From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V5 #90 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Monday, April 14 2003 Volume 05 : Number 090 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] politics [Jennifer Coia ] [RS] politics [Norman Johnson ] Re: [RS] Politics Redux ["Shelley DePaul" ] Re: [RS] Politics Redux [ThisWasPompeii@aol.com] Re: [RS] Politics Redux [Lisa Davis & family ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:04:45 -0400 From: Jennifer Coia Subject: [RS] politics On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 03:11 PM, shindell-list-digest wrote: > I recently engaged in an exchange with a list member about the war, but I took it off the list because I had an opposing view, and what I've always found is that people react personally to politics. We essentially pick our politics based on personal beliefs, so it is easy to get very heated too quickly. It's more difficult to embrace another's opinion especially on something one feels so passionately about. I propose one solution could be to try to argue respectively and if you feel overly heated, you address the person in private. It worked really well for Bill and I, (speaking only for myself) but we managed to get by without any "name calling". Maybe this is why we have not progressed to being able to negotiate on a global basis without violence. Like people have said already, when people, individuals cannot have a conversation without hard feelings, how do we expect peaceful negotiations? that said, I am completely against war, especially this one, and all of the foundations of it. I feel it had little to do with "freedom for Iraqis" especially since our government hasn't even come up with a plan on how to help aide the process of freedom. One would think, that if that was your real AIM, you'd go into the war with a plan. Very basic fundamentals on implementing anything...Come up with a business plan, then you move forward to execute the plan. Removing a leader does not mean 30million people are suddenly free and will prosper. They are already seeing signs of factional fighting within Iraq. If we lost our "leader" tomorrow, would we be suddenly "not free"? It's NOT as simple as killing a leader to provide freedom to an entire country, and one based on different cultural and religious beliefs than our own, Do we have the capacity to proceed with compassion and respect for the fundamental cultural/religious differences and guide them into freedom based on THEIR ideals and NOT on OURS? questions questions. We have yet to prove to any one country that we are capable of that. I pray the adrenaline calms down in Washington and we leave Syria alone. Let's concentrate on cleaning up the mess we've made and hope to someone's/everyone's god that we do right by those Afghani and Iraqi civilians after all the promises and wreckage. > > "Have you read the Constitution? I have!" oh yeah...the constitution. "all men were created equal" only at that time that was written, women, blacks, native americans, and non landowners (non-wealthy) people were excluded from any constitutional rights. only the white educated elite were allowed to vote or participate in any political decisions. have we come much further? jc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:21:20 -0400 From: Norman Johnson Subject: [RS] politics I have had little to say about the war per se on this list except in relation to Richard's comment about Evian (which I maintain is not really a position on the war but of the arrogant and silly and counterproductive sneerings of the French-- for what it's worth, I think it is in the interests of the US to continually court the international community). I really hope that the Iraqi people are able to have a free and democratic state that emerges from within and not from being imposed on from the US. That day isn't here yet and I think celebrations are still premature. RE: Bill's post-- I would not have reacted toward it were it not a deliberate dig aganist "progressives". If he had *just* said, isn't this a great day for the Iraqis- I probably would not had said anything. But a number of people took pains to keep politics off the list after the complaints. So, I think we should adhere to one standard. If you are going to criticize people for putting politics on the list, then don't put politics on the list. As for my opinion- Richard's music is inherently political (albeit at times, oblique). It isn't like his songs are all "Lazy". So, for that reason I think politics will creep in and I think it should be discussed. But it should be kept civil and fair.... and be directed to the matter at hand and not the person. I also think that these political discussions should stick closely to Richard's music... and as Ron said, if the politics start to drown out the music, those discussions should be taken off list. Norman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:32:54 -0400 From: "Shelley DePaul" Subject: Re: [RS] Politics Redux See now, there we go