1.1.2 )

Posts: 1623

Not quite

doug - Nov 26, 2001 12:49 PM ( 7.1.1.2.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:32 AM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

It's just the only words He signed.

Michael D.Landis - Nov 28, 2001 06:49 AM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 07:20 AM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

doug - Nov 28, 2001 02:00 PM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1.2 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 03:15 PM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1 )

Posts: 1623

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?

doug - Nov 28, 2001 05:28 PM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

Bzzzzzz.....

Any other guesses?

Give up?

doug

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.

Lisa - Nov 28, 2001 11:14 PM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.2 )

Pizza anyone?

Posts: 258

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.

Michael D.Landis - Nov 28, 2001 11:31 PM ( 7.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.3 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:36 PM ( 8. )

Posts: 1623

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.

Chris - Nov 27, 2001 07:24 PM ( 8.1 )

Posts: 1191

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:44 AM ( 8.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

doug - Nov 28, 2001 01:56 PM ( 8.1.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 03:13 PM ( 8.1.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Chris - Nov 28, 2001 08:52 PM ( 8.1.1.2 )

Posts: 1191

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!

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:35 AM ( 8.2 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Sue - Nov 28, 2001 07:14 AM ( 8.2.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 07:22 AM ( 8.2.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Sue - Nov 28, 2001 07:24 AM ( 8.2.1.1.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

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...

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 07:30 AM ( 8.2.1.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

Next time I get loquacious...

I'll post the message with Opera and see if it repeats.

doug - Nov 28, 2001 02:02 PM ( 8.2.1.1.1.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 03:13 PM ( 8.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

You mean next time you get concise.

I have many strong features, but brevity is not among them.

doug - Nov 28, 2001 05:27 PM ( 8.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:37 PM ( 9. )

Posts: 1623

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.

Chris - Nov 27, 2001 07:35 PM ( 9.1 )

Posts: 1191

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!

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:04 AM ( 9.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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)

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:10 AM ( 9.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Chris - Nov 28, 2001 08:38 PM ( 9.1.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1191

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!

Chris - Nov 28, 2001 08:28 PM ( 9.1.1.2 )

Posts: 1191

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.

Tim - Nov 25, 2001 04:01 PM ( 10. )

WebMD | Forumbuilders.com

Posts: 1078

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!

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:25 AM ( 10.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

john cornicello - Nov 28, 2001 07:55 AM ( 11. )

Seattle, WA

Posts: 2169

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

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 08:12 AM ( 11.1 )

Posts: 1623

Ah. Good point.

So, Sue, just make me a sysop here and all my problems go away.

Sue - Nov 28, 2001 08:43 AM ( 11.2 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

John, I just tested this and YOU'RE RIGHT! Believe it or not, I never knew that... <grin>

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 03:11 PM ( 11.2.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Sue - Nov 28, 2001 03:29 PM ( 11.2.1.1 )

Director of Community Development, WCI

Posts: 11830

bump up the character limit on posts

Done

Tim - Nov 28, 2001 03:26 PM ( 12. )

WebMD | Forumbuilders.com

Posts: 1078

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!

Jeff Porten - Nov 28, 2001 06:17 PM ( 12.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.)

doug - Nov 29, 2001 01:13 AM ( 13. )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Michael D.Landis - Nov 29, 2001 04:27 AM ( 13.1 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

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.

doug - Nov 29, 2001 10:03 AM ( 13.1.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

doug - Dec 7, 2001 11:12 AM ( 14. )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Monty Hobbs - Dec 8, 2001 04:02 AM ( 14.1 )

Community Coordinator, newsobserver.com and triangle.com

Posts: 430

Yep

Doug,

That is what we made our main news discussion about today http://forums.triangle.com/WebX?50

.ee7e398

Robin Grimes - Dec 8, 2001 06:36 AM ( 15. )

Smash forehead on keyboard to continue....

Posts: 138

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...

doug - Dec 15, 2001 04:19 PM ( 16. )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

doug - Dec 15, 2001 04:24 PM ( 17. )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

Oh, Goodie, boys and girls!

How nuclear bombs work.

Complete with schematics.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm

doug

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.

Robin Grimes - Dec 20, 2001 02:09 AM ( 18. )

Smash forehead on keyboard to continue....

Posts: 138

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.

doug - Dec 21, 2001 04:12 PM ( 18.1 )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Michael D.Landis - Dec 21, 2001 11:05 PM ( 18.1.1 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

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.

Jeff Porten - Dec 23, 2001 08:36 PM ( 18.1.1.1 )

Posts: 1623

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.

Monty Hobbs - Dec 22, 2001 12:48 AM ( 18.1.2 )

Community Coordinator, newsobserver.com and triangle.com

Posts: 430

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

Jeff Porten - Dec 23, 2001 08:27 PM ( 18.2 )

Posts: 1623

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.

doug - Dec 22, 2001 12:31 PM ( 19. )

Director of Education, WCI

Posts: 10230

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.

Jeff Porten - Dec 23, 2001 08:35 PM ( 19.1 )

Posts: 1623

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?

Michael D.Landis - Dec 23, 2001 10:50 PM ( 19.2 )

Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

Posts: 538

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

The relativity of Apple's market share

In case you still fear for Apple's future, let me tell you that I fear they one day might get to much market share:

5-10% market share is all Apple will ever need! As long as Apple's market share is below 5%, Apple needs to fight for more. But if Apple's market share would ever go up to or above 10%, it would be a sign that Apple is spreading itself to thin and that it should concentrate more on delivering to its core market.

What would be the competitive advantage if the other 90% wouldn't be using inferior technologies?
25.11.2001, 17:08

Are humans animals?

