Non-Music -What the world has to say

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: GUEST,Captain America
Date: 20 Oct 01 - 11:47 AM

The U.S. government/Terrorist comparison (and variations of it) frequently pops up on bulk emailings. It is then almost immediately refuted on a point-by-point basis by anyone with a well-informed perspective. I am not going to waste my time doing it here, since, from an intellectual perspective, it is about as frustratng as trying to reason with a child about monsters under their bed. Equally naive is the ravings about loss of civil liberties. Current actions to maintain domestic security pale in comparison to what was enacted during periods like the Civil War (when Lincoln assumed almost dictatorial powers) and World War Two when all forms of communication were strongly censored. The mindless repetition of quasi-factoids by both the far left and far right in this crisis is an insult to rational thinking.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 09:42 PM

I don't think ANYONE here likes the Taliban one bit, or sympathizes with their approach toward running a society. I sure don't. Never did.

On the other hand, to make further impassioned statements about how awful and heinous it is for those terrorists to blow up buildings full of civilians would serve the same purpose as saying "Water is wet!!! DAMN WET!"

Yeah, okay. We all know that. It's totally obvious. Now what?

It is the "now what" part that we are debating about here...as in "what would be the best response to this situation?". Various of us differ on that. To so differ does not in any way indicate approval for acts of terrorism or empathy with those acts.

To suggest that past western policies have helped incubate terrorism does not in any way indicate approval of terrorism.

The only thing that bugs people in a debate like this is: when someone else tends to beat a different emotional drum than they do. They get mightily offended by that, and tend to assume that the other person believes all kinds of wrongful stuff...which may not, in fact be the case. Well, that's the way it goes...we don't all focus on precisely the same angle all the time, do we?

But we (on Mudcat) do all agree that the Taliban are a horrifically awful regime.

What we do not necessarily agree upon is that high-tech war may not be the most appropriate and effective means of resolving longstanding international problems.

- LH

Doug - I pay for the tea. :-) Like I do for other stuff, cos I have no other choice at present (well, I could steal it, I guess, but I don't regard that as a realistic choice...). If some goddamn corporation had a way of cornering the market on air and sunlight, I would have to pay for those too, but they haven't quite managed that yet. Thank God. I do pretty well have to buy bottled water now, cos most tap water is getting not too clean, so that's one more thing that used to be free, and now is not, cos our uncontrolled expansionism has polluted most of the fresh water.

I envision, however, a situation where the tea would not have to be paid for, by me or anyone else, but would simply be there for all to drink. For a reference to that notion, view reruns of "Star Trek Next Generation" to see how it could be done (and I don't mean with replicators), what the motivation to accomplish work would be in such a society, and why money is not a necessary part of the equation in such a society.

Utopian? You betcha! The hard won social rights and freedoms we in North America take for granted most of the time now were considered Utopian by most people only a rather short time ago, historically speaking.

It is today's utopian who envisions tomorrow's greatest achievements, so I am proud to be seen as one.

- LH

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 08:51 PM

LOL Sophocleese!

Amazing to see how suddenly some of you guys have got yourselves worked up about the nature of the Taliban. Kat, I and others have been banging on about it for years, ina fair amount of detail. Never crossed my mind that bombing their hospitals was the answer.

While you're in the mood, why not take a look at how that staunch friend Saudi Arabia is governed. Or read up on the Kuwaiti regime that Daddy Bush was so quick to rescue. Or pause to think what it must be like to be a Palestinian living on the West Bank, or even in Israel. (That was a very measured resume, I.hurricane.)

I just hope Whistle Stop isn't putting too much faith in the fact that America is Not Alone, because pretty soon it will be (apart from continued UK support, I suppose). The irony is that the monstrous Taliban is actually starting to attract sympathy. As someone said on telly yesterday, if Mike Tyson gets in the ring to fight a child, it's obvious who the crowd's going to support. America bombing Afghanistan is a bit like that.

Kim (and DougR), the UK - if that's what you mean by "my" country - imports far more consumer goods than it exports, exactly like the USA, but obviously on a much smaller scale.