again. We're so busy catagorizing each other into groups and attacking each other that the issues are just lying there on the ground. Personally I don't care what people choose to call themselves whether it's with regard to God or politics. It's their solutions to the problems that I am profoundly interested in. For example, and getting this thing back to Richard's songs, I think that "The Things That I Have Seen" has a lot to say about the effects on an individual's psyche of experiencing close up the reality of death and human tragedy. What might he be trying to say there? I think it relates to the war. Also, and I think someone else mentioned this song, "You Stay Here" contains some incredibly simple yet powerful images. The one I can't get out of my mind is the washing of the dirty (possibly bloody) coats clean with "mountain snow." . There's a statement. (I also enjoyed some of your comments earlier about the tiger tanks. I never would have known that. Always perceived that tiger as Blake's tiger. Possibly Richard was thinking of both) Anyway there's some stuff to mull over. : ) O.K. off to work. Shelley - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vanessa C Wills" To: Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [RS] Politics Redux > I'm calmer now ... > > What bothers me most about some of the pro-war or anti-anti-war-protester > comments I've seen on this and other lists is that a caricature of the > liberal standpoint is frequently set up like a strawman and then struck > down. It's unfair, for example, to assume that the standpoint of > those who are anti-war will be so thin and weak as to be challenged by the > fact that many Iraqi people are happy to have Saddam out of power. I, for > one, am not that silly; my (liberal-minded) thoughts on the issue have > room for the claim that this war can have some positive effects. It > disturbs me when I see "liberal" used synonymously with "post-modernist > ivory-towered simpleton." > > On the same day that a post appeared on this list about what has been > called the liberation of Baghdad, I had earlier posted into my blog about > those events, and insofar as happiness at the sight of smiling Iraqi faces > was concerned, had made very similar comments. It frustrated me to read a > post that seemed to suggest that Baghdad's liberation had somehow "showed" > all us anti-war protesters; as though somehow our position never had room > for the moral facts that Saddam is/was evil and that the Iraqi people are > better off without him. I feel as though there is this perception out > there that all liberals are completely out of touch with moral reality, > and if you just showed us all how bad some people are, we'd immediately > change our minds. I have to admit, that struck a sore point with me > because I happen to think that to lose sight of the fact that Saddam is > very bad is to flirt with evil, oneself. I'm also just a big defender of > the principle of charity; the mere fact that another person has an opinion > that conflicts with one's own is no reason to think he/she must be making > some very basic mistake (like not noticing that people prefer not to be > governed by Saddam Hussein). > > --Vanessa ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:05:18 EDT From: ThisWasPompeii@aol.com Subject: Re: [RS] Politics Redux In a message dated 04/14/2003 2:12:24 PM Central Daylight Time, vcw1+@pitt.edu writes: > It disturbs me when I see "liberal" used synonymously with "post-modernist > ivory-towered simpleton." > You have a point, Vanessa. For years a friend of mine worked as a public defender, specifically death-penalty cases. She was often stereotyped. She said, "People act as though I think my clients are nice guys. They're not. They're vicious killers. But the death penalty is a fraud. People think they're more secure, but they're not." Someone wrote that the political is often personal. There's truth to that. My personal history leads me to be frightened of violent sociopaths (like Saddam) whereas my brother's history leads him to be frightened of government. Last year he said he'd like to live in Phnom Phen because "there are no laws." Donna ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 20:10:55 -0400 From: Lisa Davis & family Subject: Re: [RS] Politics Redux > It worked really well for Bill and I, (speaking only for myself) but we managed to get by without any "name calling". Me too -- we've been having a perfectly pleasant time each thinking the other is a bit soft in the head :). Well-meaning but simple. :) My most helpful piece of advice to Bill: use more smileys. Also, on my own law-related list, this guiding principle: don't take offense easily. (translated to my kids, "do not assume a bad thing.") I guess for this kind of conversation what we mean is, do not take vehemence, emotion, and excitement for hostility. And let (s)he who has never said a stupid thing cast the first stone. Lisa ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V5 #90 **********************************