From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #316 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Thursday, November 29 2001 Volume 05 : Number 316 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire)] Re: his point (fwd) [wakko@qwerty.bitey.net] Re: his point [SugarFly26@aol.com] Re: his point [SugarFly26@aol.com] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [shalini trivedi ] ...my point. ["Nathan Werner" ] Re: his point [Lori Martin ] Re: ...my point. [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.] Re: his point [Lori Martin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Nov 2001 01:03:25 -0800 From: frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) Subject: Re: his point "Angela Anuszewski" wrote in message news:... > I didn't write him after the Rochester show, but I was deeply offended good. it like sorta sounds like you deserve being deeply offended. well done Jian. > The Taliban are not human > beings to me, not if they inhibit those inalienable rights of life, liberty, > and the pursuit of happiness in the people. what a revolting statement. you advocate the killing of the Taleban and therefore you deny their right to life. by your own argument you are inhuman. would you care to like change your argument? Molly ~~ "Life, liberty, happiness? Well, I believe in that too." "Of course, everybody does, for themselves at least. The important thing is to believe in it for all living things, then you're on to something." - -- "Anarchist Farm" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:20:05 GMT From: wakko@qwerty.bitey.net Subject: Re: his point (fwd) Lynne wrote: > but angela, those rights you described in your last sentence, are OUR > rights American rights. I don't claim to know what we should or shouldn't > be doing, but to use bombs to persuade a country to be "what makes US > comfortable" makes me uncomfortable. *shrug*. They're harboring terrorists. That's reason enough for me to eliminate them. I've never considered myself a "hawk" by any means, but this one seems like a no-brainer to me: what exactly is wrong about getting rid of a regime that sponsors a major international terrorist organization? Especially if we're going about it in a way that insures we're not targeting civilians? Maybe it's hip to be anti-war these days or something... - - A.P. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:02:52 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: his point A.P. said: <<*shrug*. They're harboring terrorists. That's reason enough for me to eliminate them.>> I don't really agree with that. We're harboring terrorists too. Would that be a reason for me to eliminate you, because you happen to live in the United States, where terrorists do as well? <> That I agree with. Civilian lives will be taken, and it's regrettable. The old destroy so you can rebuild scenario. I agree fully with action taken against terrorists and those supporting them. And yet, while I can't completely ever condone killing(1), the innocent civilian lives thing is fast losing weight with me. Innocent civilians in the Trade Center. An eye for an eye? Desensitization? I work in a restaurant. I was talking to a man at the bar on September 10th who was on a business trip. He was to fly out from Logan first thing the next day. He joked about being a little nervous to fly because he doesn't like it, and told me how his daughters always make a chain of paper rings, and cut one off every night before bed, counting down to when he comes home. I used to do that when my Dad traveled. We chatted about his job, my dislike for baseball ("What kind of American are you?! Do you hate Apple Pie?!) and other courtesies one talks about with a customer. He left me a nice tip, finished his drink, and went on his way. The next morning, he came to mind while I was hearing about everything. Eventually, I found out he did die that morning. This was one person I didn't even really know, that I just happened to have a brief encounter with. I vaguely wondered if his daughters would leave up the construction paper chain. It was too much to think about. <> It certainly is in my high school, but then I think that's been like that for a long time with teenagers, no? Teenagers are often equated with antiwar sentiments, many of whom are very antiwar? The thing I keep thinking about is how there have been things leading up to this. The first Trade Center bombing. The bombing of the USS Cole, and American embassies in Africa. If things are allowed to happen like that, without any real action taken, they'll keep happening. It makes me think about the Germany Nazi situation which, I realize, is very very different. But. We stayed out of that for awhile. "This doesn't concern us, this doesn't concern us," and then when it does we were barely able to do anything, it was almost too late. Is that what we should allow here? I personally don't think so. (1) As a general rule, and especially with the death penalty, I don't believe you should take away something that you don't have the power to give back. Ln ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:03:07 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: his point Return-path: From: SugarFly26@aol.com Full-name: SugarFly26 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:29:25 EST Subject: Re: his point To: moonshimmer@xpnonline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 121 X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 0.97c X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain Lori said: < Those people that will starve to death because of interrupted international aid, but who would have starved to death anyway under Taliban rule? How many North Americans knew or cared about their plight on September 10?