The most traumatic experience of my life: In school we played a game where the teacher would name a letter of the alphabet and we had to write down a city, a plant, an animal, a mountain, a lake etc. that started with that letter. When I wrote down 'Mensch' (German for 'Human') as an example for an animal starting with the letter 'M' the teacher didn't allow that as a correct answer. When I claimed that he was wrong and I was right he let the class vote about it.... They voted overwhelmingly against humans being animals. I was disgusted of my teacher and my classmates and left the classroom in protest. So, you know what I’ll vote and you know what I’ll think of you if you vote 'No' but don't let this distort the scientific correctness of this poll and answer truthfully.

Poll results:

Yes
(30 votes) 83%

No
(2 votes) 6%

Abstain
(4 votes) 11%

BicycleBob:
Why would your teacher refuse to include humans in the animal kingdom? Was he a fundementalist?
It's obvious which side of this I'm on considering that I named my cats Darwin and Mendell

Chris:
Either a religious fundamentalist or an anal retentive humanist. At least it made me realize that there is work to be done on this planet.

Sue:
ROFL!
I love your description....

DeAnna Burghart:
Amen. <g> Reminds me of a friend that I knew in college who got absolutely *hostile* once when I suggested that dolphins had more *raw* intelligence/IQ than most humans. He yelled at me (with the completely rational come back "They just don't! That's all! <g>) and wouldn't speak to me for a week. LOL
A lot of people like that are threatened by the perception of humans as animals (the same types who object to breastfeeding infants because it's too primitive & animalistic and bottle-feeding is somehow more civilized). Takes away their sense of superiority. <g> The irony is that their vehement denial is such an *instinctive* reaction to a perceived threat ...
As far as I'm concerned, humans are *definitely* animals. After all, we're not vegetables (except for a few of the folks I deal with who can't manage our password-retrieval system) or minerals (except for one of my ex-boyfriends, who is definately dumber than a rock <eg>).
I wonder why the teacher felt so threatened that she (?) would rely on the uninformed opinions of schoolchildren to back her up instead of stating the opinion on her own logic. <weg>

doug:
I don't think there is *that* much difference between humans and other animals.
For example, some people think animals (other than humans) do not think. That is just plain silly. I have had a dog now for 8 years and he definitely does think.
For example, he might be sitting in the living room. Suddenly he will raise his head, look around, then run upstairs, get a bone and bring it down to play with.
I would say this shows obvious thought. He clearly was looking for that bone and with full intent and forethought went to get it where he remembered he left it.
What (most) animals besides humans do not have is language ability, because they have no language centers in their brains. That is true for dogs - they respond to intonation and get used to what you are trying to say to them based on the totality of your command: your body gestures, intonation, etc. But I do not believe they are capably of understanding the words themselves.
Try telling your dog, in a completely different tone of voice (neutral with no other overtones or gestures> to "Sit". There will be no response.
Anyway, getting back to humans - sometimes I get this weird feeling, while walking through the city and looking at giant skyscrapers, that the building activity is very much like bee hive activity, and, looking at things from reverse, a lot of what we do and build is instinctual and that our sense of awareness and intelligence is somehow an illusion.

Barry:
Hmmm... so question this.... If humans are considered animals.....then have we brought the animals up in status or knocked the humans down a notch?
Maybe it's too uncomfortable to think of humans as not being animals because then you have to think of why we are not animals, why we are different, then maybe what caused us to be different..... or who caused us to be different. ......and what might that might mean for the way in which we live our lives.
Hmmm...... no ice cream available to waddle to....darn!

Followup poll :
Equal rights for humans and other animals?
If we are equal, should we have equality?

Poll Results:

Yes
(5 votes) 28%

No (please post your reasons in the discussion)
(9 votes) 50%

Abstain
(4 votes) 22%

Doug:
[...] while we all agreed that humans are animals, I don't remember agreeing that all animals are equal.

Chris:
So, you're putting human lives above the one of other animals. Of course, since you eat chopped up animals and - I would assume - no humans, you would otherwise be a hypohypocrite. But, where do you take the right to make that distinction?

Doug:
Chopped up animals - Actually, I just had some. Yum.
Humans are not the only animals that eat other animals. It is natural.

Chris:
Humans have the capability to overcome instinct. It's what makes humans so powerful. With that power comes responsibility. And with that responsibility comes the obligation to reason - and to develop high ethics. It's the price we have to pay for the power we have. It's what makes the difference between destructive and constructive use of what makes humans unique.

Doug:
Are you suggesting... that humans are superior to animals?

Barry:
Wouldn't this mean that humans are not animals after all? ;-)

Chris:
I'm not suggesting that they are equal in regards to their properties. Different animals are different in regard to their properties. I'm suggesting that they should be treated as equal with the same standards like we tread humans as equals although they might have varying properties. Just like objects in Javascript ;-)

[...]

Barry:
I think we believe animals should have rights or they should have more rights its just that they are not humans and therefore should not have the same or equal rights.
So when the statement is made humans are animals we don't really mean that animals are humans....there is a fundamental difference.

Susan Conarroe:
Well, do we have equal rights with them in their societies?
Varies from species to species, I'm sure, but in large part, I'd say "no."
We get grouped into the vast catagory of other-than-like, which then gets divided according to that society's mindset (predators, prey, etc.) and treated accordinly. Several socities near human habitation have a 'human' subcatagory, but we tend to have a 'dog' subcatagory of animals and treat them a little differently than most, so there's nothing unusual there.
I think humans are animals, I think all animals are equal in importance on a cosmic scale, and each animal determines the center of its own little universe - usually itself, or "family," or "pack," and so on.
So, are animals and humans equal? Yes, on a cosmic scale. I don't think our self-realized intelligence makes us any more important. Should animals have equal human rights with humans? I say that's unnatural. <g>
Now, I think that animals should be interacted with on terms of respect. I think that we humans make abominable use of our shared environment and that we are generally disrespectful of any other species in a way that is somewhat unnatural. <shrug>
So much for "equal rights."

[...]

