The war against terror

Doug:
From the November 19th issue of "Time":
"Capitol Hill sources tell TIME that the department's Office of Legal Counsel is looking into the possibility of setting up a military court to try suspects who wind up being charged, thus enabling prosecuters to avoid many of the niceties of the regular court system. In 1942 the Supreme Court allowed a U.S. military commission to try eight Germans who had landed by submarine in Florida and New York with plans of sabotage. The men were found guilty and six of them were executed. But for now military courts are just a terrorism prosecutor's fantasy..."
Yet even before the magazine hit the news stands fantasy has become reality. Am I the only one worried about entering a slippery slope with regard to protecting basic rights?

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

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Community Coordinator, newsobserver.com and triangle.com

 *



Photo of Author
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 16, 2001 05:51 PM ( 1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Not only that. The Taliban also stated that they would be willing to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US if they were presented with evidence linking him to terrorist attacks (not even being specific which terrorist attacks!). Unfortunately the US chose to show its uncommunicative , undemocratic, suppressive, ignorant, bullish, imperialistic attitude. 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.

Chris - Nov 16, 2001 05:59 PM ( 1.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
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.

doug - Nov 16, 2001 06:01 PM ( 1.1.2 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Director of Education, WCI

n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 10230
Actually, that is a Taliban lie

Chris writes:

"Not only that. The Taliban also stated that they would be willing to turn Osama bin Laden over to the US if they were presented with evidence linking him to terrorist attacks (not even being specific which terrorist attacks!). Unfortunately the US chose to show its uncommunicative , undemocratic, suppressive, ignorant, bullish, imperialistic attitude. The attitude that got it into trouble in the first place."


It's actually been well documented that the Taliban were just using delaying tactics by suggesting they were willing to turn over bin Laden if they were presented with evidence.

It has come out recently that the U.S. had been negotiating in perfectly good faith for several years now to get bin Laden turned over. Ever since the African embassy bombings. The U.S. even had Taliban people visit Washington. The Taliban did not negotiate in good faith at all. It was all lies.

Say what you will about the U.S., with regards to this particular situation I believe the U.S. is very much in the right.

Let's not fall sway to anti-American propoganda just for the sake of cutting down the U.S.

And it very much is civilization under attack. Any people who would hijack commercial jet-liners and crash them into office buildings really do give up any right to consideration of any kind. Those are not people to be "negotiated" with. They are barbarians.

doug


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

Chris - Nov 16, 2001 07:31 PM ( 1.1.2.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
...the U.S. had been negotiating in perfectly good faith for several years...


I'm happy to hear that - that's good news. However, it's actually besides the point I wanted to make. In regards to what I'm blabing about, it's the perception only that matters. If the Taliban say 'we want to negotiate' and the US say 'No, do what we said or we'll nuke you' (just kidding of course, but you know what I mean), it sends a (possibly even badly translated) message to the members of that other culture, that will fuel extremism.

Let's not fall sway to anti-American propoganda just for the sake of cutting down the U.S.


Just for the record: I love the US. When the USA were formed at the end of the 18th century, its principal of the sovereign individual was inspired by Switzerland and the Swiss constitution of 1848 was inspired by the US constitution. To me, the USA are our only true sister republic. However That doesn't mean that US foreign policies didn't develope their flaws.

The US seems to have a hard time communicating with other cultures. Other cultures misunderstand the US attitude as imperialistic (and you can add all those other adjectives I used above).

It's 'westernism' that led to these attacks - not 'western civilisation'.

Robin Grimes - Nov 17, 2001 12:12 AM ( 2. )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Smash forehead on keyboard to continue....

 *



Photo of Author
Posts: 138
Do what we say or we will start bombing...

We should have said, 'Do what we say and the bombing will stop… maybe'. The Taliban and these terrorist groups believed, wrongly, that the US would be indecisive and weak when faced with mass murder.