As I said earlier, its overseas aid budget is three to four times greater than the USA's, pro rata, but still pitiful compared with the Scandinavian countries; Japan, Germany, etc. Just like the USA, the UK requires that much of the aid it gives comes back into the country in return for British goods, especially arms. All this notwithstanding that the UK is governed by a party that came to office promising "ethical foreign affairs policies."

Within the UK the gap between rich and poor is much less than in the USA, but governments from Thatcher onwards, including the present one, have been addressing that. So rest assured, the gap is widening fast.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: SharonA
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 07:16 PM

Sophocleese: The problem with your analogy is that there is "good cholesterol" as well as "bad cholesterol", and it is recommended that we ingest the good cholesterol for the benefit of our bodies. Cancer, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any redeeming qualities, and only exists to destroy; it is recommended that we do all we can to eliminate it from our bodies by whatever means necessary before it kills us. Cut it out with a knife, bombard it with radiation, flood it with chemicals – whatever it takes to get rid of it – and be vigilant and ready to smite it should it appear again.

I don't think there's any such thing as a "good terrorist". Terrorism is indeed a societal cancer, and not anything which has any potential benefit to society, at any level of activity.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 07:03 PM

I wasn't trying to be dramatic...but I've broken my own self imposed behavioral code here, by allowing myself to get drawn into political and non-music related discussions. There is as much chance getting the left wingers here to understand a hawkish point of view in dealing with the terrorists, as getting the Taliban to understand that the attacks on Afghanistan are not an attack on Islam.

I will now return to renduring assistance on those musical threads that I can contribute something useful.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:35 PM

Why use cancer as an example? Why not try High Cholesterol? The terrorists are High Cholesterol, we must treat this with careful dieting and monitor the situation regularly.

You could try clicking here for diet advice.

Of course, High Cholesterol doesn't sound as dramatic as Cancer does it?

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:33 PM

Justapicker, in order to treat the cancer you need to know what kind it is. And you don't use outdated medicines or drugs known to not work.

All I 'petition the Lord with prayer' for is wisdom and courage, clarity, humility and compassion.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:18 PM

If someone has cancer, do you first look at the reasons why it was caused, or do you treat/eradicate it?

If we think of terrorists as "cancer" the first order of business is to do our best to eradicate it immediately, and then, we can look at the causes and try to determine the best course of actions to keep it from recurring.

You can't sit down and try to reason or have a rational discussion with people in a mindset hellbent on killing themselves and as many Americans and Westerners as they can take with them, nor can you "petition the Lord with prayer" to make it all go away.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:09 PM

Sophocles penned: TERRORISTS: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers. US GOVERNMENT: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers.

I must politely disagree, Sophoclese. I'll take the US version of "subjugation" over the terror that women live under in Afghanistan and other Islamic nations any day of the week.

I must also politely disagree with most of the rest of it as well. It is an issue of degree. While the US may have areas where these comparisons can be roughly drawn on paper, the reality is like comparing Niagra Falls with a leaky faucet. Both are "running water".

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:05 PM

Doug R, they're not bombing Afghanistan because of the way the Taliban treats women so don't use that silly argument. The biggest threat to our freedom right now are the measures brought about through our governments for security.

Yes I agree that linking the US government up with terrorists is unfair, the US through the CIA has probably killed far more people. They're feeling real secure at the moment.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 06:01 PM

SORRY! This was my post. I was at work, and forgot to type in the tag line...my apologies.

"It's high time, in fact perilously late, that the U.S. and the rest of the western world call a conference to explore reasons and solutions for the present-day terroristic environment".

Sometimes though, there should *be* no "negotiation". I do not negotiate with my 9 year old daughter when she throws a tantrum, and neither do I feel that that any country should negotiate with terrorists.

There simply is no excuse for killing innocents, no matter who is doing the killing.

I have to agree with another sentiment in this thread...

For living on the backs of others in the world, we surely dole out a hell of a lot of cash.

We are not the great evil we are painted to be, nor are we saints. We're human. But this culture and its justice system is still a hell of a lot better than some of the cultures which are now casting stones our way.