>> On whose plight? The terrorists or the starving Afghans? I feel that those are very different plights. <> As far as the quickness issue, if even half of what Bush says is going to happen is attempted, it's going to take a long time. He wants to globally eliminate terrorism. Ambitious, if not naive in my mind, because I feel there is no way to eliminate terrorism unless everyone feels accepted, etc. and that is not likely to happen. <> All right. What ifs. What if that pissed them off anyway, that we were trying to "mess" with their way of life, "Westernize" them, and it was more or less "coming out of nowhere" and was therefore an unjustified interference in their mind? What if they'd just decided to do something earlier as a result? What if they didn't want to sit around and chat non-combatatively about why we feel their governmental procedures are wrong? <> Maybe something good would have come. Maybe not. With luck, that will happen now, and a phoenix will rise from the ashes. Perhaps we'll really get to work taking care of terrorism. <> I don't necessary like that, but in some degree to my mind, it is understandable. You have a cut artery. Your friend next door has a splinter. I'd be taking care of the artery. The "pressing problem." <> This goes back to the old trick of deciding when other people's crosses are your crosses as well. <> The half decade that was in the Clinton adminstration, perhaps? <> Which is more important: 1.) Spending time finding out why we didn't do something before and making it seem like a simplistic, moronic oversight or 2.) Admitting that this oversight was wrong, and taking steps to help the people of Afghanistan *now* and not waiting even longer. I pick 2. And as far as 1 goes, admittedly, I didn't know about it. I'm 17, and know not even enough about how our own government is run, let alone other countries. Quite honestly, up until recently the only information I really knew about the Middle East in general is the ocassional media piece, and hearing Jian's political views. Now I know about it. Now I'd like to do something. <> If the choice is not doing what's right because you don't want to be hypocritical, or fixing an injustice and therefore accepting that hypocrisy and realizing something was wrong l personally would choose to be a hypocrite, with the hope that I'll remember this and hopefully make better, less hypocritical decisions in the future. Ln ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 2001 17:18:08 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point "Angela Anuszewski" wrote in : >I didn't write him after the Rochester show, but I was deeply offended >and am seriously considering not going to see him again. Angela, I agree with you. I saw Jian in Philadelphia and was very surprised that he was not booed off the stage (I wasn't about to cause a disruption myself, but probably would have joined in if someone else did). Jian's argument seemed to revolve around the idea that, in his words, we are trying to "bomb the people of Afghanistan into liking us." I think that this statement on its own shows a grave nievete of Jian towards the situation. I think that even a casual observer of the situation understands that the US's goal is not for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda to "like" us, but rather to disable them so that they can no longer hate us in a way that threatens our lives. The Taliban is an oppressive regime that supports Al-Qaeda and has enabled them to carry out multiple terrorist attacks, resulting in many lost innocent lives. I personally just don't see how anyone could support *not* putting an end to the Taliban. I think that US officials have made it very clear on numerous occasions that this is not a war against the people of Afghanistan; likewise, Afghans could be seen dancing in the streets, shaving their beards, and otherwise rejoicing after the Taliban fell in their respective cities. My only other comment on this matter is address to Molly, who seems to think that the killing of the Taliban is morally equivalent to the killing of innocent civilians. These are people who want to -- and have -- killed us. They are murderers, criminals, thugs. Their reasons for killing us are because they don't like us, don't like our freedoms, don't like our religions, etc. Our reasons for wanting to kill them are self-defense, measured responses to crimes previously committed by them, and prevention of future attacks by them (I think it is safe to say that this would not be bin Laden's last attack if we had not retaliated). Do you really believe that these acts, although perhaps achieving the same end result (the loss in human life), are they same? Are rape and making love consentually the same, since the end result of both is sexual intercourse? Jian is a great musician, but a horrendous politician. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 2001 18:31:21 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point shalini trivedi wrote in : >If a person like Jian, so far 'removed' from the world of the Taliban as >you believe he is, can understand their point of view, doesn't it stand >to reason that others closer to the situation will sympathize to an even >greater degree? If you are referring to sympathy for the Taliban, I do not think that much exists in Afghanistan. If the Taliban had the support of the people, why would it fall so quickly? History has taught us that winning wars in Afghanistan is no easy feat. Keep in mind that the cities that have been captured were not captured by American forces, but rather by other Afghan forces. >It seems to me that this war is a tiny bandage on a >festering wound that won't hold for long, unless the US and her allies >modify their policies to be more equitable. What policies do you feel are not equitable, and what do you propose in their stead? I as much as anyone would love to see the United States get out of everyone else's business, but I see no other appropriate response to a group that so unconditionally hates us and acts on that hatred. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:04:53 -0600 From: shalini trivedi Subject: Re: his point <> > Jian's argument seemed to revolve around the idea that, in his words, we are > trying to "bomb the people of Afghanistan into liking us." I think that > this statement on its own shows a grave nievete of Jian towards the > situation. I think that even a casual observer of the situation understands > that the US's goal is not for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda to "like" us, but > rather to disable them so that they can no longer hate us in a way that > threatens our lives.<> If a person like Jian, so far 'removed' from the world of the Taliban as you believe he is, can understand their point of view, doesn't it stand to reason that others closer to the situation will sympathize to an even greater degree? It seems to me that this war is a tiny bandage on a festering wound that won't hold for long, unless the US and her allies modify their policies to be more equitable. it's only a matter of time before another network of terrorists, and more leaders will emerge if things are maintained at status quo. (IMHO) now i'll go back to lurking again... Shalini Trivedi Civil & Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "Hatred ever kills, love never dies. Such is the vast difference between the two. What is obtained by love is retained for all time. What is obtained by hatred proves a burden in reality for it increases hatred." --M.K. Gandhi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:27:19 -0500 From: "Nathan Werner" Subject: ...my point. First, I'll preface my comment by thanking everyone involved in this discussion, it has been one of the more civil discussion on this topic I've been part of in the last two months. It further reinforces my faith in Fruvous fans... That being said, what I find disturbing about the political discourse since 9-11 is how parallel it is to the speech made during every war America has declared. We come up with reasons why the enemy isn't even human. We come up with reasons why carpet bombing and 15,000 lbs bombs are 'efficient and effective means of engagement.' We use passive voice to say things like 'innocent civilians will be killed' or 'casualties will happen.' We try and rationalize our safety and well-being in the name of Constitutional rights. What gets lost in this is that we are *choosing* to take someone else's life to solve our problems. If it wasn't right for others to kill to reach their goals, why is it right for us to kill to reach ours? Most people will comment that terrorism is inherently different from our actions (WW2 v. terrorism comparison, rape v. consensual sex comparison). I'm not trying to equate our actions to terrorism, that's a fool's argument. What I am trying to say is that violence won't lead to any resolution of the problem. There are endemic problems in the developing world that we as a world power are choosing to ignore. We, as Americans, find it easier to spend an extra $5000 for a luxury SUV than to just buy a smaller car and donate that money to people without food, shelter, or healthcare (in Afghanistan or just on the street by your house). Bringing people to justice should be the first item on our list. I fully support taking action against acts of violence. However, there are already laws and international treaties to facilitate that task. America is currently undertaking vast structural reform that is stripping us of our civil rights in the name of freedom (that's right, a little backwards, isn't it?) With military tribunals that do not have to use half the legal standard of US trial law; and who will be accountable to no judiciary review, we are throwing out the US Constitution in favor of a quick fix. Is