Chris:
I think we are missing the point, here. Just because other animals would have equal rights wouldn't mean that they could get a drivers license. If humans are heheavilyetarded they still have equal rights. Equal rights always means equal under comparable circumstances.

BicycleBob:
I voted no because... rights don't exist in nature, they are a human invention. The only thing that matters in nature is reproductive fitness.
Now... if your question had been worded differently; ie, "Is it wise for humans to assign and enforce equals rights for all members of the animal kingdom, human or otherwise?"

Followup poll:
Equal rights for all members of the animal kingdom.
Is it wise for humans to assign and enforce equal rights for all members of the animal kingdom, human or otherwise?

Poll Results:

Yes
�(4 votes) 25%

No
�(10 votes) 63%

Abstain
�(2 votes) 13%

Lisa:
Now to take this to another plane or Continent as the case may be. Did anyone see that show Survivor where I gather some guy on it stabbed a live pig just to demonstrate that he was useful. If we go with the idea that 4 footed critters are equal to 2 legged ones then is what he did murder? Or was it survival of the fittest? Or just a very bad tv show <g>?

Chris:
I have no problem with someone stabbing a live pig in order to survive. Having to turn away when it's shown on TV while chewing on shredded pig that was bought shrink wrapped in the super market is an other story. Of course, I doubt he needed to stab the pig in order to survive - otherwise there probably wouldn't have been a TV camera near by.

Lisa:
I don't know who started this thread but it kept me awake all night <g>.
How do we work on equality between everyone? In most of society (IMHO) we have many degrees of inequality whether it be between color, sexes, religions, views of children as property. Using just one of the countries I lived in the difference between each province was different. In France depending on what part you were from determined if you were equal to people from lets say Paris.

Chris:
Unequal plus unequal can equal equal.
The world is full of unequality. Equality is just a concept we developed - it's an ideal. Equality results when an imbalance of strength and weakness is not executed.
In order to further equality one doesn't need to eliminate or negate differences. Differences are a good thing. If everything would be balanced and undifferent then there would be no enenergy and no life. The very nature of nature is unequality. If unfair and unethical differences are not used to the advantage of the stronger and if we keep the remaining unequalities in balance then we get equality as a result.
For example, if we wouldn't kill other animals when we do not need to then that would be a major step in the right direction.

Chris:
By teaching our kids to eat animals we teach them to be uncompassionate. Don't be surprised when that uncompassion later pops up in places you didn't expect or intend.

doug:
Logical connection?
Chris wrote: By teaching our kids to eat animals we teach them to be uncompassionate.
I don't see how that follows...

Chris:
Logical connection?
I think so, yes! My previous message Chris 2/19/01 10:17am makes the case for this. Executing an imbalance of strength and weakness is uncompassionate. You don't agree?

doug:
I don't see any case made showing a connection between teaching kids to eat animals and teaching kids to be uncompassionate.

Chris:
Fair enough! If I read my messages again then I have to admit that the correlation is not explicitly clear.
We humans are - if I can generalize a bit - superior in strength to other animals. That is a difference and a natural unequality. Equality (the kind that we've invented as a concept) would result if we would not use that power to our advantage and the others disadvantage. It would be a sign of compassion towards the weaker. Not killing and eating an other animal when we do not need to in order to stay healthy would be such an example. Therefore, teaching kids to do so would be teaching them compassion. Doing the opposite teaches them the opposite.

doug:
When I try to follow logical trains of thought, I always remember "one bad link" and the entire subsequent argument fails.
So before continuing, let's stop with your first sentence - humans are superior in strength to other animals?
Not so!

Chris:
I think now you're to hard on me! OK, let's say superior in strength compare to the animals we eat. They are obviously weaker.

doug:
I don't know - I wouldn't try to wrestle a cow.

Sue:
Superior in cunning, pehaps... not so much sheer musclepower, though!

Chris:
Yes, for the sake of my argument it's the superiority in cunning that matters.

Doug:
OK. Let's go back to the argument (for argument's sake).
Do you think teaching kids to eat a hamburger at McDonald's in any way conveys any message at all about human superiority, lack of compassion, etc.
Do you think a lesson is being made at all when you order two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun?

Sue:
I can perhaps buy the argument that we should all be vegetarians because eating other animals isn't compassionate - BUT - what stumps me is why that same argument should NOT be also extended to plants, which are also living creatures.
And if we extend it to plants, then what does that leave us to eat? Only stuff like fruit and eggs and milk, which are only plant and animal "byproducts" which don't kill the animal to produce them. And then you could make all kinds of arguments about indentured slavery and whatnot (apple trees in orchards, cows in a dairy).
So isn't this all a slippery slope to start down to begin with?

Chris:
Doug, Yes, of course! When you feed a kid those two all beef patties it will eat it without thinking about where that stuff came from. At that moment your only teaching the kid that it is ok to eat it. But one day the kid will think for the first time about the concept of where that stuff is coming from and will - at the very least - realize that it is lucky not to be the animal that was shredded to make that burger. After realizing the unpleasantness of the animals situation it will have to rationalize by reacting with uncompassion. If it would not react with uncompassion it could not avoid to feel gilt - something it will try to avoid because it would be too difficult and complex to handle, specially at its (the kids) age.

Chris:
Sue, Yes, it's a bit of a slippery slope. I would even claim that all 'things' - no matter if they are alive or not - have a right to be treated with dignity. Why should we not develop ethical behavior that follows the same standards in all those cases? We just need to look at the issues from various perspectives and then form our ethical behavior around those. For example, science can tell us reliably enough how a certain action is perceived on the receiving end. The extent of consciousness and the complexity of the nervous systems are two examples of important factors that should be taken into account. Those are deciding factors when you want to estimate the amount of psychological pain that is caused. A secondary important factor is the necessity of the action. The first pain you should stop to cause is the one you don't need to cause. You disagree?

Sue:
I don't disagree in principle, but in practice it gets awfully hard differentiating and making those kinds of decisions...

