The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 07:12 PM

Don, I get the strong impression that you're looking for more things to disagree with WAV about, just because you've already been disagreeing with him for quite awhile now.

I see a lot of that on Mudcat threads. It becomes like a dog barking at his own echo after awhile.

How about taking a little break? There must be something you two could agree on as well, surely?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 07:30 PM

Just a quick note to one and all on this thread.

If you want to read some real thoughts, beautifully written, intelligent, and image laden......thoughts that may make you think but are not laced with the willy-nilly bullshit and racist bigotry of this trash (my sincere opinion and not an attack), I suggest you try out Peter T. who has decided to return his classic "Thought for the Day" threads that were once a daily fixture of the 'Cat.

Unlike this junk they are topical and not posted elsewhere. If you want to read Wavygravy crap go to the Wavygravy crap site but if you are looking for something far better Click Here

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 07:57 PM

I appreciate your sentiments as a peacemaker, Little Hawk, but I believe I've already adequately explained myself (quoting Edmind Burke in the process). By the way, why single out me? You will note that I am not the only one who is opposed to WAV's continued efforts to persuade others to his narrow views. And I have already agreed with a few things he has said (re: eco-tourism and free trade).

Something to contemplate:   I believe it was the poet Dante who, in his Inferno, said that the lowest rung in Hell is reserved for those who, in time of disagreement over a moral issue, maintain an aloof "colorless neutrality."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 08:30 PM

By the way, the nature of the "ethnic conflict in California, in the early 90s."

CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 08:49 PM

It's not that I'm singling you out particularly, Don, yours was just the latest post devoted to arguing with WAV when I happened to take a look today. Nothing more to it than that.

I am not engaging in colorless neutrality here. I am observing something which I think is rather obsessive-compulsive and which goes on here on Mudcat all the time: people endlessly wrangling with other people over various things which are never going to be resolved, because their resolution would require someone submitting himself finally to the will of another and admitting that he is "wrong", in effect surrendering unconditionally...and most people simply are not willing to do that (for obvious psychological reasons).

Nor are countries...unless forced to by violence.

This is not a war, however, it's a conversation. Nothing is at stake here except some illusory sense of triumph for someone's ego because they just managed to argue someone else into submission (or so they think).

To note this is not to strike a pose of "neutrality" in the argument. It is to observe and comment upon the frailties of the human ego.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 09:32 PM

Little Hawk, I don't think taking a position on a moral issue is merely "some illusory sense of triumph for someone's ego because they just managed to argue someone else into submission (or so they think)."

My ego is perfectly intact, thank you. Were I in need of an ego-boost, there are far more reliable ways for me to acquire it than what I am attempting here. You see, I have no hope of changing David Franks' mind. I think he's too far gone. But I would urge those who might be persuaded by him to think very carefully.

I'm sure there were people who got tired of Pastor Martin Niemoller's sermons ("First, they came. . . ."), but if more people had needed what he was saying, it might have made a great deal of difference in the history of the modern world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 09:36 PM

And, there is considerably more "at stake" here than merely winning an argument.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 09:56 PM

Don, I think that your sermons to WAV are not going to make any difference in the history of the modern world.

And neither are his responses to you. And neither are my comments either. We are all just keeping our restless little minds busy here for a few more minutes, because the human mind is like a dog chewing on a bone...it can't resist...and I know it.

Therefore I do not take it terribly seriously, but I am perennially interested anyway in people's minds, hearts, and souls...the working of their inner psychology, because I fine that interesting in its own right. Period. And that's why I comment upon it.

Not because my comment is important. Not because I think it will change anything or anyone. Just because I find the subject interesting. That's good enough.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 10:09 PM

I admire your ability to remain above it all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Aug 08 - 11:06 PM

Sorry, Little Hawk. That was a bit snide.

However, when you go into this mode, you do have a tendency to act like a scientist commenting on the behavior of bacteria in a Petri dish.

Rather off-putting in its air of superiority, really.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 12:04 AM

Well....I don't actually feel superior, Don. I'm just saying in all honesty how I truly see it (these lengthy personal arguments here), that's all. I think we're all just keeping our restless minds busy here, and I say that in all humility. I'm no better than you or WAV or anyone else.

I don't know you well enough to have any reason to feel superior to you. I don't know anyone here well enough to have any reason to feel superior to them. Honestly. I do know that some people here are crueler than me or harder than me or stronger than me in some way (and others not), but there are probably reasons why in every case, reasons that I'll never know.