this something we'll regret in the years to come? I wonder. I applaud everyone for becoming more involved in international affairs and policy. However, I hope that this isn't just because we're invading Afghanistan. I would love to see American citizens aware of the situation in not just war-zones, but also in nations that aren't actively threatening us. Should it take an incredible violent act to get America's attention? I would hope that we as a nation would be actively assisting other nations to achieve the prosperity that we have been so fortunate to have. Thanks for listening to me ramble. Nathan Werner wernerna_at_msu_dot_edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 20:42:36 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: his point SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: > Lori said: > Those people that will starve to death > because of interrupted international aid, but who would have starved to death > anyway under Taliban rule? How many North Americans knew or cared about > their > plight on September 10?>> > On whose plight? The terrorists or the starving Afghans? I feel that those > are very different plights. Angela was talking about the the people who will starve to death, and I answered her comment. > < decided to > "solve" it with military force. Might makes right, after all, and it's a lot > quicker than a systemic fix.>> > As far as the quickness issue, if even half of what Bush says is going to > happen is attempted, it's going to take a long time. He wants to globally > eliminate terrorism. Ambitious, if not naive in my mind, because I feel there > is no way to eliminate terrorism unless everyone feels accepted, etc. and > that is not likely to happen. Why not? It is this belief which has propelled utter inaction and same-old same-old thinking and behaviour on the international stage in the past. It's the old pie chart. Someone gets a big slice of the pie. To most people, that means someone else gets a smaller slice, or thinks they do. We can't do anything about that? We can't wrap our minds around the concept that it's not size that matters, but whether everyone has "enough" -- and if people think they have enough, if they feel secure, they won't worry so much about sizing up what else the other guy has? Whether we're talking tangibles like food and shelter, or intangibles like human dignity and freedom, there's "enough" to go around this globe. There's plenty. But it's spread in such unequal ways, and guarded so jealously for (mostly) political reasons, that 5/6 of the world truly doesn't have enough. And when they see us (not just the US but much of the west -- but the US is the chief material offender) not only enjoying that plenty, but wasting much of it, or complaining about the price at which they supply it to us while they themselves can't enjoy its benefits -- or when they see us being unwilling to "share" the benefits unless they accept all of our culture and values and rules wholesale along with the items they consider true "goods" -- I can understand how they'd resent us just a bit. > < the > get-go all of the non-combat, diplomatic, globally focussed measures we've > since > taken against a regime practically every nation has always considered a pack > of > thieves?>> > All right. What ifs. What if that pissed them off anyway, that we were trying > to "mess" with their way of life, "Westernize" them, and it was more or less > "coming out of nowhere" and was therefore an unjustified interference in > their mind? What if they'd just decided to do something earlier as a result? > What if they didn't want to sit around and chat non-combatatively about why > we feel their governmental procedures are wrong? You're mistaking Taliban for al-Quaeda here. Taliban always has been willing to talk. (Not listen, perhaps, but talk. And can we really say we're any better when it comes to listening? They make outrageous statements that ignore world political culture, demanding that the international community supply them with an execution facility so they can go back to playing soccer at the stadium in Kabul. But we make equally outrageous statements that ignore local culture, demanding unequivocally that they surrender an honored guest to hostile authorities -- in a tribal society that values hospitality and protection above most other social goods.) Taliban forces did not attack us; we attacked them. Without even trying to discuss the situation. Instead we issued ultimatums. Furthermore, we didn't even try to defuse the injustices that spawn hostility and resentment and fanatical paranoid nationalism or culturism -- the terrorist mentality in a nutshell. Despite a decades-long chorus from the disregarded progressive wing of American politics and academia -- those fine folks whose patriotism is instantly questioned whenever they don't fall in intellectual lockstep with same-old same-old governmental theory and action -- that some people were seriously pissed off at us, that they had what some would consider good reasons, and that failure to address their concerns, whether you thought they were reasonable or not, was absolutely dangerous, we stuck our heads in the sand. We opted for a