"It's 'westernism' that led to these attacks.. "

Terror is not about culture or religion or even ‘westernism’, it's about power. The ability of a few to control the actions of the many. The only possible answer to terrorism is eradication of the terrorist. The Taliban and Al Quaid forfeited the right to discuss ‘terms of compliance’ when the first terrorist took over the first airplane. There were many other methods available to these people to “fight” westernism. They choose war and now we must all pay the price. They choose how the fight started; we will choose how the fight ends.


Chris - Nov 17, 2001 01:00 AM ( 2.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Yes, you don't (and one shouldn't) negotiate with terrorists. But the terrorists are not the problem, they are a symptom. A symptom of the problem caused by the 'westernism' attitude. It's just unfortunate that we have to direct energy towards dealing with symptoms like that, when all it would come down to at the end is just a question of attitude towards other cultures.

doug - Nov 17, 2001 05:51 AM ( 2.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Director of Education, WCI

n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 10230
Chris wrote:

"Yes, you don't (and one shouldn't) negotiate with terrorists. But the terrorists are not the problem, they are a symptom. A symptom of the problem caused by the 'westernism' attitude."


That seems to mysteriously turn events on its head. The problem is the terrorists. Your statement implies that these are people of reason. All evidence suggests they are not interested in civilized solutions, they are interested in wreaking chaos and destroying civilization as part of their religious war.

No foreign policy of the U.S. would satisfy them short of the complete abandonment of Israel and self-destruction.

We are not talking about people succeptible to diplomatic niceties, Chris.

doug


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

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 09:28 AM ( 2.1.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
That seems to mysteriously turn events on its head. The problem is the terrorists.


No, it's a symptom. The problem is how a qualified minority of the 'other culture' perceives the US attitude. Of course, there would always be a small fraction of extremists. But if they couldn't build on a qualified minority that misunderstands the US then they would remain passive.

doug - Nov 17, 2001 09:31 AM ( 2.1.1.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Director of Education, WCI

n n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 10230
If terrorists hijacking jetliners and crashing them into office buildings is not the problem but merely the "symptom" of the problem that what, pray tell, do you imagine the cure to be?

doug


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

Sue - Nov 17, 2001 09:34 AM ( 2.1.1.1.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Director of Community Development, WCI

n n n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 11830
I think Chris has a point...

While it's certainly true that there's no excusing terrorism or the kind of lack of moral compass that makes flying an airplane into an office building like a cruise missle an acceptable or even honorable thing to do, don't you wonder WHY the folks who did it felt so angry and desperate that they were willing to suicide to get their point across?


Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 01:00 PM ( 2.1.1.1.1.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1623
don't you wonder WHY the folks who did it felt so angry and desperate that they were willing to suicide to get their point across?


Because they were insane psychopaths?

If there's anything "wrong" with secular humanism, it's this urge to value every opinion, even the clearly lunatic.

Now, if your question is, "why were there Palestineans cheering in the streets afterward," that's a valid question. If your question is, "why are we so quick to ignore that half the world is happy to believe that the attacks were perpetrated by Israel," likewise.

But if you want to understand why killers kill? Sorry, it's enough to say -- lunatic. Evil. Take your pick.

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 09:51 AM ( 2.1.1.1.1.2 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
The cure is to allow all cultures to embrace ethics that improve the quality of Life from the strength within each culture and to build cross-culture consensus on a 'world ethos'.

doug - Nov 17, 2001 10:01 AM ( 2.1.1.1.1.2.1 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Director of Education, WCI

n n n n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 10230
Chris writes:

"The cure is to allow all cultures to embrace ethics that improve the quality of Life from the strength within each culture and to build cross-culture consensus on a 'world ethos'."


And while doing this, what should we do with those cultures and people do not adhere to this utopian ideal and would rather carry out terrorist attacks on innocent people?

Some people are not interested in consensus. They are interested in jihad.

I think those people are the problem - rather than a symptom of the problem.

doug


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

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 07:38 PM ( 2.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n n n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Some people are not interested in consensus. They are interested in jihad.