When Islamic fundamentalists treat their women as something other than chattel, I may be willing to listen to their complaints about the US and all the evil we do.

They are still oppressing their *own* people, not just killing ours for oppressing their people. I find this hypocritical in the extreme, and as a woman, am insensed that the world is not more outraged at the treatment women suffer under many Islamic regimes.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Deda
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 05:52 PM

I think that some people simply want to attack the US gov't no matter what it does, completely regardless, and an easy way to do that is to say that there is no difference at all between the US gov't and the worst, most despised group in the world. The moniker-du-jour for that is "terrorist", so they'll call the US gov't "just like terrorists". It isn't sophisticated thought, but it tries to play one on TV. Without success, imho.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: GUEST,bflat
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 05:26 PM

I am having a hard time believing the comparison of Terrorist to the U.S.Government. That is absurd. The U.S. is pluralistic, can that be said of the terrorists? What separates us is the rule of law in an open society. Where does anything like that exist in the Arab world?

Ellen

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 05:04 PM

Some public service.

It beats the heck out of me how so many folks could fault the U.S. government and take their anger out on it, rather than on the people who killed over 5,000 of their fellow citizens.

Would you ladies REAlly be happy walking around in clothing that covered you from head to foot? But you might not even be allowed to do that. If Bin Laden means what he says, and there is no opposition to him, you are going to be killed anyway.

It's real puzzlement.

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 04:27 PM

I goofed, sorry, I meant to begin my post by stating that I had received the handy-dandy guide in my e-mail, but I got so busy removing all the forwarding marks I forgot to write that important sentence. I didn't write the list, I'm passing it on as a public service.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 03:32 PM

Whistle Stop - Granted, my ideas are utopian in today's climate. They may not be in a century or less, depending on which way humanity turns in the next few decades.

As for specific plans...ah...one would have to look at about a hundred or a thousand possible scenarios for that. Give me a little time, and I'll think about it.

I am essentially a philosopher, not a politician, and I don't envy politicians in the middle of this worldwide confusion we've got.

I think Sophocleese made some good points up there.

- LH

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: GUEST,JeffK627
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 03:24 PM

Well, I'd love to write something profound and wise, but only 2 things come to mind.

First, Osama bin Laden and his followers are attempting to kill "every American they can." Being an American, I will endorse almost any means - short of indiscriminate killing of Afghani civilians and Muslims in general - to prevent that.

Second, and this may seem immature but it is heartfelt: Fionn, go screw yourself.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 03:15 PM

THANK YOU, SOPHOCLEESE!!!

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 03:08 PM

Confused? Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys? Use this handy guide to tell the differences between Terrorists and the U.S. Government:

TERRORISTS: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician,from extremely wealthy oil family.
US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family.

TERRORISTS: Leader has declared a holy war ('Jihad') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and that any means are justified.
US GOVERNMENT: Leader has declared a holy war ('Crusade') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and that any means are justified.

TERRORISTS: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers.
US GOVERNMENT: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers.

TERRORISTS: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election.
US GOVERNMENT: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election.

TERRORISTS: Kills thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children,in cold blooded bombings.
US GOVERNMENT: Kills (tens of) thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold blooded bombings.

TERRORISTS: Operates through clandestine organization (al Qaeda) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics.
US GOVERNMENT: Operates through clandestine organization (CIA) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination,other terrorist tactics.

TERRORISTS: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties.
US GOVERNMENT: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties.

STOP THE WAR!

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 02:40 PM

I don't know who you are, Guest, but I have to agree with you. I am appalled by the brutal and systematic oppression of women in Afghanistan (as well as some other countries). If the target of the Taliban's extreme oppression was a racial group rather than a gender, I think the world would recognize it as an abomination of the highest order, akin to slavery. Somehow, because the victims of this are women, and because it's based in their distorted conception of "religion," it is tolerated as a cultural difference, rather than being recognized for the evil that it is.