I think the only people I've ever seriously felt superior to or been tempted to are some I've known for many years face to face...mostly close relatives or perhaps a lover or two. (and that's a case of that old demon "familiarity breeds contempt" in action).

I'm not really superior to them either. I'm just different in some way, and our rough edges have bugged the hell out of each other over the years because life brought us together closely, and we couldn't avoid it.

The only thing that I think actually matters is love. We hunger for it all our lives. We grow bitter over love denied, love withheld, love reached for but not grasped. We cling to what little love we have actualized.

I figure at the end of my life that none of the debates and arguments will matter. They'll fade into nothing. Only what love I was able to give and receive will count for anything in the end.

It troubles me to see endless arguments fester between people, because I feel that someone is getting hurt. That's mainly why I don't like it. It's not that I'm observing it like I was looking at germs in a petrie dish. It's not detachment. It's that I think people are getting hurt, and probably unnecessarily.

In other words, I empathize with anyone who is in pain. I always did. The people I get truly angry with are those who delight in causing another's pain. Mercy is a mighty thing. So is compassion. So is forgiveness. Revenge is a simply dreadful thing.

I'm not officially a Christian, not officially of any religion, but I profoundly believe what Jesus taught about mercy, compassion, and not judging others. I try to live that way as best I can. I fall somewhat short, of course, like most people, but I try. ;-)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:15 AM

Let me try this again......Just a quick note to one and all on this thread.



If you want to read some real thoughts, beautifully written, intelligent, and image laden......thoughts that may make you think but are not laced with the willy-nilly bullshit and racist bigotry of this trash (my sincere opinion and not an attack), I suggest you try out Peter T. who has decided to return his classic "Thought for the Day" threads that were once a daily fixture of the 'Cat.



Unlike this junk they are topical and not posted elsewhere. If you want to read Wavygravy crap go to the Wavygravy crap site but if you are looking for something far better Click Here



Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:31 AM

Thought for the day

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:41 AM

Catspaw49,

About the only people currently posting to this thread who are not arguing with Walkabout are You, me, Carol and Walkabout. Are you inviting these people to go argue with PeterT? Why are you so concerned with breaking up a 370 post argument? Is it a Monty Python thing?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:52 AM

So, uh, what's this thread about? In ten words or less--(I know that it's fewer, but really I just don't care). I want to sleep before my 62 birthday and I'm 60 now, so I don't have time to read it all.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:43 AM

Its about 365+ posts of complete crappola Peace. If you're looking for good thoughts, try Peter T.'s return of his Thought For The Day threads.

This thread is similar in idea and concept but comparing Peter's writings to WalksaboutVerse's bigoted ramblings and rationalizations is the difference between sipping tea at twilight in a Japanese garden or staring at a dozen turds floating in a punchbowl.

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:45 AM

Supposed to be the guy's poetry, loosely rhymed and metered. But its mostly arguing and personal attacks upon him. At one point his posts were apparently being vandalized and his links changed buy another member of some sort of hacker. He may have the thickest skin I have ever seen on this forum. He ought to get some sort of recognition for that.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:49 AM

Oh, Peace, did I forget to mention Catspaw's neurotic and frantic complaining?

(Not an attack, just an opinion ;-) )

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 06:32 AM

I took a tour of the UN when I was in New York, Don - but, as said above, in England we get a lot more news of US affairs. However, I seem to recall something about the UN helping set up eco-tourism, and, as for global fair-trade, which is NOT going to happen freely!, who better than the UN? And I agree that we've agreed on somethings.
To LH - I agree with what you said on love, and another argument of mine is a related idea of "coupleism"...there's too much of this "every man and woman for him- or herself" and "anyone's fair game" now, which led me to include this in my collection...

Poem 88 of 230: FROM 20TH-CENTURY SEXUALITY

From One Lover to Free Lover to Fee Lover,
    For children's sakes, let's fashion back to One Lover:
In public-life there are - guess what - women and men;
    Thus, upbringing's best by a woman and a man -
Not by one or two men, or one or two women,
    And not in a tug-of-war of women and men.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,stu
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:12 AM

Come on WAV, admit to it - you're just trolling

Stu

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 08:46 AM

No, Stu - responding, discussing, etc. - sometimes with what I've already published elsewhere, in verse and prose.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Stu
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:11 AM

Then where do you think this poem will lead - perhaps it will seem homophobic to some people? Could it be that a troll might use a similar approach to posting- think of something that will cause people t argue, then sit back and watch the fun?