Chris:
Who said live is a piece of cake?

Sue:
Nobody... But you can get paralyzed making decisions like that all day long.
Will I cause more pain/harm (to the fox) if I wear my down parka with the fox fur trim around the hood, or if I wear my polyester parka made in a sweatshop in southeast Asia?
Maybe a bad example, but sometimes you have to just do the best you can and try hard not to think about the rest of it...

Chris:
No, that's a good example, Sue!

Sue:
Well, it was, if you consider that you will have to decide first off if you want to purchase the coat (or the other coat) to begin with. I can see making that sort of decision when you make a major coat purchase.
But the example I really meant to give was more of a day to day everyday life kind of example - where making that sort of decision for every little thing you do would get impractical.

Chris:
Like what, for example?

Sue:
I can't think of a good example now, either...

Chris:
Maybe because it doesn't exist?

Doug:
On the other hand, the parent might teach the kid to appreciate the earth that gives us such bounty and to always treat animals with humanity, making sure to slaughter them in non-painful ways and urging them to raise livestock in pleasant surroundings.
I think it is possible to be a compassionate person and still be a meat eater.

Chris:
I agree, Doug! But if the parent is teaching that to the kid then they surely can't end up in a burger restaurant together! Now, that would be very hypocritical in deed!

Doug:
Human compassion, morality and burger joints
I don't think it is hypocritical!

Chris:
Now you're just pulling my leg....

john cornicello:
Interesting topic to come back to from my trip. And one that I recently took part in in another discussion board (where they were talking about PETA and Ted Nugent and hunting). Sue has already made the point I was making back then. But why should that stop me from re-posting my message to that other group????, So here goes...
Hey every one.... great topic about the Ted Nugent and pita controversy.
I'm a little bit confused by all of this. I always thought that PETA stood for People Eating Tasty Animals. Why would they have a problem with this?
Me? I'm a vegan. Well, sort of... They say that you are what you eat. I eat cows and chickens. Cows and chickens are vegans, so I'm a vegan by extension.
The way I look at it, plants are living things just like animals. I can't stand the idea of someone going around chopping them off at the roots for food. That's barbaric. I can hear the screams. And they have absolutely no chance for escape being firmly rooted into the ground where they stand.
When I go out hiking I can look out over a lush valley and basque in the glory while my vegetarian friend standing next to me looks out over the lush vegetation and all he can think is "hmm.., lunch!"
Actually, in a perfect world we should not be eating animals or vegetables, only other humans. But that won't fly. So, go out and eat what you need.
I like BJ's attitude. You do it for yourself. Don't impose yourself on others, leave that for the fundamentalist religious folks.
One thing I am convinced of is that not eating meat causes a definite loss to ones sense of humor and breeds agression. I mean, when I go out for a steak and it gets served to me with some sort of vegetation on the plate I quietly move the vegetables off to another plate and don't make a scene about it (as offended as I am about the vegetables being there). Give a vegatarian a dish that has some meat in it and see what their reaction is.
Go to a big event at the Seattle Center. Look at all those angry folks with their tables and clipboards at the entrances. I always want to tell them to go grab a hamburger and chill out. Relax. Enjoy yourself. I bet there is more violence among the vegetarians and vegans. No, not all of them. But we're talking generalities here.
Being a vegetarian isn't any healthier than being a carnivore. I've actually done some research on this. I picked a year (1820) and found a group of vegetarians and a group of meat eaters. You know what? They are all dead!! Everyone who ate a brussel sprout in 1825 is dead. Life is short enough. Go out and enjoy yourself.

Chris:
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. That certainly sums up the state of the world on this issue!

28.02.2001, 17:08

Server-side Javascript

The Mocha Object Engine is an experimental Internet application development environment that is fully scriptable using the Server-side Javascript language complying with the international standards ECMA-262/ISO-16262 (It's called "Mocha" after the original project name of Javascript). JavaScript is an extremely rich, powerful and flexible programming language and has a large, highly developed syntax, a huge library of standard methods (functions) and built-in capabilities to create complex, object-oriented data structures and methods.

Many web designers and developers are familiar with Javascript as a client-side scripting language where they are able to use it in order to embed program logic in the HTML code of their web pages to control the web browsers. With our Server-side Javascript these web designers and developers can leverage their existing knowledge and benefit from all the advantages of server-side programming to build dynamic websites with an integrated web and e-mail server and a built-in object-oriented database.

Javascript is the most popular language on the Internet! With deployZone it is the most powerfull one as well!

Object-oriented Database

The included object-oriented database is organized into a multi-dimensional hierarchy of named objects such as users or documents. These objects have the same data structure as a Javascript Object, except that they are stored into the database. All objects stored in the OODB can be accessed through Javascript objects.

Using Javascript to set a property value of such an object, will automatically store the value into the OODB and save it to the disk. Fetching a value from a stored object will load it from the disk automatically.

With Server-side Javascript you may create and control your own kinds of objects, giving you an extremely powerful tool for building object-oriented internet and web applications.

With deployZone you'll see: Everything is an object!

File/Object Projection

With its unique File/Object-Projection, DeployZone blends the lines between file system and database, facilitating truly object-oriented content and document management solutions.

The hierarchical structures of the database and any file system content is projected into the database and appears in the same content hierarchy.

File system hierarchy is projected into object hierarchy in database
Object hierarchy in database reflects and controls file structure on disk

This introduces a new dimension in the development of advanced Document Management solutions.

Unparalleled scalability and flexibility
Every document is an object
Every object is a document

Advanced Layer Architecture

The deployZone Advanced Layer Architecture enhances the core engine with an object-oriented function library that makes it even easier to maintain your customizations, extensions and translations.

The Advanced Layer Architecture separates various elements contained in the core engine into independently maintainable layers. This allows you to customize and update different aspects such as the program logic, layout, design or translations in a strait forward fashion. The Standard Objects Layer takes care of the synchronization with changes in the core engine, providing your customization with all the improvements and new features.