At the end of the day, almost everybody is interested in consensus. Because consensus is required if you want to achieve Quality of Life. The remaining very small group of extremists will switch from active to passive as soon as they loose the mental support of a qualified minority.

...this utopian ideal...


It's not as utopian as you might think. It IS being persued and the homework has been done. At any time, a global paradigm shift can happen within a very short amount of time and suddenly the will is there to really work on this. This paradigm shift might never happen for a thousand years - and we'll be living in 'dark ages' - but it could happen very quickly.

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/dat_eng/index_e.htm

And while doing this, what should we do with those cultures and people (that).... would rather carry out terrorist attacks on innocent people?


We'll fight them, like we do! Until you solve the problem you have to fight the symptoms.

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 09:39 AM ( 2.1.1.2 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Your statement implies that these are people of reason.


No, I've stated that I do not believe that you could or should negotiate with these terrorists - precisely because they are not people of reason. They are religious believers that are blind to reasonable arguments and lost the destinction between believe and truth! They are lost souls that chose to live a lie. Lost in their believes.

But since they are a symptom and not the problem, they'll go away by themselves once the problem is tackled.

doug - Nov 17, 2001 09:43 AM ( 2.1.1.2.1 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Director of Education, WCI

n n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 10230
Chris writes:

"But since they are a symptom and not the problem, they'll go away by themselves once the problem is tackled."


By doing what?

doug


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

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 09:55 AM ( 2.1.1.2.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Doug writes:
By doing what?


By allowing them to evolve their own culture rather than replacing theirs with ours.

Tim - Nov 17, 2001 01:58 AM ( 3. )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
WebMD | Forumbuilders.com

 *



Photo of Author
Posts: 1078
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.



There are those that claim that bush is not the sharpest pencil in the box, but I think he has certainly risen to the situation. Many anti-bush people have gone as far to say they were glad Gore did not get it.

I think that the wisest choice Bush has made is that of his team. He has a lot of good support people.

I'd hate to think where all this would be under a Gore presidency and god forbid a Nader presidency


Chris....

Could you elaborate on the westernism attitude?


ForumBuilders.com.... If You Build it... They Will Come!

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 05:17 AM ( 3.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
I'd hate to think where all this would be under a Gore presidency and god forbid a Nader presidency


Interesting. Where do you think this would be under a Gore presidency? And where do you think this would be under a Nader presidency? Seriously.

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 05:41 AM ( 3.2 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Could you elaborate on the westernism attitude?


Elaborate on it in which way? Western civilization shouldn't go on a crusade to convert other cultures. Causing the receiving side to feel threatened in its cultural identity is what I mean by westernism. Somehow the US over and over is perceived by other cultures to have such an attitude.

Instead, other cultures should be encouraged to develop higher ethical standards from within the strength of their own culture. Building a multi-cultural consensus on ethics.

doug - Nov 17, 2001 05:56 AM ( 3.2.1 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Director of Education, WCI

n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 10230
Chris writes:

"Western civilization shouldn't go on a crusade to convert other cultures."


Excuse me?

The world-wide free market naturally exports our culture to people in other countries who want to buy it. There is nothing deeply philosophical or intentional about it, except the free exchange of ideas and the free choice on the part of customers to eat McDonalds and watch Hollywood movies, etc.

It isn't part of a western cabal to promote our culture. It is just going about business.

What can we do? Impose restrictions on freedom of choice? <shudder>

On the other hand, how would you describe Islamic cultures which do violently impose their beliefs on people? Such as the Taliban.

doug


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

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 08:00 PM ( 3.2.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Doug writes:
Excuse me?


Yes, a crusade! Unfortunately, what matters here isn't the intention, it's the way it is perceived on the receiving side. (Which btw is why Bush's call for a 'crusade' against terror was an embarrassment of western civilisation).

What can we do? Impose restrictions on freedom of choice?


At one point we will have to come to the realisation that each culture needs to restrain itself when operating in the 'territory' of another culture. We have to play by the rules of the other culture (following a global consensus on ethics).