Little Hawk, I appreciate the sentiments you are expressing in this and other threads. But it all sounds pretty unrealistically utopian to me. It's fine to envision a world where nobody is poor or hungry, nobody lives in fear, and we all beat our swords into plowshares and study war no more. If I could snap my fingers and make it so, I would. But when you offer your "vision" as an alternative to the actions that the US government is currently taking (in concert with other governments), it's realistic to ask you for a more specific plan. Do you have one?

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 02:20 PM

"It's high time, in fact perilously late, that the U.S. and the rest of the western world call a conference to explore reasons and solutions for the present-day terroristic environment".

Sometimes though, there should *be* no "negotiation". I do not negotiate with my 9 year old daughter when she throws a tantrum, and neither do I feel that that any country should negotiate with terrorists.

There simply is no excuse for killing innocents, no matter who is doing the killing.

I have to agree with another sentiment in this thread...

For living on the backs of others in the world, we surely dole out a hell of a lot of cash.

We are not the great evil we are painted to be, nor are we saints. We're human. But this culture and its justice system is still a hell of a lot better than some of the cultures which are now casting stones our way.

When Islamic fundamentalists treat their women as something other than chattel, I may be willing to listen to their complaints about the US and all the evil we do.

They are still oppressing their *own* people, not just killing ours for oppressing their people. I find this hypocritical in the extreme, and as a woman, am insensed that the world is not more outraged at the treatment women suffer under many Islamic regimes.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: GUEST,Eric Wolf
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:58 PM

Every "modern" nation is culpable in terms of the economic exploitation that so many want to pin exclusively on the U.S. We are actually somewhat of a latecomer in terms of capitalist developments. Unfortunately, as someone pointed out, the U.S. is the most visible player. Thus, many people would rather fixate on the U.S. instead of acknowledging their own nation's external activities or internal problems. Capitalism may not be perfect but compared to many attempted alternatives (Russia, North Korea, Nazi Germany), it is one of the better games in town.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:50 PM

You gonna pay good money for that cup of tea, L.H.? Or do you produce your own? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:48 PM

Well, we tend to go astray when narrowing present social problems down and pinning them on just one country. The USA gets more attention and blame because it's presently the most powerful player, but all countries have complicity in maintaining the present inequitable systems...because it's profitable for those in power to do so.

If money were abolished, it would go a long way toward solving the problem. This would presuppose a very different form of social organization, of course, so I think rather than exhausting myself trying to explain how it could be done, I'll go have a cup of tea instead, and admire the weather out there... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 01:06 PM

Excellent question, KimC (with no cookie)

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 12:58 PM

Fionn, does your country not import & export consumer goods?

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: heric
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 12:18 PM

Here's a summary of the summer, 2000 negotiations:

Despite the wide gap between the two parties in the working-level talks held during the spring of 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton invited Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat to a summit at Camp David in July, hoping to break the deadlock. However, the Camp David Summit failed to produce a final peace agreement.

At Camp David, Prime Minister Barak reportedly agreed to cede to Palestinian control some 90 to 95 percent of the West Bank. Israel proposed annexing the remainder, including areas with the largest concentration of Jewish settlements and areas that Israel deemed vital to its security. Although Israel did not accept responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, it reportedly agreed to the return to Israel of small numbers of Palestinian refugees with family members. Israel reportedly proposed setting up an international fund to compensate most Palestinian refugees, who would be permanently settled in their host countries, Palestine, or in other countries.

Although the degree to which Palestinian negotiators agreed with these proposals remained unclear, the final status of Arab East Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan during the 1967 war, was billed as the deal-breaker at Camp David. While President Arafat insisted on Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, Prime Minister Barak reportedly offered the Palestinians only limited control over Arab neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city.

Amidst daily violence in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, President Clinton in December made a last-ditch effort to reach a peace agreement during his presidency, calling on Palestinians to relinquish the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel in exchange for Palestinian sovereignty over most Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and control over the Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount. Prime Minister Barak accepted the broad outlines of President Clinton's proposal, but President Arafat did not.

