From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V13 #138 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, May 15 2004 Volume 13 : Number 138 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] RE: the moral high ground ["FS Thomas" ] RE: the moral high ground ["FS Thomas" ] Re: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] RE: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] RE: the moral high ground [Capuchin ] Re: Rush News (NR) ["Michael Wells" ] Re: Rush News (NR) [Eb ] the moral high ground ["Fortissimo" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 19:35:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > Why does a thread of consistency on policies and views necessitate > conservativism? A lack of "waffling" is a sure sign of conservatism. One important distinction between progressive and conservative modes (being distinct from progressive or conservative ideas) is that progressives are more likely to care about HOW something is done so much as WHAT is done. This might cause a progressive person to, say, vote against a bill that ostensibly supports their agenda because it does so in some wrong way. Conservatives, being more single-minded, can safely take every step that even hints at their retro-agenda. > Can there be no consistency on a Liberal agenda? There CAN be consistency, but it might be harder to point out and it will certainly pale in comparison to the rigid views of the conservative. > Or is it that Liberalism, at it's heart, is ENTIRELY based on > situational ethic and therefore by definition incapable of consistency > on direction? Uh, no. Making change to a structure is harder to do correctly than re-enforcing a structure. When you are seeking ways to re-order the power structure, you have to consider more details and more subtle systemic effects than if you are just giving more power to the powerful. A conservative can't, say, slip up and cause a loophole that gives poor people better representation or more rights, but a progressive could easily not see how a law can be exploited by the powerful to increase their power while further repressing the weak or poor. This is just a vague example and certainly not meant to be a comprehensive reason for all perceived inconsistencies. > If the DNC is only *slightly* less conservative than the GOP, just what, > pray tell, are you proposing as an alternative? I'm honestly curious > here. Well, you got a taste of it earlier today when I explained what I think would be a solid anti-terrorism policy: Make people so freakin' happy that they wouldn't even consider bombing you. Do you really not understand that there is a huge political spectrum to the left of the Democratic Party? (Similarly, do you not understand that there is very little to the right of the Republican Party as defined by real policies of the administration?) Furthermore, do you not see how the very nearest to the right of the Democrat is the Republican? To slap labels on everything, I might consider myself a libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist. I'm rational enough, of course, to know that this is an ideal and not, at the current point in history, an appropriate social order. Education and maturity are needed. Progress must come. We must do better than propose the same education reform ideas today as were proposed at the turn of the last century. We must do better than turn to violence as resolution to our problems. We must do better than to seek punishment for those who do not please us with their behavior. We must do better than to allow poverty. There are discrete, incremental steps that can be made today on a more progressive agenda toward an ideal social order of freedom, happiness, and love. Continuing to kill those who stand in the way is not one of them. > > ...Committees propose and make sometimes drastic or important subtle > > changes to proposed legislation before it reaches the floor, sometimes > > completely altering the impact intended by the author or the original > > sponsors. > > Would they, then, be responsible for tacking on pork projects to > otherwise worthwhile legislation? [snip long bit about pork and riders] > Bastardization and the intentional bloating of proposed legislation is a > cause of many, many problems. That is one thing that can happen in committee, but to dismiss the committee process because of this one potential failing is just plain ignorance of the way the system works. The fact is that all of the important work in Congress is done in committee (by "important", I mean work with actual resulting change in legislation). The committee process has its flaws, but that takes absolutely nothing away from the fact that committee members are the more active and responsible members of Congress and that a Senator with many committee memberships is working harder and effecting more change than one who merely sponsors or authors bills for initial consideration. In other words, your dismissal of Kerry's committee membership was totally unwarranted. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 23:04:57 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: the moral high ground > -----Original Message----- > [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of cmb adams > > bin laden is still a free man. The cynic in my says: The election isn't until November. > our economy is in the shitter and likely to > get worse, in large part because of wartime > spending. By whose rule of thumb? Yes, the deficit is growing, but the jobless numbers are the lowest they've been in years. Every major index is showing improvement. Had the attacks come eight months into Clinton's second term (or any President's--it doesn't matter) the economy would have taken a drastic hit. We're in fantastically good condition, all things considered. > and we're fast becoming a subject of international > fear and loathing. Difficult questions often require difficult answers. If taking on the likes of global terrorism are what it takes to secure not only our citizens, but those of any other free country, that is certainly a lofty, difficult, and some would say impossible task. If opinion of the US suffers for it, and we manage to succeed, then what concern should we have for Global or Localized opinion? Doing what is right (or just or appropriate) is often unpopular. > > Quite honestly what reactions it *has* elicited are far, far less > > grave than they could have (or, in many ways, should have) been. > > oh? and what should the response have been? As arguably the most powerful country in the world, the Arab street should count their lucky stars that we show restraint. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 23:12:30 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: RE: the moral high ground > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org > [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of cmb adams > > ...but if humiliating, raping and murdering prisoners of > war isn't a war crime to you, well...I'd hate to > live in your head. Regarding at least one rape allegation: NEW YORK A "miscommunication among staffers" and "a breakdown of checks and balances" led to The Boston Globe's publication Wednesday of a photo in which two people are holding a group of sexually graphic pictures, purportedly taken in Iraq (but actually not), that the paper has deemed inappropriate, the Globe's ombudsman said. Christine Chinlund, who has held the ombudsman post for two years, made the photo the subject of a column on Friday, declaring that the paper should have done a better job of screening the photo before it ran. In Friday's column Chinlund said flatly, "There's no excuse for what happened. ... The photo, headed for the publication pipeline, should have been flagged for discussion by top editors." But she added that criticism that use of the photo provided evidence of anti-Americanism or the paper's desire to "bring down Bush" were "off the mark." Editor Martin Baron told Chinlund, "We are not firing anybody." (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_co ntent_id=1000510843) And, natch, they won't fire anyone. It wouldn't fit their agenda. > or neighborhood. My neighborhood is plenty rough enough. Not two days after moving in there was a domestic disturbance-come murder three doors down. Regarding Enemy Combatants: An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war." "Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312) - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 20:19:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FSThomas wrote: > In terms of the electoral process in this country you are currently, on > a national level, faced with two choices: DNC or GOP. That's exactly why revolution is a reasonable alternative. The system itself narrows the choices before the people are even involved in the decision. > If you intend to exercise your right to vote, doing so outside of either > of those parties currently harms one and helps the other. If you really believe that's the case and you are not working against the system, then do you just not like democracy? > Yes, it's a matter of the "lesser of two evils." Or choosing the > "slightly less evil one." My conscience will not allow that. > In grander scales of morality, yes, there are universal rights and > wrongs, but there are also times when, faced with a situation, you have > to (perhaps) go against what you believe to be morally right and true on > one issue to defeat another. Um, it's not universal if there are situations in which it doesn't apply. You're trying to have it both ways and that just doesn't work. > I personally find violence reprehensible, but I can damned well tell you > that, if threatened directly, I'm capable of it. Then you must find yourself reprehensible or you are misrepresenting your view of violence. > > What scenario would have to occur in order for you to admit that he > > was lying? Is anything less than a signed confession going to > > convince you? > > I won't condone lying, but if it were grounds for immediate dismissal > from office how many full-term politicians would there be? I'm not > green-lighting lies and would like nothing better than transparent > situations when it comes to governance, but, seriously, Jeme. Seriously WHAT? You didn't finish the sentence. "Seriously, Jeme, I don't think it's reasonable to actively demand what I want"? "Seriously, Jeme, a man is going to lie and we just have to accept that"? "Seriously, Jeme, we can't expect people in government to actually serve the public honestly"? And, of course, you totally didn't answer the question. You made excuses for Rumsfeld (over and over -- going so far as to revise the facts of the occasion to better fit a favorable interpretation of his actions and words). What would have to happen in order for you to admit that he just plain lied? What scenario would have to play out that would allow you to say, in good conscience, "Wow... he just told a whopper."