haphazard policy of "containment", and of putting out brushfires with military force when containment failed, instead of acknowledging that method hasn't worked for, oh, 8000 years or so of "civilisation" and it's not likely to work in 1990-2001 either. Or 2002. Or 2102. And therefore we'll never know. That's the value of what-if. It's not Monday-morning quarterbacking; it's "why didn't you (the government) pay attention? And when are you going to start? When will you look not just the crisis but the subtext before instinctively resorting to firepower?" > < law-enforcement and financial and diplomatic and intelligence effort against > known terrorist operatives and their networks -- and against the human rights > abuses we're now using as justification for deposing a government -- before > we > were attacked, instead of investing in dirty al-Qaeda gemstones, enabling > their > banking, and giving the Taliban tens of millions of dollars in financial > assistance?>> > Maybe something good would have come. Maybe not. With luck, that will happen > now, and a phoenix will rise from the ashes. Perhaps we'll really get to work > taking care of terrorism. But in the meantime, we've enriched the terrorists and enabled their network's far reach and the Taliban's oppression of the Afghan people -- all because of some ideological grudges against countries surrounding Afghanistan which requires that the interests of those countries themselves be contained? You can probably see what I'm getting at here. Containment doesn't work, not in Afghanistan and not in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian state or anywhere else on the globe. Furthermore, it's petty, a game of chess using the earth as a board. But those pawns are real people, forced to wear burqas, working for practically no salary if they're allowed to work at all, with no education, little food, and abysmal health care. And they're trapped -- not only hemmed in by their own bishops and queens but also, arbitrarily, sacrificed or "protected" in the short term for our game objectives. And it's a big surprise that they resent or even hate us for our manipulations -- and our blithe dismissal of the notion that their plight is tied in any way to our gameboard machinations? > < it was half a world away, because there isn't a politically active Afghan > community in the US, and because it didn't affect American civilians.>> > I don't necessary like that, but in some degree to my mind, it is > understandable. You have a cut artery. Your friend next door has a splinter. > I'd be taking care of the artery. The "pressing problem." The difference here is, we've been attending to our own splinters with surgical tools and a full medical staff in a sterile environment, all the while slapping band-aids on international gushing arteries. > < Arabia, in > Germany ...>> > This goes back to the old trick of deciding when other people's crosses are > your crosses as well. No. It goes back to not weaving yourself inextricably (and favorably, to your interests) in their economic and political systems unless you're prepared also to take responsibility for the social climate in the area. Because to a large extent that climate becomes your doing, imbuing every political or economic move you make regarding that country with personal impact on the lives of its citizens. > < military and diplomatic corps for half a decade.>> > The half decade that was in the Clinton adminstration, perhaps? Yep. What of it? Do you want to talk about the blunders of the Gulf War as well, and how Bush, Sr's mess was left undone and waiting to explode for the Clintonites? Or shall we go back to Ronald Reagan? Jimmy Carter? > Before we dislocate our shoulders patting ourselves on the back for > "liberating" > the people of Afghanistan, I'd just like to hear a serious, honest discussion > of > the reasons we permitted them to languish in the "enslavement" of which > Angela > speaks for the better part of a decade>> > Which is more important: 1.) Spending time finding out why we didn't do > something before and making it seem like a simplistic, moronic oversight or > 2.) Admitting that this oversight was wrong Have we done this? "We" as a government, I mean, looking at our own policies and motivations and how they are perceived by those they impact, not just the failure of our containment methods or intel? I hadn't noticed. > , and taking steps to help the > people of Afghanistan *now* and not waiting even longer. I pick 2. And as far > as 1 goes, admittedly, I didn't know about it. I'm 17, and know not even > enough about how our own government is run, let alone other countries. Quite > honestly, up until recently the only information I really knew about the > Middle East in general is the ocassional media piece, and hearing Jian's > political views. Now I know about it. Now I'd like to do something. Good. But do you want to do the same-old same-old -- going for the quick, visible "victory" and ignoring the long term implications -- or would you like to try something that hasn't got such an abysmal track record as war? > < that the > answers have more to do with politics[1] and economics[2] than some fine > notion > of human rights or American ideals. We're not righting wrong because it's > the > right thing to do here, we're righting it because the wrong now threatens us. > And that's the hypocrisy -- the unnecessary obscenity -- of this war.