Although many Western commentators characterized the Clinton deal as the best that Palestinians could ever hope for, most Palestinians saw the proposal in a quite different light. Witnessing the return of refugees and the restitution of property as the centerpiece of the West's policy in Kosovo and Bosnia, Palestinian refugees wondered why these principles did not apply to them. For their part, Israelis argued that allowing Palestinian refugees to return would amount to "national suicide," saying that it would irrevocably alter the Jewish character of Israel.

There were other Palestinian objections. Although the Clinton peace deal promised as much as 95 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, the deal nevertheless would have divided the West Bank into two separate cantons to make way for Israeli bypass roads to Jewish settlements and the Jordan Valley, where Israel would have maintained a substantial military presence for at least several years. Parts of Arab East Jerusalem also would have remained islands separated from the rest of Palestine by what would become Israeli territory. Even the actual percentage of West Bank land that would become part of Palestine was in dispute because of questions regarding the methodology used to calculate what territory actually constituted the West Bank.

With daily violent exchanges continuing and what appeared to be an irreconcilable impasse at the negotiating table, both sides began to write the obituary for the peace process begun seven years earlier in Oslo.

http://www.refugees.org/world/countryrpt/mideast/gazastrip_wbank.htm

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 11:29 AM

Sorry Big Mick, I meant to say those were good points in response to my earlier post.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 11:27 AM

Petr, America still prospers on the back of slavery and child labour. Just look at the country of origin on anything you buy in the shops, and ask yourself why it couldn't have been made in the USA.

KimC, you ask: "Is it somehow wrong for us to try to aid the poor and destitute within our own borders..." I would have thought America's record on that front was piss poor, which is why you have to fence off the haves from the have-nots (by having a higher proportion of your population in jail than any country on earth, bar none).

But back to press manipulation. I have just heard that the US Defence department is commandeering all photographic images from the civillian-owned Ikonos satellite. But surely such images would have confirmed the surgical precision of the American war machine?

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 12:18 AM

Nicely penned, I,Hurricane. Thanks for sharing.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: CaptainLewis
Date: 19 Oct 01 - 12:03 AM

Man! What a thread! Of course we have tossed back and forth the "globals" and national/religious groups and such, but it all boils down in the end to basic human nature. Some folks just have to hate others because for them its easier than loving everyone. And some have to love everyone because its easier than hating anyone.

The US will always be the target of hatred by anyone who is not as rich or powerful as this. It doesn't really matter that we educations thousands of the world's leaders, or that most of the world depends on the US economy. When you're as large, powerful and "successful" as the US, you can't help but make mistakes around the world decision-wise.

Because as big as we are, we're still human - flawed, opinionated, and mistaken at times, like a clumsy giant. Nice to have around when a mountain needs to be moved or a flooding river dammed. But I sure don't want him living next door! (For my Canadian friends ;-))

You really can't have justice as an abstract - because you would have to dismantle the whole US system - which would create disasters around the globe financially, even as you sought to equalize everything. Like it or not, we are stuck with gradually educating, enlightening and raising the standards around the globe at this aweful snail's pace. Hindered by the hatred, the greed and the misunderstanding that has continuously plagued humankind for it tenure on this whirling clod. Every high point in civilization considered itself to be the very pinnacle of development - as close to the sky as you get - and fallen.

Countless towers of Babel. We learn so very, very slowly and sometimes not at all. But there is no value that can match the individual acts of human charity that are our defense against the harshness of our shortcomings and failures.

Ahhh, my Guiness is finally warm enough to drink properly!

CLB

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 11:18 PM

That's really nice. Are you on the west coast? If so, I guess it's later here than where you are. Is it three hours?

I hope you get some rest. I know it's not always easy these days. I have a kid, too, and I worry about what sort of world I've brought him into. Maybe your poem will help me feel more relaxed about that.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 11:04 PM

Well, that's pretty nice...

- LH

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: heric
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 11:00 PM

No, certainly not suggesting anything like that and in fact I don't have a clue where that's coming from. (When I said I'm sure "you'll" let me know, that was actually a generic you to the great mudcat collective knowledge base.)