? > In regards to calls for Rummy's head getting piked: a good analogy I > heard the other day, in regards to the inmate treatments, was that you > don't fire a teacher when one student fails. Here's a guy ostensibly > with, what, 135,000 students in the field and less than a dozen are > brought up on charges? It simply doesn't call for his ouster. OK, you're avoiding the issue again. I'm talking about his lying, not the actions of others. (There's also the lie of omission that seems to indicate that the situation in the prisons was covered up somewhat -- so it's somewhat related, sure.) > [A discussion on the employment of those techniques and the > ramifications of the situation should come under a completely different > cover.] Because it wouldn't threaten the underlying power structure? > > Are you doing this to say that it's OK for Rumsfeld to lie because > > Clinton did? > Nope. Then why'd you bring it up? We can't do anything about the past administrations. Hell, no less a personage than FDR probably allowed the Pearl Harbor attack in order to bring about a certain change in the public mind on foreign involvement with belligerent states and maybe even went so far as to engineer some of it. Sucks. Totally lame. Too late. Let's concentrate on the present and future to avoid shit like this going down again. > Also: was it a lie or a mistake? I can't quote word-for-word something > I said a month ago. OK, but that's not AT ALL what Rumsfeld did. He wasn't asked to quote himself. He wasn't even confronted with a statement and asked if he did or did not say it. He tried to convince the interviewer that he never considered Iraq an imminent threat and tried to indirectly accuse the journalist of revising history. He didn't even just deny he said something. He said that they didn't believe the threat was imminent and nobody said anything to the contrary. > You could tell me that I said that monkeys flew out of my butt on > Christmas Day and I might take your word for it. Right, because you MIGHT have said that and you can't say for sure. You wouldn't flatly deny it. You wouldn't lie. > It is at least possible that Rumsfeld couldn't recall stringing those > exact words together. He wasn't asked if he could recall stringing those words together. He made an accusation that words were being put in his mouth. He tried to distort the situation to make it appear as though he didn't try to get people believe there was an imminent threat before the invasion and subsequent occupation. He was lying to get out answering the question and to invent a new justification for the invasion post facto. [re: Clinton] > And yet he got to stay in office and finish out his second term, > completely unscathed. > The man probably should do time. Uh... for lying about a love affair? Seriously? I mean, I understand that, strictly speaking, he perjured himself. I agree that the folks that say that he wasn't lying are the worst kind of apologists, but, man, the question itself shouldn't have been asked. It had nothing to do with his office or responsibilities to the people. There's that bit of taped footage that was played over and over again where Clinton is asked about the cigar and so on and his eyes widen and his face goes pale. Some people interpret that as a look of a guilty person caught and there is a tiny bit of that there. But I see it more as an expression that says, "I can't fucking believe you brought that shit up! That's personal shit and it doesn't matter if I did or didn't fuck her with a stogie! Jesus, man, have some propriety!" But decorum prevented such a reaction. And it's a shame. If you meant something other than that lie, I apologize for seeming to misdirect the conversation. > > And I think Jon Stewart described the mainstream press best a few > > weeks ago on the radio when he compared them to six-year-olds playing > > soccer: There's no game plan, no agenda. They run around clumped > > together in a little pack and every once in a while the ball pops out > > and they all go chasing after it to huddle around kicking at each > > other for a while. > > That's good. I like Stewart. It is good and fairly accurate. The mainstream media does not have an agenda other than, as Rex pointed out, playing up conflict, sensationalizing, and over-dramatizing. This is done, of course, the meet the secondary goal of driving up perceived viewership for the primary goal of increasing advertising revenue. The networks being direct beneficiaries of the power structure, they are necessarily conservative as a whole, but are also essentially amoral and psychopathic in their single-minded drive for profit and that allows almost any viewpoint to be expressed out the front-end without impinging upon the driving forces at the back. > Disregard for tenants of the government (think two- or four-year terms) > and tossing someone out in medias race just because you don't like a > policy would be chaotic. In the case of a proven violation of law, fair > enough. I've expressed it many times, but you just don't seem to get it. Law is a necessarily incomplete description of acceptable behavior. One can betray the public trust without explicitly breaking the law. > You haven't got a single example of that to date. Well, there's a matter of opinion, surely. But it's an interesting phenomenon that the powerful have direct control over not only what the law IS, but how it is interpreted and enforced. The powerful rarely break the law because the law is designed to allow unfettered business as usual for the elite (when it isn't actually increasing the power of the powerful - -- which isn't business as usual, but is better, even for conservatives). > Furthermore: "a liar and a thief and a would-be despot": your > transparency betrays you. Um, no. That's