On the other hand, how would you describe Islamic cultures which do violently impose their beliefs on people? Such as the Taliban.


There is no question that when compared with Christian culture the Islamic culture has a harder time to evolve towards an open society. It is being bullied by westernism to open up faster than it can evolve. Because it's not evolving fast enough and is still forced to open up, it gets overrun and 'westernised', which is understandably unacceptable to them since that destroys their culture.

It isn't part of a western cabal to promote our culture. It is just going about business.


It just so happens, that this those promote our culture - like you stated yourself.

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 01:10 PM ( 3.3 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1623
There are those that claim that bush is not the sharpest pencil in the box, but I think he has certainly risen to the situation.


That's just because our expectations were so blindingly low to begin with. Any president in office when we were attacked like this would appear to rise, just like bread dough -- it's because we're suddenly looking to the president and seeing something there because we want to.

My prediction is that you're going to see a crushingly swift fall: Bush's 90% ratings are just too similar to what did in his father, especially in the face of a recession that seems to be far worse, domestic fear, and a Republican response that is taken directly from the Herbert Hoover playbook. (Repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax! Give back $16 billion to the Fortune 500! Do nothing for the people laid off and out of work!)

Many anti-bush people have gone as far to say they were glad Gore did not get it.


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?

I think that the wisest choice Bush has made is that of his team. He has a lot of good support people.


Good support people who scrapped the Kyoto treaty, opposed CTBT, walked away from four different UN conferences, pulled out of the ABM treaty in favor of spending billions on NMD, and are overseeing a domestic recession, an end to many civil liberties (especially for non-citizens), and a rather brutal war that is not necessarily increasing our security?

Hmm. What exactly is your definition of good support people?

Robin Grimes - Nov 17, 2001 02:41 AM ( 4. )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Smash forehead on keyboard to continue....

 *



Photo of Author
Posts: 138
attitude towards other cultures

Westernism as I understand it, is the acceptance of all cultures. The freedom to choose, freedom to speak and freedom to believe as one chooses. It is the "Other" culture that surpresses freedom. Terrorism in not a symptom of the western culture's attitude. It is a symptom of a culture that believes in total dominance of it's people by a select few. The "Believe as I believe or I will kill you" mentality.

Tim - Nov 17, 2001 01:42 PM ( 5. )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
WebMD | Forumbuilders.com

 *



Photo of Author
Posts: 1078
Just like

Crashing a Plane into a building is a symptom of terrorism.....

Bombing the snot out of the country that Hides and Protects the terrorist...is a symptom of retaliation
Interesting. Where do you think this would be under a Gore presidency? And where do you think this would be under a Nader presidency? Seriously.



My personal take is that under Gore it would be a big "whine and cheese Sheesh party" ( or was that "sigh") I just don't think he would be equipt to deal with the situation at hand.

As for Nader.... well I just think the response would be as rash as crashing planes into perfectly good buildings killing thousands of innocent lives.
Elaborate on it in which way? Western civilization shouldn't go on a crusade to convert other cultures. Causing the receiving side to feel threatened in its cultural identity is what I mean by westernism. Somehow the US over and over is perceived by other cultures to have such an attitude.
Instead, other cultures should be encouraged to develop higher ethical standards from within the strength of their own culture. Building a multi-cultural consensus on ethics.



While I can see your point about not crusading to convert other cultures, we're talkin about the Taliban who is just as guilty of doing the same. They just use other methods and other tools.

I am not going to touch the "higher ethical standards" thats kind of a contradiction in this case IMO

Tim


ForumBuilders.com.... If You Build it... They Will Come!

Chris - Nov 17, 2001 09:06 PM ( 5.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Just like: Crashing a Plane into a building is a symptom of terrorism..... Bombing the snot out of the country that Hides and Protects the terrorist...is a symptom of retaliation


Yes, exactly.

I am not going to touch the "higher ethical standards" thats kind of a contradiction in this case IMO


Sorry, I know you didn't want to touch on this... but a contradiction in which way?

As for Nader.... well I just think the response would be as rash as....