In fact, you're up three hours later than I, aren't you?

I am, in fact, exhausted. And this is what came out of it just now; I kind of like it:

Now I lay me down to sleep
The day is done and I did keep
my children safe another day
my parents honored in this way

This day is gone and gone for good
I spent it wholly as I should
A perfect past and perfect future
Meet now in the children I nurture

A world awaits them this is certain
Joys and griefs behind a curtain
Perfect future perfect past
Windward, leeward, to my mast

Lift the clouds that shroud the way
Some brief glimpse so they don't stray
Too distant from the perfect path
Pulled by future's slipstream fast

Perfect balance, by design
I have learned, for I own Time
Spend it wisely as I choose
A perfect path on this long cruise

Children now delivered through
There's no more that I can do
My Time is spent, I have no need
for balance, timing, craft or speed

My Time is spent, my deed is done
My day is gone, my honor won
The ship sails on and I shall find
A perfect rest, for all God's time.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 10:49 PM

Correction: I thought I tried to make it very clear in my 18-Oct-01 - 09:30 PM post that I do not.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 10:47 PM

Dan, I hope you're not suggesting that I think what happened on 11 Sept. was justified in any way. I thought I tried to make it very clear in my 18-Oct-01 - 09:30 PM post that I was not.

I didn't kill the Lindburgh baby either.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 10:36 PM

Well, it's near the Red Sea, but....naw...

You gotta remember that there is not a really huge amount of good will on either side of that issue, to put it mildly. Until that changes, I doubt that anyone can broker a deal that both sides will accept.

Still, there's no harm trying, and those who are wise will keep trying. Those who aren't will keep killing.

- LH

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: heric
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 10:23 PM

Because it seems to me, with limited understanding of the issues, that that offer didn't really call for a counteroffer of 6,000 dead Americans. I tend towards believing those who have said that Palestine is a red herring.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: heric
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 10:12 PM

Ha! Probably not. No, I didn't read what went wrong; I'd like to know.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 10:09 PM

You getting enough sleep, Dan? You sound stressed out.

Did you read anything in that article about the Palestinians' reasons for not accepting that offer (as stated by the Palestinians)? I would like to know more about that.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: heric
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 10:03 PM

PLA?? Just say Arafat. This Israel stuff. . . .

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: heric
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 09:55 PM

Oh, gosh Carol, do you realize how perilously close you're bringing us to the imponderable "What is justice?" Which leads me to this: I recently read, (not interested at the time), that the PLA's recent rejection concerned an offer of all of the Gaza Strip, 95% of the West Bank, something with regard to Jerusalem but specifically to include the Dome of the Rock, and, as I understood it, full sovereignty. (I'm sorry to list these without an accurate cite.) Someone else surely knows the accurate specifics and what went wrong. But that sounds like something approaching access to justice. Clinton got that offer on the table, right? He's from the U.S.

Let me know, as I'm sure you will, what I missed.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 09:30 PM

And that, I think, is one of the reasons we have terrorism. If we take away all legitimate means for a people to seek justice, what alternative do they have?

I do not suggest that this is Bin Ladin's reason for doing what he does, but I do think that it is one reason for some of the terrorism in the world.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: heric
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 09:23 PM

>>>To bring this back to the original point of press bias, it is noticable that the killing of an Israeli politician is reported in the Western media as an assassination, but the killing of Palestinian leaders is reported as being "in a strike by Israeli forces." <<<

Point taken, but in mitigation the distinction is semantically justified. Assassination is the murder of a socially prominent person. Military forces acting with state authority are not triable for murder. Actors without the color of sovereign authority can be tried for murder. Of course you'd need a Palistinian state to remove the imbalance, but then if journalists are supposed to use words according to their meaning and not play them to advance a political bias (i.e. what they consider "fair"), the different wording is linguistically appropriate.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 09:15 PM

hey the Arabs dont own the oil. THeyre just closer to it. We could dig sideways. (an old joke) Some good points there LittleHawk, and Im as distrustful of multinational corporations who dont answer to any govt as the next person but I think there can be checks and balances to globalism. Take a look at the capitalist system a 150 years ago and how much its changed (sure theres still a long way to go) but we went from child labour in the mines, sweatshop fires that resulted in safer workplace standards, massive changes in labour standards. THere is more consumer awareness, environmental awareness - companies know they just cant do whatever they want. Look at the consumer reaction (in Europe) to GMOs, forcing large suppliers such as MacDonalds and Mcains and others to buy non-GMO products. people do have power (especially with the internet) (there is a long way to go still, but I think that it can be done)