why I went out of my to explicitly state that I wasn't talking about a particular person or situation. But it's interesting that you would presume I meant Bush with those words. > If you're eluding to the President, by thief I would assume you mean > Florida. Well, I'm not alluding to the President. In fact, I purposely included "thief" because I wanted to pick something of which Bush had not directly been accused in order to show that I wasn't trying to implicate the President. I guess I wasn't thinking about Florida. Heh. > In that case I would refer you to a solid description of the electoral > college. Again, not to digress, that's a topic for a different > discussion. We've had this discussion and you really do ignore the issue. It isn't about the electoral college, it's about the actual election process within the state of Florida and how it was confused, complicated, and subverted. The electoral college doesn't even come into it until AFTER the state election (where the purported malfeasance occurred). > > ...where certain classes of citizens cannot attend the polls. > > For clarity: Felons or absentee ballots cast by military personnel? Actually, when I wrote that, I was thinking about farm workers in east and central California. But it could, I suppose, encompass blacks, generally, felons, and whole other classes. I'm not convinced that military personel should be allowed to vote. If their civil rights are restricted, equal protection status suspect, and they are considered, in many ways, to be property of the state, then perhaps their votes are not reliable. > > Again, what if the process does not serve the public? What if it has > > flaws that can be exploited so as to prevent the public from effecting > > real change? > > Example? I just gave a long list of possible situations. Didn't you read it? You responded to pieces of it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 20:37:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FS Thomas wrote: > > our economy is in the shitter and likely to get worse, in large part > > because of wartime spending. > > By whose rule of thumb? Why would it be by rule of thumb instead of by fact? > Yes, the deficit is growing, but the jobless numbers are the lowest > they've been in years. Every major index is showing improvement. Do you understand how these numbers are tallied? Do you know how the indices are calculated? The "jobless numbers" are going down because people are falling out of the auditability of the system. For example, their ellibibility for unemployment benefits are expiring and the system has no more means to track their existence. This took a long time to happen because of the unemployment extension actions taken by Congress in 2002 combined with various state extensions. Many people are taking out loans and going back to school to sort of wait-out the employment crisis. These people also lose their status as "jobless". The economic indicators are designed to look up when they need to look up (i.e., before policy changes can be effected for the benefit of the people). > Had the attacks come eight months into Clinton's second term (or any > President's--it doesn't matter) the economy would have taken a drastic > hit. We're in fantastically good condition, all things considered. Heh! The whole "blame 9/11 for the economy" bit! That's amazing. You know, I was laid off in September of 2001 from my senior, previously "essential personel" position (I was denied voluntary lay-off on two occasions prior). In fact, we all come to find out that the lay-offs were supposed to happen on 9/14, but were POSTPONED because of the attacks (by two pointless weeks), presumably to decrease the chances of someone totally snapping and coming back with a weapon or something. The economy was on the way down before the attacks. There's no way that the attacks could have precipitated the downturn that started prior to the attacks themselves. Look at the timeline. Whatever impact the attacks might have had on sales or new housing starts or whatever simply could not have caused lay-offs within the same quarter. > > and we're fast becoming a subject of international fear and loathing. > > Difficult questions often require difficult answers. You're rationalizing again. She's not asking for a regurgitation of the party line. She's describing what could have been the intentional effects of the terrorist attacks. You seem to be agreeing with her on the results, so if those were also the intentions of the attackers, then Americans truly are fantastic terror targets because they're bleedin' predictable. > If taking on the likes of global terrorism are what it takes to secure > not only our citizens, but those of any other free country, that is > certainly a lofty, difficult, and some would say impossible task. Uh huh... and how is bombing and military occupation of foreign nations NOT global terrorism? > If opinion of the US suffers for it, and we manage to succeed, then what > concern should we have for Global or Localized opinion? Succeed in wiping out the terrorist competition? > Doing what is right (or just or appropriate) is often unpopular. I'm sure that's exactly what the 9/11 attackers told themselves. > As arguably the most powerful country in the world, the Arab street > should count their lucky stars that we show restraint. To bad we don't show actual compassion and goodness instead of merely "restraint" of our worst nature. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 20:45:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004, FS Thomas wrote: > Regarding Enemy Combatants: > > "Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two > sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at > 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the > protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not > receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third > Geneva Convention. > > > (http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312) First and foremost, this is the view of a U.S. government agency, not an independent body. It's no wonder that it's favorable to U.S. action. But this is just one of many reasons why the United States has consistently rejected the authority of international courts of law. Second, it's EXTREMELY convenient to describe things in these terms because it totally justifies treating ALL enemy combatants as "unlawful enemy combatants". All you have to do is stop recognizing the sovereignty of the people you're fighting. That way, any "law" they presume to be operating under is unlawful. Who, today, would be a "lawful enemy combatant" in Iraq? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 23:35:37 -0500 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: Rush News (NR) Steve observes: > Canadian rock trio Rush's next release will feature covers of classics > popularized by the Who, Cream, Buffalo Springfield and the Yardbirds, > Billboard.com has learned. Due June 29 via Atlantic, the eight-track > "Feedback" marks the first time the group has ever recorded material > by other artists. Should make for an interesting tour, what with all this new material to suppor ;) Perhaps the best part about going to opening night in Nashville in a couple weeks is that I finally get to meet Miles! Eb, the eternal positivist, writes: > God...what boring, obvious choices in material. What, couldn't they get > the rights to "Twist and Shout"? For once, I agree with you. I was hoping for something a bit more Petula Clark-ish. This day in Canadian rock history allegedly brings you: May 14, 1953 - Tom Cochrane was born. May 14, 1973 - Kenny Loggins and Jim Messina's first LP, "Sittin' In," goes gold. The two actually got together by accident. Messina was going to produce a solo effort for Loggins, but the two had such a rapport that Messina was persuaded to perform. May 14, 1990 - Jane Child peaked in the Canadian top 20 with I Don't Want to Fall in Love. This one hit wonder had left Canada a few years earlier and ended up in New York City, where her debut album was recorded. May 14, 1998 - Joni Mitchell, stage shy for a number of years, other than the occasional appearance at an event like the Edmonton Folk Fest, took to the stage of BC Place in Vancouver. The show was the first date of a five city tour. Nominal headliner was Bob Dylan, and Van Morrison opened the shows, but for many, the chance to see Joni perform was the key. Michael "I went down to the Crossroads / tried to beg a ride, ya hey der" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 21:43:27 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Rush News (NR) > This day in Canadian rock history allegedly brings you: > > May 14, 1953 - Tom Cochrane was born. > > May 14, 1973 - Kenny Loggins and Jim Messina's first LP, "Sittin' In," > goes > gold. The two actually got together by accident. Messina was going to > produce a solo effort for Loggins, but the two had such a rapport that > Messina was persuaded to perform. > > May 14, 1990 - Jane Child peaked in the Canadian top 20 with I Don't > Want to > Fall in Love. This one hit wonder had left Canada a few years earlier > and > ended up in New York City, where her debut album was recorded. > > May 14, 1998 - Joni Mitchell, stage shy for a number of years, other > than > the occasional appearance at an event like the Edmonton Folk Fest, > took to > the stage of BC Place in Vancouver. The show was the first date of a > five > city tour. Nominal headliner was Bob Dylan, and Van Morrison opened the > shows, but for many, the chance to see Joni perform was the key. It is also my sister's birthday. Happy birthday, sister. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 23:57:13 -0500 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: the moral high ground On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:18:00 -0400, "FSThomas" said: > I realize that the scale of issues is vastly different, but why hasn't > anyone ever pinned Clinton to the mat and asked him pointedly about his > under oath testimony? (Or, more interestingly, the deaths of Ron Brown > or Vince Foster?) The easy answer: he's on the left. Members of the > current administration have it bad because they're not liberal > democrats, the by-far favs of the majority of mass media in the is > country. By what definition was Clinton "on the left"? Okay: *maybe* on some social issues (I bolded the "maybe"; please repeat). On economic issues? No chance. At least, not by any definition of "left" that would hold water anywhere else in the world. And as has already been pointed out: Clinton was *crucified* in the press (and I'm no lover of Clinton). Bush, still, gets nearly a free pass. I mean, that anyone would take seriously for a moment charges from a guy who spent Vietnam avoiding cop-out National Guard service in a weeks-long drunk* - against a guy who volunteered for service...well, that beggars belief, and shows the extent to which the mainstream press is Bush's balls-polisher. (I'm a pacifist: but at least enrolling in the military when you believe a war is justified is consistent, responsible - and courageous. Leaving the country or risking imprisonment by refusing service because you oppose the war is equally consistent. But weaseling out of service by pulling family ties, and then not even performing the required nominal service: well, that's just chickenshit. And still to this day: *nofuckingbody can prove W. was where he was supposed to be.