In order to translate or customize your application for specific markets or target groups, you will no longer need to maintain multiple copies of your customized template files.

In addition, the deployZone code base offers many more advanced features, such as providing easy maintenance of multi-lingual content, the capability of switching between ‘interactive’ and ‘non-interactive’ user modes, and others.

The deployZone code base offers the following layers:

deployZone Standard Objects Layer

The Standard Objects Layer (SOL) ensures compatibility and automatic synchronization with Web Crossing’s embedded code and Standard Templates. Existing Web Crossing applications or templates may be converted into a deployZone standard object and then integrated into the Standard Objects Layer. The templates in the Standard Objects Layer will automatically benefit from the features of the other layers, such as the translation features.

deployZone Advanced Objects Layer

The Advanced Objects Layer (AOL) extends the functionality of Web Crossing’s original Standard Templates with many advanced features, such as providing detailed control over the folder lists, toolbars and page layout. Additional customizations to the program logic may be developed into deployZone advanced objects and then integrated into the Advanced Objects Layer.

deployZone Client Objects Layer

The Client Objects Layer (COL) consists of a library for markup language definitions and an API (Application Programming Interface) for client-side-scripting languages. Through this COL-API, any server side properties or data objects can be made available for programming scripts on the client-side. This allows for a much wider range of applications that may be developed and maintained by content managers without compromising server-side security.

deployZone Application Translation Layer

The Application Translation Layer (ATL) translates the user interface of your application into different versions or languages. This translation happens automatically based on criteria such as the user’s preferred language or other settings. If the specified translation is not available, the original default translation will be used instead. All translations can also be set at any level in the hierarchy, in which case they will then apply only to the content objects below that level.

deployZone Custom Design Layer

The Custom Design Layer (CDL) separates the layout and design of your application from the program logic and the content. Any application built on the deployZone layers can follow any specific Corporate Identity guidelines simply by configuring the Custom Design Layer – no other layers need to be modified or maintained.

deployZone’s Content Translation Layer

The Content Translation Layer (CTL) allows you to maintain multilingual (or multi-version) content in an object-oriented database without forcing you to set up multiple hierarchical trees containing duplicate objects for each version. By using the Content Translation Layer, you have the option of storing the various versions and/or translations in the same object hierarchy or even within the same object. When a certain user accesses that object, he or she is automatically served the appropriate version or translation of that content. If the specified translation is not available, then the original default translation of that object will be used instead.

Mochascript - a Server-Side Javascript abstraction library

Mochascript is a high abstraction Internet application scripting language which extends ISO-16262 standard Javascript in object-oriented server-side scripting environments. Mochascript consists of a library of classes, functions and methods itself written in Javascript.

The technology that is used to build today's Websites and Internet applications is quickly moving towards standardization. While this process has been embraced by the industry for client-side products, server-side technologies are still in an earlier stage of this development.

In many ways, Javascript offers an ideal middle ground between Java based programming and more template oriented scripting environments such as PHP. For future Web and Internet applications, it is Javascript that will be able to best provide the flexibility and power of a true programming language while retaining the simplicity required for quick and lean implementations.

Object-oriented web development environments that use Javascript as the server-side programming language to build an applications business logic are one of the areas that will move towards becoming an interchangeable commodity.

To allow Javascript based application logic to become exchangeable among different implementations, these scripts need to adhere to a higher level of abstraction. The Mochascript abstraction library will provide that common ground and bring a new level of simplicity to the complex task of creating Web and Internet applications.

Mochascript makes it possible to directly describe the functionality that a given project should provide, without the need to define its programmatic implementation. This results in code that is very human readable and that can be deployed on any sub-system implementation that supports standard Javascript.

Current versions of Mochascript require either DeployZone 3.0 or newer or Web Crossing 4.1 or newer.

Mochascript is provided free of charge and its source code is made available to interested developers that want to implement it in other environments or otherwise participate in its development.

Essential benefits:

Rapid scripting of your internet projects
Results in very clean, easy to read code
Well suited for extreme programming and easy refactoring
Transparently handles multiple languages, localizations or audiences
Easy to optimize for performance
Automatic database storage and retrieval
Clean separation of core logic, business logic, design and content
Creation of reusable Mocha Objects via web browser
Syntax checking via web browser
Quick-debugging via web browser
Well integrated HTTP, XML-RPC, E-mail server and client APIs
Direct referencing of nested database object properties

28.12.2000, 17:10

Democracy Now!

Amy Goodman's exclusive election day interview with Bill Clinton on democracynow.org, where an intended quick two minutes call-in turns into a hard hitting 30 minutes interview:

(skip to the second half of the hour)

8.11.2000

The Cluetrain Manifesto

http://cluetrain.com/

10.10.1999

Anno 1999: Der Oberhasler

www.oberhasler.ch

Anno 1998: volksrat.ch

"volksrat.ch ist ein auf Crossnet�-Technologie basierendes Diskussionforum, welches den globalen Konsens und die direkte Demokratie f�rdern will. Der Volksrat will national und international, als freies und neutrales Forum der B�rger, den Konsens von Politik, Medien, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft verbessern."

volksrat.ch from 1998 in the wayback machine

>>> Fan traces "lost" singer Rodriguez

> Anno 1998: crossnet

> Think different

> The right time to buy Apple stock

> Geschwindigkeit vs Umdrehungszahl

> Anno 1997: Xmedia

> "The meaning of life is to improve the quality of all life"

> Cute Barristas at Peet's Coffee

> Anno 1996: CZV

> Alternative 1995

> BZ Internet Cafe

> Xjournal

> How do I set a DEFAULT HTML-DOCUMENT?

> Searching Gopherspace

> Crossnet - der kollektive Intellekt der Schweiz

> Global Screen Design Services

> NEW-LIST digests

> ACTIV-L Digest

> Eternal September

> AOL expanding Internet services

> Anno 1993: Macro-micro navigator

> Freude herrscht!