Stu

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 11:02 AM

If you truly are discussing, would you expalin in more detail how nationalism with fair trade is good, or works? I honestly haven't the foggiest what you mean by it.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:15 PM

The problem with thinking the UN can enforce the kinds of things that are being suggested is that the UN is only made up of its member nations. If the member nations don't want any particular policy to be agreed upon, they won't agree on it. And worse, the UN is not a democracy. The UN has a few very powerful players who essentially call all the shots while most of the countries don't really have any say. It's not possible for the UN to do anything other than enforce the will of the most powerful nations. And even if it were a democracy, and all of the member nations had the same amount of say, there's no way the member nations would ever agree to the sort of thing that is being proposed in this thread.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:18 PM

It looks to me like nationalism with free trade means that all countries in the world would pay their workers a fair and living wage so that nobody would need to (or feel the need to) leave their country of origin and go to another country to live because they don't feel they can have a good standard of living in their own country. Personally, I think it would be excellent if this were the reality, and I think most of the people who are currently having to leave their own countries for economic reasons would agree with this.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:20 PM

Correction - nationalism with fair trade.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 01:28 PM

There are different kinds and degrees of nationalism, Volgadon, as I, and Don, have noted above - I'm stressing with fair-trade rather than imperialism/conquest; I couldn't imagine modern Scottish nationalists aiming to conquer other lands, could you?
To Stu - I'm NOT against same sex partnerships but I am against them being allowed to bring up a child: the latter being a very new New Labour attitude here. In 1950s England, I may have been radical in some aspects, but no-where near as much as I am now; many would have agreed with me on many things; and society, overall, was better then.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:08 PM

Yes, but how does it work with fair trade?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:13 PM

Yes, Carol, I thought that was a temporary mistake when I read it - the Tory, e.g., idea that allowing a free market will result in everyone prospering is a load of rich rubbish: without REGULATIONS, there will always be rotten inhumane inequality in the world. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one nation/one vote at least an ideal of the UN (if much abused by the more powerful nations, as you noted). I'm sure I read, or heard a guide say that on my 1997 visit there.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:20 PM

Walkabout verse,have you thought of teaming up with Tone Deaf Leopard.
It could be an interesting version of cross english pollenation.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:27 PM

Have you actually looked at the so-called Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Us and Mexico?

It's a load of horseshit.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:28 PM

I think giving the five strongest nations veto power was one of the major blunders in setting up the U. N. That's been the stumbling-block that has rendered it relatively ineffective all these years.

". . . but I am against them being allowed to bring up a child. . . ."

Not arguing with you, David, this is just for your information and something you might want to take into consideration.

I know a same-sex couple (who, incidentally have been married in a church ceremony, even though this state doesn't recognize same-sex marriages—yet), two prominent attorneys in this area, who have adopted two children from Chinese orphanages. I've watched with some interest and curiosity (I, too, initially had my doubts) as these youngsters grew. They are bright, well-adjusted, and happy, and although they are aware that some people regard their family situation is unusual, this does not seem to matter to them. They call one of their fathers "Daddy" and the other "Papa." As far as feminine contact is concerned, they have a couple of aunts who spend considerable time with them.

I submit that these two youngsters are now having, and will continue to have, a far better life with Steve and Dave as their parents than they would had they grown up in an orphanage, where the Chinese policy of "one child" meant that they would never have been adopted, nor experience any kind of family life.

Apart from their sexual orientation, Steve and Dave are as straight-arrow as any two guys around. Pedophilia is no more of a concern here than it would be with heterosexual parents, if that's what worries you.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, I won't be in anybody's hair for the rest of the day. The writers' group I belong to will be arriving within half an hour, and after that, I'm making music with friends.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:28 PM

The U.N. is, as Carol said, not democratic at all. It's controlled by a few powerful nations through the Security Council. It was set up that way by the winners of the last world war in order to perpetuate their own hold on power. They were all technically allies at the time, but a falling out between Russia and the West was just around the corner.

The USA, the UK, France, China and Russia set up the U.N. in January 1946 to be their tool for continuing world dominance. The victors, in other words, intended to take the spoils. To pretend that this was an attempt to establish genuine international freedom, justice, and equality is laughable.

From Wickipedia:

"The Council seated five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:

The French Republic
The Republic of China
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The United States of America
Two of the original members, the Republic of China and the Soviet Union, were later replaced by recognized successor states, even though Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations has not been accordingly amended:

The People's Republic of China
The Russian Federation "


What does it all amount to? Power politics and sheer pragmatism. The U.N. is a compliant tool of a few major powers. The situation has been made more complex since 1946, however, by the fact that those powers do not necessarily see eye to eye on a number of international issues.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 02:54 PM

Technically each country may have one vote, but only the five permanent members of the security council have the power to veto. Which in essence means they are the only ones who really have a vote.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 03:07 PM

Correct. The others are there for window dressing.