* What - he was invisible then?) * Since Bush admitted that he was an alcoholic then, and since no one's been able to account for his whereabouts, this is a fair guess. As for Ron Brown: plane crash; Vince Foster: suicide. You don't seriously believe Clinton (as the far-right wackos hold) had them killed, do you? I mean, that's aluminum-foil-hat protecting-from-alien-thought-rays territory, there. On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:57:42 -0400, "FS Thomas" said: > > [mailto:owner-fegmaniax@smoe.org] On Behalf Of cmb adams > > > > what if the goal of 9-11 was to provoke the US > > into doing something asinine that would enflame > > the entirely moslem world against us, damage our > > image with much of the rest of the civilized world, > > and wreck our economy for the next decade or so? > > Hijacking planeloads of civilians and flying them into soft civilian > targets isn't asinine? It isn't at least one of many definitions of > evil? Why do we confuse intelligence (or "courageousness") with goodness? It's perfectly possible to be extremely intelligent and courageous while also being appallingly evil. That we're still talking about 9/11 all by itself lauds the strategic brilliance (again: that's *not* moral approval) of those actions. The goal is terror; many of our actions still bespeak the terror and fear we feel: mission accomplished. > As arguably the most powerful country in the world, the Arab street > should count their lucky stars that we show restraint. I assume that by "the most powerful country in the world," you meant the US - not "the Arab street." But you seem to suggest that, to avenge a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 civilians, we should...what, kill 30,000 civilians by dropping bombs? Who is this "street" you refer to, and how are its denizens responsible for the actions of a fanatically violent, fundamentalist cell of terrorists? And how does killing a bunch of civilians (and I'm unsure what else we're "restraining" ourselves from) make us appreciably different from the terrorism we're nominally fighting against? It's rather late in the game, but...all Arabs are not Muslim; all Muslims are not fundamentalist; all fundamentalist Muslims are not terrorists; and no one has offered anything close to proof that Iraq had anything to do with those terrorists, and there is plenty of evidence suggesting that, as a secular state, Iraq would have been regarded as an enemy, not a friend. The more the situation in Iraq drearily and tragically persists, the more the inherent similarities between Bush and Bin Laden come clear. Both operate from a rigidly, theocratic worldview in which morality derives more from being on the right side and making the correct ritual gestures, in obeying unquestioningly the demands of that side, than from any kind of ethical thinking, or any kind of thinking at all. Both actuate the needs and fears of a subordinate class that share their religious fanaticism, but not their economic and social power, to further that economic and social power while giving lip service to the needs of that subordinate class. Both unhesitatingly resort to violence to achieve their goals; both justify that violence on essentially theological grounds. And both, more and more, are achieving a level of worldwide revulsion that will be very hard to overcome. And if you argue that world opinion doesn't matter, you're just not paying attention to the way the world works. Just one example, out of many possible: the US is the world's foremost debtor nation at this point. What would happen if other nations called in those debts? We can't attack them all, not even with our bloated military. The rest of the world is perfectly capable of putting the screws to us economically: while it would also cost them highly (probably why it hasn't already happened), if we keep pissing everyone off, it's only a matter of time. You know, I still haven't heard anyone who favors the war in Iraq offer a clear rationale for why we're there, what we hope to accomplish, and how we're going to accomplish it - taking into account actual reality, in particular the reactions of the Iraqi people, rather than ideologically driven flight to La-La Land. Speaking of flip-flopping, how many different rationales have been offered and discarded by now? And you all read where Tom DeLay claimed not only that people were "overreacting" to the news of torture in Abu Ghraib (what is an appropriately scaled reaction to atrocity, Tom?) but that (in an apparent effort to dismiss those overreactors) such people were only doing so to further the antiwar effort. That degree of moral sensitivity to exploitation was utterly absent when it came time to ramp up to the war, at which point any of Saddam's atrocities were fair game to further the *pro*-war effort. But there I go: implying that right-wing fundamentalists might use rational thought. They don't: they have positions, and they hold them "consistently" and "stay the course," reality be damned. Those who think otherwise are deluded or evil. The perspective is intrinsically anti-democratic. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: Solipsism is its own reward :: :: --Crow T. Robot ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V13 #138 ********************************