> Anno 1992: Intouch i-station

> You register me in 50 states

> Anno 1991: mediacube

> Friedrich D�rrenmatt - Die Schweiz als Gef�ngnis

> Anno 1990: RasterOps

> Enable the Creative

> Photoshop Startup Memories and First Demo

> Anno 1989: Lambada by Kaoma

> Anno 1988: Perfect by Fairground Attraction

> B�rgerbrief

> Morgana - Selling Digital-Font based Sign-writing

> Macworld Expo 1988 Amsterdam

> Acorn Archimedes RISC Technology

> Anno 1987: Knowledge Navigator

> Anno 1986: Max Headroom in the News

> FidoNet

> Anno 1985: Amiga 1000

> Hello World on C128 in CP/M Mode

> Analog Desktop Publishing in 1984

> Anno 1982: Vic-20

> Gamchi

> Postel's Law

> The Future Is Unwritten

> Earth Mother and Fortieth Floor by Lesley Duncan

> La Linea by Osvaldo Cavandoli

> California by Joni Mitchell

> Supplement to the Whole Earth Catalog

> Neil Young

> Whole Earth Catalog

> Anno 1968: Mony Mony and People Got to Be Free

> August 28th 1968: William Buckley Vs Gore Vidal

zumbrunn.com
system design since 1985

chris@zumbrunn.com
facebook.com/zumbrunn
twitter.com/zumbrunn
plus.zumbrunn.com
Christoph Zumbrunn
La D�centrale
2610 Mont-Soleil
Switzerland
+41 329 41 41 41
IRC: zumbrunn on freenode.net
Jabber: chris@zumbrunn.com
Skype: ChrisZumbrunn
xing.com/profile/Chris_Zumbrunn
Listening to: lastfm.com/user/zumbrunn
or radiofrontier.ch or worldradio.ch

sovereignty, subsidiarity,
solidarity and sustainability

> participate.ch choice creating
> forum for direct democracy
> green libertarian party
> international anarchism gathering, st-imier 2012
> europas eidgenossen
> foundation for a free information infrastructure
> la ruche coop�rative
> proche.ch coop�rative
> real democracy through harmonization
> choicecreate.org community of practice
> coop�rative espace noir
> ideenbuero.ch kinder beraten kinder
> hausverein.ch umweltbewusst und fair
> vision2035.ch - verein zukunftsstadt
> terrevision.ch - agriculture contractuelle
> the brights movement
> permaculture
> plants for a future
> edible forest gardens
> wattwatt electrical energy efficiency

server-side javascript

> adobe experience manager
> ringojs runtime environment
> helma web framework
> e4xd javascript server-side
> sling jcr web framework

> commonjs group
> commonjs wiki
> commonjs irc channel
> es harmony proposals
> es harmony strawman

Subscribe to my newsletter:

Your email address:
The "Decentralize" Newsletter
Exchanging ideas for building a
decentralized fabric of society.
Making true democracy work on a larger
scale while decentralizing "everything",
benefiting from local diversity and
global synergies at the same time.
http://tinyletter.com/zumbrunn