Japan and Germany are certainly nations who ought to have a major voice in world affairs via the United Nations...but they (along with Italy) had just been defeated in WWII, so naturally they got basically no voice at all at the time. There is no rational reason why they should not both now be members of a world Security Council if there is to be one at all.

We are living in an old world order that was cobbled together over 60 years ago out of the wreckage of a world war. It does not properly serve present realities.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Aug 08 - 09:37 PM

"Have you actually looked at the so-called Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Us and Mexico?"

The FTA with Australia is here called "The F*** the Aussies" arrangement...

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 05:00 AM

One positive, then, is that people here, from those powerful/veto nations, are saying that the UN should be a lot more democratic and, thereby, stronger...the ocean is made of many drops...

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 09:41 AM

The UN is a forum. Its a place where nations can meet and discuss their challenges and their differences. The members of the security council have vetoes to prevent a great power shooting war. So far, in that regard at least, the system has worked.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 10:31 AM

I don't know. We have seen from recent history that the US, at least, isn't too concerned with whether or not the UN approves when it decides it wants to commit acts of aggression against other countries. I don't think UN disapproval would prevent the US from lobbing a few nukes at Iran.

I'm definitely on the side of making the UN more democratic. Or for the rest of the world to form their own, democratic, UN equivalent.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 10:58 AM

I'm definitely on the side of making the UN more democratic. Or for the rest of the world to form their own, democratic, UN equivalent.

Sounds good to me but there are a number of countries that would, by there very nature, be disinclined to participate in a democratic UN.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 11:47 AM

Yeah, that's true. The current Security Council members, for instance (most likely). But they can be made irrelevant.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:25 PM

Them obviously, but I was also thinking about countries that lack any sort of democratic tradition within their own borders.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:30 PM

I don't know.. even if the leaders of such countries don't want democracy for their own citizens, I'd be willing to bet they'd like to have some of it for themselves in relation to the other nations of the world. Right now, they're at a distinct disadvantage.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:41 PM

Hard to say. Some dictator types might go for something like that, others probably wouldn't.

For a system like WAV advocates to really work all countries would have to buy in. If just one country creates ethnic or economic refugees then the rest would have to deal with them.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

I agree. I don't believe it would be possible to get enough countries to agree with such an arrangement for any of them to be able to make it happen.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 12:51 PM

It makes no difference, KB, whether or not a smaller country has democracy within its own borders...it would still want an equal voice and an equal vote alongside other countries in an organization like the U.N. if it could get them.

No one wants his OWN freedom and voice to be restricted, regardless of how he treats his underlings/citizenry/etc. ;-) Leaders just like others' freedoms to be restricted if it gets in the way of something they want done (or not done).

In fact, I would argue that those MOST likely to restrict their own citizens' freedom are those MOST likely to intensely desire total freedom of action for themselves and their government. It is the very definition of a dictator to be like that.

****

The USA, for instance, wants total freedom to attack anyone in the world that it decides to, any time it decides to, and assumes that it has the absolute right to, regardless of U.N. approval or not...but it accords no one else such rights, except Israel.

Interesting. One has to wonder why? Is it sheer blind hubris or is it a carefully ordered plan of action? Or is it both?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:10 PM

It makes no difference, KB, whether or not a smaller country has democracy within its own borders...it would still want an equal voice and an equal vote alongside other countries in an organization like the U.N. if it could get them.

I don't think it's that simple. Some of your basic dictator types don't want to have to do anything in any way differently than what they want. Participating in as a true partner in a democratic UN would not be easy for some folks of that stripe.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:11 PM

Both.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 01:57 PM

No, being a true partner means that you use your vote the way it is meant to be used. Dictators would still want a vote, to make sure nobody can push them around.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 08 - 02:05 PM

Dictators love getting a chance to sound off and vote in any forum like the U.N. They enjoy it. They just don't feel inclined to be bound by the results of such a vote if it doesn't go their way... ;-)

Like Bush when he failed to get the U.N. Security Council's approval to invade Iraq in 2003.

I say Bush because Bush is a temporary semi-Constitutional dictator. (unless he declares martial law and stops the next election from happening...in that case he would become a fullblown all-out dictator)