Could you elaborate on this? How do you think a Nader presidency would have responded?

Regarding the Bush/Gore/Nader thing and the way US citizens currently see Bush... I truely believe that - when attacked like this - the american people would have rallied behind whoever would have been president. Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, you name it. When you're attacked, you stick together! That's the way it should be!

Personally, almost everytime Bush opens his mouth, what comes out feels to me like an embarrassment of the human species. His statements lack profoundness and he sounds like a broken record. It really hurts to listen to him! (I'm probably in a lot of trouble now!)

I do see the other sides, too! Nader of course just doesn't reflect where the US people currently are. Gore I always saw as unelectable because he wasn't 'presidential'. Bush always was the candidate that was the most 'presidential'. This just shows again that this kind of concentration of power - and even more importantly: public attention - on a single individual isn't a healthy thing. A nation should be run by an executive board with members from all major political forces in concordance and not by a single individual. That's not democratic enough. (I'm probably in even more trouble now!)

Sue - Nov 18, 2001 01:27 AM ( 5.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Director of Community Development, WCI

n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 11830
A nation should be run by an executive board with members from all major political forces in concordance and not by a single individual. That's not democratic enough.


I guess Congress and the judicial branch don't count then, eh?


Chris - Nov 18, 2001 01:46 AM ( 5.1.1.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
Nope. They don't count because they are legislative and judiciary bodies. But yes, they are good examples of how it should be done in the executive body as well.

Jeff Porten - Nov 25, 2001 12:43 PM ( 5.1.2 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1623
Personally, almost everytime Bush opens his mouth, what comes out feels to me like an embarrassment of the human species. His statements lack profoundness and he sounds like a broken record. It really hurts to listen to him! (I'm probably in a lot of trouble now!)


Nope, I agree. But it leads me to wonder why you say...

Gore I always saw as unelectable because he wasn't 'presidential'. Bush always was the candidate that was the most 'presidential'.


So you think idiocy and total ignorance of international affairs is "presidential"?

Chris - Nov 27, 2001 08:03 PM ( 5.1.2.1 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n



Photo of Author
Posts: 1191
I claimed that Gore was unelectable because he wasn't 'presidential'.

Jeff writes:
So you think idiocy and total ignorance of international affairs is "presidential"?


Don't know how to put this into words... What makes Quale less 'presidential' than Bush? Or what made Bush more electable than Quale? Gore somehow had a touch of that 'unelectability cloud' that Quale used to carry around with himself. Bush is more 'american'. And Bush can fill that 'Daddy' role that americans tend to associate with the presidency.

So, with 'presidental' I'm not referring to professional qualifications but to the symbolic status that the presidency has in the US society.

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

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n n



Photo of Author
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 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n n n



Photo of Author
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 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n n n n n n



Photo of Author
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 )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

n n n n n n n



Photo of Author
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. )

Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
WebMD | Forumbuilders.com

 *



Photo of Author
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 )

Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

n



Photo of Author
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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    Director of Community Development, WCI

    n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    Director of Education, WCI

    n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    Director of Community Development, WCI

    n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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. )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    Director of Education, WCI

     *



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    Director of Education, WCI

    n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    Director of Education, WCI

    n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

    n n n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Delete this message Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message

    n n n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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 )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    Manager of Technical Services, Readerville.com

    n n n n n n n



    Photo of Author
    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. )

    Email this message to a friend Reply to this message Bookmark this message
    WebMD | Forumbuilders.com

     *



    Photo of Author
    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!


    Continues on the following page...