Chris Zumbrunn's Mochazone

>	Collaborate locally, collaborate globally
>	Dare to imagine: The grid that is us
>	Original Black Bloc exhibited
>	The means are the way
>	Because somebody has to stand up for the people of the Internet
>	Reserve Ratio, Inter-Bank Lending and Equity Ratio
>	Social Capital World Forum 2013
>	Art of Participatory Leadership 2013
>	Zukunft s�en – Vielfalt ernten
>	Overview & Continuum by Planetary Collective
>	Occupy Love by Velcrow Ripper
>	More than Honey by Markus Imhoof
>	Transition Town Bern am 25. April
>	Simone Rebmann als Regierungsstatthalterin!
>	Governance Futures Lab for ReConstitutional Convention
>	Taste the Waste - about the worldwide destruction of food
>	La V�lokaravane � Courtelary le 13.4.2013 au Toit des Saltimbanques
>	Paddock cahier des charges choice creating session
>	Ad-hoc Choice Creating
>	Gr�ndungsversammlung Swiss Foodcoop Genossenschaft
>	Jim Rough enjoying Hiltl...
>	RingoJS hits 0.9
>	Souper et d�bat politique - Round Three
>	Weltformatplakat GPB-DA, Stadtratswahlen 2012
>	NEIN zum Tierseuchengesetz am 25.11.2012 - NON � la loi r�vis�e sur les �pizooties
>	Participate.ch brings Dynamic Facilitation Training to Zurich, March 4-6, 2013
>	Souper - D�bat politique � Espace Noir
>	Du 8 au 12 ao�t, les Im�riens accueilleront les anarchistes du monde entier
>	St-Imier 2012 Anarchism Gathering Program
>	The Transformation Project
>	Empowering Public Wisdom - The Manifesto
>	The Story of Change
>	A Guidebook of Alternative Nows
>	Albert Streichs Mittn�chtler
>	Declaration of Interdependence, Occupy Caf� and Occupy National Gathering
>	Confirmation of the Higgs Boson and the Standard Model
>	Plonk & Replonk
>	Radical Openness
>	Surfing Democracy - Dynamic Facilitation and Wisdom Councils
>	From Consumers to Citizens
>	Deepening Democracy Days, June 2-12, 2012
>	Sophie's Choice in Bovine
>	TerreVision - agriculture contractuelle
>	The axis of evil runs through our dining tables
>	Guggenheim by The Ting Tings
>	Consensus is not something you either have or not. It is something you always have more or less of.
>	Self-organisation as a powerful change agent
>	Sixteen Saltines by Jack White
>	Participate.ch macht Deliberative Demokratie mit Konsensforum
>	International Anarchism Gathering, St-Imier 2012
>	If what you are doing is not helpful, please stop doing it. Seriously.
>	Out of Print: The 20th Century
>	Jacob Appelbaum and National Security Agency whistleblower William Binne on growing state surveillance
>	The Adobe Creative Cloud is coming!
>	Working on true, bottom up subsidiarity
>	Beim Denken sind Tiere auch nur Menschen
>	Light Table - a new IDE concept
>	Saturn Return by She Keeps Bees
>	Lea & story-209 by michelo-ud
>	Tim Anderson and Matthew Slater on Community Forge
>	Journ�e: Coop�ratives & �nergies renouvelables
>	Summer 2012 will be the Woodstock of Anarchism
>	Late in the Night by Heartless Bastards
>	House Rules
>	Everyone is an exception. Let's try and catch each other.
>	Finish your Beer
>	Zweites Eichhorn 2011 by michelo-ud
>	I believe I know what is true, but I know I don't know what is real.
>	O Freedom by Billy Bragg
>	Hochdemokratie
>	Bradley Manning by Cass McCombs
>	The Foundation of Democracy
>	The Three Pillars of Democracy
>	Will Not Follow by Gringo Star
>	Hydrogen production from inexhaustible supplies of fresh and salt water using microbial reverse-electrodialysis electrolysis cells
>	Fortschritt statt schildb�rgerliches Wachstum
>	Consensus & Direct Democracy @ Occupy Everything
>	Libert�r, EU-kritisch, �kologisch, sozial
>	The Creative Cloud, Elasticity, Touch and Context
>	Privacy is only needed to the extent that society is malfunctioning.
>	Antwort auf offenen Brief von Tobias Sennhauser
>	Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest, it is about the optimization of the synergies.
>	New GPB-DA Poster (and Logo) for the Federal Elections 2011
>	Here's to the crazy ones!
>	How To Design A Good API and Why it Matters
>	Die Gr�nen sind die liberalsten
>	Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul
>	25th F�te de la Lune Noire
>	Switzerland is Not a Nation - it is a Philosophy
>	Damn Love Song by Amy LaVere
>	Re: parteifrei.ch
>	RingoJS 0.8.0 is out!
>	Strength in Numbers by Colin Scallan
>	This Painting is Not Available in Your Country
>	Adobe Digital Enterprise Platform
>	Customer Experience Management
>	Not becoming part of the problem when trying to be part of the solution
>	What's Next California
>	The Data Liberation Front
>	The Definition of Love
>	Paradise with Side Effects
>	Permaculture - A Quiet Revolution
>	Storm Song by Smoke Fairies
>	bumblebee
>	Best Music, News, and More is Back!
>	Christiana Bike gone missing in Basel
>	Newark Peace Education Panel
>	Wishful thinking is the mother of all progress
>	AIR is to apps as PDF is to docs
>	Everything is either simple or flawed
>	Canada, please evolve
>	Piledriver Waltz by Alex Turner
>	Blue Tip by The Cars
>	Re: Administrivia
>	Madame Trudeaux by KT Tunstall
>	Powerful stroke of insight
>	How to Save the World, Fast and Easy
>	Think before teaching young dogs old tricks
>	It Hurts Me Too by First Aid Kit
>	Asmaa Mahfouz starting a revolution
>	No more White Stripes
>	Could uprisings in Egypt and the Arab world produce a 'Muslim Gandhi'?
>	The decision to store data in a database is usually a case of premature optimization
>	Cablecom baffled by service interruptions
>	Fixing the Future
>	Please Take by Wire
>	Software Engineering
>	So Long, Larry King Live
>	WikiLeaks moves to Switzerland
>	Making Antimatter where the Web was born
>	Which system setting, Mr. Citrix?
>	Daniel Ellsberg on Wikileaks
>	Unconditional Responsibility meets Total Compassion
>	Peaceful Valley Boulevard and Rumblin
>	Order is an addictive illusion
>	Ringo Release 0.6
>	Predictions of an ugly IPv4-to-IPv6 transition
>	Link Love for Javascript
>	Bungee jumps for all congressman, free!, no strings attached
>	Restrepo
>	Open source Facebook replacement Diaspora drops first alpha
>	Angry World by Neil Young
>	Faked web browsing
>	Nice comparison of Ringo and Node
>	Erbix CommonJS soft-coding engine
>	The Paul Allen Suit
>	Web services should be both federated and extensible
>	Reality is an onion, and depending on how deep you think, it may seem to contradict itself