I think there ought to be more emphasis on reducing the 3rd world debt, Ive always thought even before the Soviet Union fell apart that the gap between the 1st and 3rd world is the greatest obstacle to long term world peace and stability.

Of the key changes in the second half of the 20th century aside from the end of communism, the second most important trend was the rise of the asian economies. Contrast that to what happened in Africa and the Middle East in the postcolonial years. 50 years ago, many of those countries had better standards of living and were more stable. WHy is that? (Im not saying we should go back to colonialism)

I would say, some of this is due to an emphasis on education in Asia, possibly closer family ties. I wouldnt blame the decline on the west. Im sure that some companies benefit from the cheap labour, or cash crops some of these countries provide but ultimately they would benefit from a richer population that could buy their products. Again, not necessarily, rampant consumerism either. But its not up to the west to go around creating democracies because that would be meddling in internal affairs and people who havent known democracy dont necessarily know what theyre missing.

perhaps in some ways globalism was given bigger blow on sept 11 than any of the wto protests so far.

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From:
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 08:58 PM

Alex I'm surprised that you think that either news reporting or editorial content of US newspapers is any more factual or less biased than those elesewhere in the world. They are all there to push a viewpoint. There may be varying degrees of intent, but all editorial functions impose the world view of the editor.

If I could elaborate a point of view which is prominent amongst commentators and personal contacts on this side of the world, and which seems to have been either missed or misinterpreted in the US. NO-ONE condones the action on Sept. 11th, nor do they think the US 'deserved it'. What we have problems with understanding is the degree to which the US as a whole seems to be surprised that anyone would want to do this to them.

I believe that to a large extent it is not a US thing per se, part at least is based on the fact that the US is the dominant world power militarily and economically. I don't think any honest person expects the US to be or behave any better than any other country, but there is a definite perception that the US itself thinks that it is. And in this, as in most things in life, it's perception not facts that count. The perception in the rest of the world, NOT just the muslim part of it, is that despite protestations after Sept 11 the US will continue to support terrorists and 'state sponsored terrorism' if it is done by friendly states or in support of things in the US interests, but not otherwise.

To bring this back to the original point of press bias, it is noticable that the killing of an Israeli politician is reported in the Western media as an assassination, but the killing of Palestinian leaders is reported as being "in a strike by Israeli forces."

Pete M

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: BH
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 06:56 PM

A long discussion going in many directions--let me be brief and --hopefully--succint:

The Friedman article--which I had read --is really right on.

The Israeli/Palestinian isssue was never mentioned by the Bin Laden crowd till now---so -- a red herring Their beef was us and the Saudis.

As to the U>S>. Let us remember a few thiings---Marshall Plan, Truman Doctrine,etc; We learned to rebuild our enemies because of the mistakes after WW 1 which set Germany on its horrible course leading to WW 2.

As to the Palestinians. Let us remember 1948 and the attack by the Arab nations and their promising those who left Israel(Palestinians) safe return when it was over. Well, you know what happened---Israel survived and the Arabs would not integrate their brethren---rather they ended up in camps. The Israelis had asked them to remain, but they chose to listen to their "saviours".

The bottom line to all this is that we try our best---and, yes, protect our interests. Why not? Tough to deal with people who have an agenda totally alien to the 21st century. Interestingly enough these same "terrorist" (I use the word purposely), have great wealth and are using the poor and starving as cannon fodder to kill even more innocents. The reason---as it has been throughout history---power and as Dylan said---God on Our Side. They decide who and what god is.