    24.12.2001, 10:52

    The war against terror (continued)


    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

    > 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 Dürrenmatt - Die Schweiz als Gefängnis
    > Anno 1990: RasterOps
    > Enable the Creative
    > Photoshop Startup Memories and First Demo
    > Anno 1989: Lambada by Kaoma
    > Anno 1988: Perfect by Fairground Attraction
    > Bürgerbrief
    > 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




    sovereignty, subsidiarity,
    solidarity and sustainability

    server-side javascript

    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
    > Culture of Collaboration
    > Les idées principales de l'anarchisme et la critique de l'Union Européenne
    > Polymoney Workshop
    > Zukunftsforum im Lorraine Quartier
    > The Cryptosphere: decentralised, secure and open Web platform
    > Rolling Stone: In the Belly Of The Beast
    > Trends in Civic Tech
    > Changelog for RingoJS 0.10
    > Invitation to the 2013 "Beau-Sejour" gathering, October 25-27 in St-Imier, Switzerland
    > Virtual roundtable on governance
    > E-Voting: gesunde Skepsis und OpenSource ist nötig
    > in-vitra Kulturen- und Kunstplattform in Biel-Bienne
    > Es gibt kein Recht auf unethisches Verhalten.
    > Open Air Filmvorführung in Bern am 11.8.: In Transition 2.0
    > Sommerfest von Transition Bern
    > Surfing Democracy November 25-26 2013
    > Green Phoenix Congress, September 25-29 2013, Schweibenalp, Switzerland
    > Leitideen des Anarchismus und EU-Kritik
    > Nourrir la ville - Tagung für lokale und nachhaltige Strategien
    > Installing Democracy
    > Edward Snowden, NSA PRISM wistleblower
    > Grüne NetzpolitikerInnen gegen BÜPF und NDG
    > 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 säen – 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 Vélokaravane à Courtelary le 13.4.2013 au Toit des Saltimbanques
    > Paddock cahier des charges choice creating session
    > Ad-hoc Choice Creating
    > Gründungsversammlung Swiss Foodcoop Genossenschaft
    > Jim Rough enjoying Hiltl...
    > RingoJS hits 0.9
    > Souper et débat politique - Round Three
    > Weltformatplakat GPB-DA, Stadtratswahlen 2012
    > NEIN zum Tierseuchengesetz am 25.11.2012 - NON à la loi révisée sur les épizooties
    > Participate.ch brings Dynamic Facilitation Training to Zurich, March 4-6, 2013
    > Souper - Débat politique à Espace Noir
    > Du 8 au 12 août, les Imériens 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 Mittnächtler
    > Declaration of Interdependence, Occupy Café 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
    > Journée: Coopératives & énergies 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 schildbürgerliches Wachstum
    > Consensus & Direct Democracy @ Occupy Everything
    > Libertär, EU-kritisch, ökologisch, 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 Grünen sind die liberalsten
    > Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul
    > 25th Fête 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 Javascript plug-in for Eclipse
    > Catching up to Continuations
    > Mighty and Beastie Licenses
    > Tasting the OpenMocha Console
    > "Who am I?", asks Helma
    > Savety vs Freedom and other recent ramblings
    > Mont-Soleil Open Air Lineup
    > Rhinola - Mocha reduced to the minimum
    > OpenMocha 0.6 available for download
    > E4X presentation by Brendan Eich
    > What is Mocha?
    > Do you remember Gopher?
    > The current.tv disappointment
    > OpenMocha Project Roadmap
    > MochiKit Javascript Library
    > Getting your feet wet with OpenMocha
    > People flocking to see global warming
    > Rails vs Struts vs Mocha
    > The JavaScript Manifesto
    > OpenMocha is ready for a spin
    > The limits of harmonization
    > Le Conseil fédéral au Mont-Soleil
    > Amiga History Guide
    > The people must lead the executive, control the legislature and be the military
    > Copyback License
    > Looking at FreeBSD 6 and Beyond
    > Qualified Minority Veto