>	Oh No! by Marina And The Diamonds
>	If there is anything supernatural, it is humanity itself
>	Lila Luftschloss
>	We have the world we want
>	CoffeeScript, underscore.coffee and underscore.js
>	Brendan Eich on Proxies, Modules and other Proposals and Strawman
>	confederate?
>	Good for Adobe, Good for Day, Good for the Ecosystem
>	Will Adobe see the light (of Day)?
>	What's Up Doc? by Carbon/Silicon
>	How creativity occurs
>	RingoJS vs NodeJS
>	Sweet People by Alyosha
>	RingoJS 0.5 released
>	Your Personal Religion by Sophie Hunger
>	Lost and Found by Steve Mason
>	RhinoJS
>	Server-Side Javascript since... way back: RingoJS!
>	Modules, Proxies, and Ephemeron Tables
>	Helma 1.7.0 has escaped its stealth existence
>	The Moon And The Sky by Sade
>	Written In Reverse by Spoon
>	Keep Cool My Babies!
>	Module system strawpersons
>	You find what you google for.
>	Move your money - It's a Wonderful Life
>	ServerJS - Brewing The Perfect Storm
>	While society must do things the right way, its people must find ways to do the right thing
>	CommonJS effort sets JavaScript on path for world domination
>	ServerJS - putting Javascript to work on the other side
>	Eating healthier would safe the planet
>	JVM Web Framework Smackdown
>	Before implementing a solution to a problem, always search for a workaround, because the workaround is often better than the original solution
>	If they are not ready for what they need, give them the backbone for their future baby steps
>	Been there, but haven't done that
>	Unus Pro Omnibus - Omnes Pro Uno
>	Hang You From the Heavens by The Dead Weather
>	Web-based editing of sandboxed server-side javascript apps
>	PubSubHub against spam and walled gardens
>	CometD at a glance
>	Be part of the solution, not part of the problem
>	Get Around by Neil Young
>	Surrender by Cheap Trick
>	A car has nothing to do with a carpet
>	ES5 Candidate Specification
>	ReverseHttp and RelayHttp
>	The best solution is that one isn't needed
>	New Eclipse Helma plugin project
>	Is the Bespin web-based code editor the ideal future ServerJS IDE?
>	Server-Side Javascript Standard Library
>	First Soleil on Mont-Soleil
>	Rhinola 0.8 - Server JS reduced to the minimum
>	Helma turns 1.6.3
>	Helma 1.6.3-rc3 ready for testing
>	Helma 1.6.3 Release Candidate 2
>	Release Candidate 1 of Helma 1.6.3
>	Helma at the 2008 OpenExpo in Zurich
>	Large Hadron Collider
>	Ecmascript Harmony
>	The A-Z of Programming Languages jumps to Javascript
>	Fresh Javascript IDE in Ganymede Eclipse release
>	Helma at the Linuxwochen in Linz
>	Brendan on the state of Javascript evolution
>	Stuff by George Carlin
>	Is AppleScript done?
>	ES4 Draft 1 and ES3.1 Draft 1
>	Want ES4 in Helma today?
>	SquirrelFish!
>	Permaculture 101
>	ES4 comes to IE via Screaming Monkey
>	Apple's position on ECMAScript 4 proposals
>	Helma Meeting Spring 2008
>	Attila Szegedi about Rhino, Helma and Server-Side Javascript, and scripting on the JVM in general
>	Helma 1.6.2 ready to download
>	Larry Lessig's case for creative freedom
>	Earthlings - Can you face the truth?
>	The Story of Stuff
>	A Quick Start to Hello World
>	The Overlooked Power of Javascript
>	Adobe's position on ES4 features, plus the Flex 3 SDK source code is now available under the MPL
>	Solar cell directly splits water for hydrogen
>	Asynchronous Beer and Geeking and other opportunities to talk about Helma, Rhino and Javascript on the server-side
>	Openmocha and Jhino updated to 0.8
>	Even more Server-side Javascript with Jaxer
>	e4xd and jhino - javascript server-side soft-coding
>	Additional Filename Conventions
>	Update to Helma 1.6.1
>	Netscape, the browser, to live one more month
>	Heavyweight Champion of the World by Reverend and the Makers
>	SimpleDB vs CouchDB
>	Nuclear plants in Switzerland are modern Orgetorixism
>	Helma powered AppJet - Takeoff!
>	CouchDB for Helma
>	Bubble bursting friendship bracelets
>	Evolving ES4 as the universal scripting language
>	Helmablog and an article in Linux Pro Magazine
>	More praise for Helma
>	Javascript as Universal Scripting Language
>	So, what's up with World Radio Switzerland?
>	Helma Conspiracy Theory
>	JSONPath and CouchDB
>	Hold the whole program in your head, and you can manipulate it at will
>	Keeping track of localhost:8080
>	Rhino 1.6R6 with E4X fix and patches for Helma
>	Helma 1.6 is ready!
>	Junction brings Rhino on Rails to Helma
>	Javascript for Java programmers
>	The server-side advantage
>	John Resig on Javascript as a language
>	Rhino on Rails
>	Release Candidate 3 of Helma 1.6.0
>	ECMAScript 4 Reference Implementation
>	Antville Summer Of Code 2007
>	Helma 1.6.0-rc2
>	Using H2 with Helma
>	Helma warped around existing db schemas
>	Rocket the Super Rabbit
>	Bootstrap is out of the bag
>	The last mention of Microsoft
>	Helma 1.6.0-rc1
>	Introducing Planet Helma
>	Helma ante portas
>	Fixing Javascript inheritance
>	Shutdown-Day the Helma way
>	Upcoming Helma 1.6, new reference docs and IRC channel
>	Making Higgs where the Web was born
>	Jala for Helma
>	See you at Lift'07
>	More on Javascript Inheritance
>	Mocha Inheritance
>	Helma 1.5.3
>	Fresh Rhino on Safari
>	Truly Hooverphonic!
>	Helma 1.5.2
>	RFC 4329 application-ecmascript
>	Helma 1.5.1 ready to download
>	Aptana - Eclipse reincarnated as a Javascript IDE
>	Building the Conversational Web
>	Drosera steps in to debug Safari
>	Helma 1.5.0 has been released!
>	Helma 1.5 RC2 is ready
>	Helma 1.5.0 Release Candidate 1 available for download
>	FreeBSD Jails the brand new easy way
>	Javascript 2 and the Future of the Web
>	Frodo takes on chapter 3
>	No Rough Cut :-(
>	Welcome to Helma!
>	40th Montreux Jazz Festival
>	trackAllComments
>	Rails' greatest contribution
>	Consensus vs Direct Democracy
>	A candidate for CSCSJS or a Mocha Fetchlet
>	A (Re)-Introduction to JavaScript
>	coComment Roundup
>	Track your comments
>	Sketching image queries and reinventing email
>	ECMAScript - The Switzerland of development environments
>	I love E4X
>	Tutorial D, Industrial D and the relational model
>	Stop bashing Java
>	E4X Mocha Objects
>	Logging and other antimatters
>	Stronger types in Javascript 2
>	Javascript Diagnosis & Testing
>	Homo Oxymora
>	Yeah, why not Javascript?
>	Moving beyond Java
>	Spidermonkey Javascript 1.5 finally final
>	Helma Trivia
>	Finding Java Packages
>	JSEclipse Javas