Damn---sure wish Ishmael had turned left and Abel had turned right. The oil would have ended up with us.

Bill H

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 06:36 PM

We would deal with it by having a great deal of sovereignty on a local basis (more than now!), while centrally securing the most basic of human rights on a universal basis. By encouraging locally elected government, locally developed industry, locally produced art, and so on...and discouraging vast, centralized commercial monopolies that are not accountable to anyone on a local basis.

That is how a democratic society functions. The most basic rights are universally protected by a centralized constitution that provides all with the same rights and protections...while all the things that can better be done on a local basis ARE done on a local basis: (like business, agriculture, art, commerce, and so on) and are given as much local autonomy as possible. It's been done in single nations. Now it needs to be done worldwide.

The communists erred by over-centralizing everything and by NOT democratizing at the same time. They attempted to achieve social universality (and in some ways did that quite well), but did it at the expense of human rights and freedoms. Their social plans were also scuppered by the fact that they spent themselves into bankruptcy trying to fight the Cold War...an endeavour that they did not necessarily anticipate doing when they started out in 1917.

The West has erred by swamping local structures and rendering them helpless through massive commercial propaganda and financial domination from afar by huge multinational corporations who are virtually beyond accountability to anyone. The common citizen has no way of influencing them other than by not buying their product, and it is ridiculously easy for them to manipulate the common citizen's tastes and habits through constant advertising and easy availability of their product...so there is virtually NO chance that enough citizens will take action against them at any one time that it would make much of a difference.

Ultimately, social policy has to be steered from the top...toward not making more money...but toward making less poverty and inequality in the world. That requires a leadership who are moved more by moral concerns than by financial ones. Such leaders exist, but they are very rare nowadays...and in constant danger, I would surmise, of being eliminated (by any means, including assassination) if they genuinely try to change the status quo.

Since politicians are funded by the very forces that run the status quo, they are not likely to overthrow it and institute a system based on true equality.

There is a huge ongoing effort out there to keep making the rich richer, and that can only lead to further great tragedies for the ordinary people...and ultimately for the rich as well, when the shit really hits the fan, as it did in France in the late 1700's and in Russia in 1917 and in Iran in more recent times.

All the wars presently seen on Earth are due to the fact that people have failed to act as members of one family, with the equal rights and privileges that family members ought to have.

We have reached the natural end of the nation-building phase of history, and now must soon build a world society. If done properly, it is in no way a threat to individual rights and freedoms...quite the contrary...it will secure them.

I believe one of the most crucial freedoms of all is: freedom from fear. How many people truly have that now in our disunited world? Americans certainly do not at this point, nor does anyone else.

- LH

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 05:53 PM

You are correct Little Hawk. But how would we deal with "World Government?" Scares more people than terrorists.

Steve

Subject: RE: Non-Music -What the world has to say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 01 - 05:45 PM

Petr - I agree that economic globalism is, in the strictly political sense, "democratic". The question is, though, is it sane?

I don't think so. You can see the damage mounting all around you, even in your own town, year by year...damage to culture, society, health and environment.

It's entirely possible to democratically convince any population of something that is still self-defeating, blind, and wrong. God knows, it's been done over and over again throughout history, long before the consumer society came along. It's done through propaganda, advertising, and appealing to people's lowest and most primitive instincts (fear, greed, prejudice, and immediate gain). That's how elections are won too...in democracies like the USA and Canada.

Populations are generally disabused of this common propaganda only when it leads to a debacle that makes them completely lose confidence in it. As long as they remain personally comfortable, the majority will support any kind of nonsensical program that's handed down to them from on high by their leaders. It's when that program blows up in their faces that they change their minds.

I believe that until all people get a basically equal start in life in all parts of the world, we will continue to have great injustice, and all the troubles that stem from it. That's why I can't look at a situation from the point of view of just one country. We are either all human...or we're not. If we are all human, then we all would benefit from starting out on an equal playing field.

This requires worldwide peaceful programs and solutions, not military conflicts. It requires a world Bill of Rights, and a world Justice system. When will it come? Probably not in our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth aspiring toward.

- LH