    > The Doom of Representative Democracy
    > Violence in a real democracy
    > Concordance and Subsidiarity
    > Wrapping Aspects around Mocha Objects?
    > Future of Javascript Roadmap
    > Baby steps towards Javascript heaven
    > Mac OS X spreading like wildfire
    > Trois petits filous à Faoug
    > Jackrabbit JSR 170
    > Rich components for HTML 5
    > More Java Harmony
    > Mac goes Intel
    > Google goes Rumantsch
    > Oxymoronic Swiss-EU relations
    > Rico and Prototype Javascript libraries
    > Paul Klee - An intangible man and artist
    > Incrementalism in the Mozilla roadmap
    > Mocha multi-threading
    > Moving towards OpenMocha
    > Google goes Portal
    > What Bush doesn't get
    > Unique and limited window of opportunity
    > Persisting Client-side Errors to your Server
    > Dive Into Greasemonkey
    > Brown bears knock on Switzerland's door
    > The experience to make what people want
    > "Just" use HTTP
    > Yes, what is gather?
    > A Free Song for Every Swiss Citizen
    > Java in Harmony
    > Jan getting carried away
    > Evil Google Web Accelerator?
    > JSON.stringify and JSON.parse
    > Ajax for Java
    > The launching of launchd
    > Timeless RSS
    > Kupu
    > SNIFE goes Victorinox
    > AJAX is everywhere
    > Papa Ratzi
    > How Software Patents Work
    > Ten good practices for writing Javascript
    > Free-trade accord with japan edges closer
    > Mocha at a glance
    > Adobe acquires Macromedia
    > Safari 1.3
    > View complexity is usually higher than model complexity
    > Free Trade Neutrality
    > SQL for Java Objects
    > Security Bypass
    > Exactly 1111111111 seconds
    > Kurt goes Chopper
    > Choosing a Java scripting language
    > Spamalot's will get spammed a lot
    > The visual Rhino debugger
    > The Unix wars
    > EU-Council adopts software patent directive
    > FreeBSD baby step "1j"
    > Never trust a man who can count to 1024 on his fingers
    > Visiting the world's smallest city
    > Finally some non-MS, non-nonsense SPF news
    > Swiss cows banned from eating grass
    > Ludivines, the "Green Fairy" of absinthe
    > First Look At Solaris 10
    > EU Commission Declines Patent Debate Restart
    > Alan Kay's wisdom guiding the OpenLaszlo roadmap towards Mocha?
    > 1 Kilo
    > Re: FreeBSD logo design competition
    > Schweizer Sagen
    > Europas Eidgenossen
    > Art Nouveau La Chaux-de-Fonds 2005-2006
    > XMLHttpRequest glory
    > The Beastie Silhouette
    > The Number One Nightmare
    > Safe and Idempotent Methods such as HEAD and TRACE
    > Sorry, you have been verizoned.
    > Daemons and Pixies and Fairies, Oh My!
    > Sentient life forms as MIME-attachments: RFC 1437
    > Anno 2004: CZV
    > Web Developer Extension for Firefox
    > Refactoring until nothing is left
    > Brendan, never tired of providing Javascript support
    > Catching XP in just 20 Minutes
    > Designing the Star User Interface
    > Rhino, Mono, IKVM. Or: JavaScript the hard way
    > Re: SCO
    > Judo
    > Convergence on abstraction and on browser-based Console evaluation
    > Today found out that inifinite uptimes are still an oxymoron
    > New aspects of woven apps
    > Original Contribution License (OCL) 1.0
    > Unified SPF: a grand unified theory of MARID
    > BSD is designed. Linux is grown.
    > 5 vor 12 bei 10 vor 10
    > Mocha vs Helma?
    > Schattenwahrheit: Coup d'etat underway against the Cheney Circle?
    > Abschluss Bilaterale II Schweiz-EU
    > From Adam Smith to Open Source
    > Linux - the desktop for the rest of them
    > Big Bang
    > Leaky Hop Objects
    > Return Path Rewriting (RPR) - Mail Forwarding in the Spam Age
    > Microsoft Discloses Huge Number Of Windows Vulnerabilties
    > Steuerungsabgabe statt Steuern
    > Anno 2003: deployZone
    > The war against terror
    > The war against terror (continued)
    > The relativity of Apple's market share
    > Are humans animals?
    > Server-side Javascript
    > Democracy Now!
    > The Cluetrain Manifesto
    > Anno 1999: Der Oberhasler
    > More >>>