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?
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.
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.
"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.
...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'.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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'.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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!)
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?
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
There are enough cultural disagreements between Europeans; you expect to come to a global consensus?
Yes, most certainly I do!!! There is a cross-cultural consensus on ethics that could be reached (
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/
). And the political model that could administer this exists as well:
The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on
subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in
concordance.
So, how is saying that Islamic culture "needs to do" anything NOT imperialistic and bullish, Chris?
If we tell them that they need to change, it's imperialistic. If we encourage them to evolve, it's not.
I don't know about you, but *I* don't live in a Christian culture. I'm
Jewish, my culture is secular. Lots of people in my culture are
Christian, of course, and twice a year they tend to jam this down my
throat, which makes me rude and irritable and extremely Scrooge-like.
I
understand. But just step back a bit and look at the full picture. The
jewish culture has a long history of existing 'surrounded' by the
christian one (being more or less tolerated at different times). I
believe there is nobody that knows that better than the Jews. The
secularization was made possible mainly by the enlightenment which
allowed the individual to turn against institutionalized religion. The
secular model that is so dominating at this time is one that evolved
out of christianity. I'm not saying that it could not have or would not
have evolved from Judaism or any other religion - but it was the
christian reformation that did it. I'm no Christian and the 'secular'
label that you prefer to use is fine with me. In the context of my
postings it was however important to point out that the christian
culture had an easier time to allow a secular society to evolve than it
is now the case for the Islamic culture.
But
please don't tell me that Christian culture is any better than Islamic
culture. Every time I've seen a Christian culture in action, it's
tended to be as repressive and militant as the worst examples of
Islamic cultures.
I agree, Jeff - I agree!
Ok, let's be clear. The terrorist attacks were against 4,603 PEOPLE
from around 60 different nations. Not against westernism, not against
western civilization, but against people. Any other description begins
the process of rationalization and desensitization.
I
don't think you're serious about that. It was a highly symbolic act by
an extremist believe system against another believe system.
This isn't about culture. Trust me, if Switzerland were harboring bin
Laden and refused to negotiate, we'd probably be bombing the hell out
of you.
We're harboring Mark Rich - that causes already enough trouble
Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.
We were perfectly happy with the Taliban for the past five years, for better or for worse.
I
think the international community including the US has been negotiating
with the Taliban about handing out bin Laden since 1997. But yes, the
US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first
place (unintentionally).
There is a cross-cultural consensus on ethics that could be reached (
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/stiftung-weltethos/
). And the political model that could administer this exists as well:
The sovereign individual as the foundation, delegating power based on
subsidiarity and at any of those levels governing together in
concordance.
Chris, at least here in the US,
there's a sort of osmotic membrane between how political scientists
look at the world, and how "regular educated people" look at the world.
Your language is on the other side of my membrane.
Don't get
me wrong, I'm proud of my academic background and I like to talk theory
when it's appropriate. I also believe that theory can get in the way
sometimes, as I'll point out below.
In any case, that's the
context for what I'm about to say: I went to the site, saw that tenet
#4 was "the transformation of consciousness!" and immediately dismissed
the document, sight unseen. It's written in a language designed to be
dismissed as crackpot here.
The jewish
culture has a long history of existing 'surrounded' by the christian
one (being more or less tolerated at different times). I believe there
is nobody that knows that better than the Jews.
Actually,
we have a far better track record of being tolerated by Muslims than
Christians. It was the Christians who historically expelled and
massacred us. And it's not lost on many Jews that we didn't get our own
nation-state until we adopted the militaristic and oppressive tenets of
our adversaries.
I don't think you're serious
about that. It was a highly symbolic act by an extremist believe system
against another believe system.
And I don't
believe you're serious about THAT. A symbolic attack could have been
done with FedEx jets at 2 AM, with loss of life in the dozens. This is
where academia gets in the way of intelligence; the symbolism, whatever
might have been intended, is utterly dwarfed and made meaningless by
the loss of life.
Bin Laden is a symptom - not the problem. The problem IS about culture.
Bin Laden is a mass murderer. You can call him symptom, problem, cause, or cup of Swiss chocolate, and I really don't care.
Where
I *will* be glad to argue with you is about what things made the US in
general and the WTC in particular the focus of the attack. I still
think it's because we have the audacity to be rich while the world is
poor, and because we have a society that values freedom of movement
over security and hence made these ripe, juicy targets.
Our
culture is more or less dominating the world in exported media and
promotion of free trade. We weren't attacked by the Chinese, the
Russians, the Africans, or anyone else whose culture is threatened. We
weren't attacked by the Islamic nations of Bosnia, Pakistan, or Saudi
Arabia. We were attacked by a deranged madman whose wealth and
political protection gave him the opportunity to lash out.
Any
chance bin Laden might have had for a fair hearing of his views, he
forfeited. I don't care if he actually is channeling the word of God.
To try to understand how he thinks -- to even acknowledge that he has a
point of view -- is to encourage others to use the same means to gain
the attention of the world stage.
But yes, the US certainly had its hand in getting the Taliban to power in the first place (unintentionally).
No,
it was pretty intentional. There's all sorts of documentation that the
rise of the Taliban is exactly the sort of blowback caused by poorly
designed US policies. Bin Laden's first training camps were built by
the CIA for the Taliban when it was us against the Soviets. This is
exactly the sort of thing that should cause the "tapping on the
shoulder" of the US that I wrote about earlier.
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?
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.
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.
"Yes,
Islam has some built in machanisms that are designed to prevent it from
evolving. But as with so many things in religion, there are a few open
doors that leave room for interpretation."
The ones I know of are:
(1)
Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, which is taken to be "inspired by God
and written by man", the Koran is taken to be the literal word of God,
memorized by the prophet Mohammed and transcribed literally word for
word - thus leaving less room, if any, for interpretation.
(2)
Unlike the Judeo-Christian Bible, which foresees new prophets, the
Koran imposes a lock-down feature that demands that Mohammed be
recognized as the
final
prophet and that the Koran be the last word.
Any others?
doug
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
There is some room for interpretation whenever the Koran has various
laws that apply to a situation and the Koran isn't clear as to the
order or preference that should be given to the various laws. But
that's about it, I think.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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!
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
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:
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
That doesn't mean that US foreign policies didn't develope their flaws.