>> > > If the choice is not doing what's right because you don't want to be > hypocritical, or fixing an injustice and therefore accepting that hypocrisy > and realizing something was wrong l personally would choose to be a > hypocrite, with the hope that I'll remember this and hopefully make better, > less hypocritical decisions in the future. I would choose that as well. I would not, however, choose to make exactly the same mistakes as before and somehow hope it will all turn out different this time. I would like to try something new. Radically new -- not a "new kind of war" that involves weaponry and collateral damage and a curbing of Constitutional protections. How does that differ from the "old kind of war" anyway? We could try waging peace and justice, for starters. But that would involve saying "we're wrong to use middle eastern conflicts as a balancing act to get oil as cheap as we can. We're wrong to accept human rights abuses and repression in exchange for economic or strategic political gains. We're wrong to pay lip service to freedom and opportunity when as the world's largest and most voracious consumer entity we finance little but oppression. That's it. We said it. We've stopped waving the flag long enough to say that in some very serious human rights areas the United States over the past few decades has been WRONG. Has acted very badly indeed, in very unhumanitarian ways. And we're going to stop doing that. Now. Cold turkey. Even if that means all the "stuff" we take for granted -- all that stuff that 5 billion other humans don't even know exists, be it Happy Meal toys, penicillin, or a complete nutritious meal -- either becomes appropriately scarce, or costs us something close to its value in human and environmental and social terms." One interesting thing I've noticed in the past 10 weeks or so is that it seems very easy for many people to consider themselves pacifists or "not hawks" so long as they haven't been attacked. It's a bit more challenging to *be* a pacifist -- to try to parse a non-violent method of self-defense or, more properly, universal protection that doesn't dehumanise someone else, instead of trying to justify the use of force "in this case" -- when we've been taken unawares, when we feel we've lost the choice of whether or not to engage. - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 2001 21:40:41 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: ...my point. Nathan, How do you propose that we bring Osama bin Laden and the rest of his Al- Qaeda network to justice if not through violence? Did George W. Bush not say prior to the invasion that we might be able to avoid an invasion if the Taliban handed over bin Laden? Gee, that didn't work, what a surprise. The Taliban is not interesting in adhering to any international laws or treaties; I think that is obvious. In the end, it comes down to the loss of guilty lives to save innocent lives. Some innocent lives (both American and Afghan) will be lost in the process, but innocent lives would also be lost if we took no action. In the end, in my opinion, our actions will result in significantly lesser amount of innocent lives lost. Isn't that what we want? - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:30:55 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: his point "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > Lori, I pretty much agree with you. But the thing you have to remember is that > we Americans always wait until there is a crisis and then go crazy looking for > "The Solution". We are like that as a culture. We have billions to spend on > war when we are threatened, but nothing to spend on peace when we are not. It > is a sad state of affairs, to be sure, but it seems to be the American way. A.J., I know, from reading your postings to the jian list as well as ammf, that you've given this a great deal of thought and you're by no means a hawk. I think we both recognize American foibles and blind spots, and view them as weaknesses. It just seems to me that even though they frustrate you as well, you're more accepting of these weaknesses -- complacency, inaction, insularity, a skewed sense of importance and (dare I say it) manifest destiny -- than I'm willing to be. Yet. I'm still tilting at those damned windmills. ;) They are what I view as a mortal threat to this nation, far more than a bunch of religious/cultural zealots operating out of caves, because as long as we operate under these attitutudes we are uninformed, unprepared for navigating the complexities of the international community, and self-righteous and haphazard in our policies. And I firmly believe that only by vigilantly challenging these disadvantageous cultural tendencies among ourselves instead of indulging in unquestioning expressions of "patriotism" when crossed, will we ever become the nation we want to think we are. - -- Lori ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #316 ********************************************