kiss yer ass goodbye, pt.16, book 12, ch.84, verse 73, paragraph 52, line 98
don wheeler
a demonstration and throws a rock through a window in a government building ,
that person can now be sentenced to life in prison for committing a "terrorist
act".
What no one is telling me however is just what is a terrorist, or what are the
acts
that can or will be defined as "terrorist".
Who is it that will be doing that defining ? Will it be Congress , A committee
of local
civic and religious leaders, a military Tank driver , or a local cop on the beat
?
I'm thinking we will be following the Israeli model and be labeling anything the
US wishes to ethnically cleanse or destroy as "terrorist" whether it be a stone
throwing child, or the house that gave that child and his family shelter, or the
city or village that gave that house a plot to sit on, the jobs or land that fed
that family, or the country the village is a part of.
Aside from seeming to destroy every building in every city or village in
Afghanistan, and/or any human unlucky enough to be caught in or near them as an
act of pure revenge what purpose does the bombing of Afghan cities do to "bring
to Justice"
the few hundred or so persons identified as responsible for the Trade Towers
attack.
People who are admittedly living and hiding in caves, far from the cities , up
in the mountains.
OK !
Lets say that you bomb the cities to the stone age, and totally devastate a
people and a land that has been already devastated by 40 years of non stop war
and oppression.
You reduce them to the state of starving refugees dependent on you for any crumb
of food handed out in your camps, then what ?
Do you occupy the country with troops to keep "order" or to go on a possibly
years long "posse" to hunt down Mr. Ben Laden, then what ?
Do you move the operation to other pre selected countries, pre designated as
"terrorist" by our Israeli, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and Turkish allies.
Oh, and what about the indigenous terrorists south of our borders ?
I bet the Latin governments would love our help in destroying any "terrorist"
opposition to their regimes.
This whole bombing operation and/or attempted occupation of Afghanistan reminds
me of the American "Indian" wars, or in a way it has echoes of the German
destruction of the Czechoslovakian village Lidece after the assassination of
Hydrich.
I don't mean to equate New york city or the poor victims in the towers with the
Nazis,
I'm just trying to draw a parallel with the unrestrained vengeful response to
that act of terrorism that the US seems to be raining down on the heads of the
Afghan people now.
It just seems to me that this whole affair seems to be about wiping out any
opposition to the US or it's puppet regimes geopolitical control of the oil
producing regions of the world, and a convenient way to override or change any
or all laws, civil rights , Constitutional rights or liberties we might have
left over.
Though it is tempting to do so because it so easily enables big brother to be
"big brother", I am assuming that the military industrial cartel is just using
the incident and did not directly create it.
I am also assuming now that by writing this e mail and posting it on a public
forum, I am today , or will be judged someday to be guilty of having committed
a "terrorist act"
by calling into question the acts of this country or the Oil companies that
control it.
After all , if I don't like a free press turned into an entertainment media I
must be
anti American, right ?
If I am offended at the occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs
by
the Israelis , I must be an anti semite, right ?
And to my point, if I protest the military or foreign policies of my country, If
I don't
blindly agree that whomever or whatever they decree to be "terrorist" should be
"wiped out" by any means they deem appropriate, I must be a traitor according
to my President, Right ?
If I'm not with them, then I'm against them, right?
Then I must be a terrorist, right?
Then I'm a dead man , or a criminal, Right ?
And as we all know, Criminals have no rights, other than to remain silent, Right
?
I'm supposing a lot of you wish I had done that, right ?
My own family has even told me they don't want to hear anything negative coming
from me.
I guess I will have to mail letters to my self if I want to protest anything.
Gee, I never thought about this before, but I wonder if I could be prosecuted
for committing terrorist acts against my self ?
I had better be careful, you never can tell what new laws might be passed as we
speak.
Oh , by the way, here is the article I read that sparked today's outburst....
================================================
Feds remove public information from Web sites
October 13, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) -- United States federal agencies are scrutinizing their
Web sites and striking any information they believe terrorists might use to
plot attacks against the country.
The move is quickly reversing strides the government has made over the last
decade toward providing public information online.
The review of the government's web sites is wide in scope. It is unclear
whether a specific guideline has been passed down on which types of information
should be removed.
There also is no uniform process for the review, according to some agency
officials. Some federal agencies are not commenting on whether they are removing
information from their Web sites, while others give vague descriptions of their
deletions.
Useful to terrorists?
Bush administration officials speculate that all of the data could be useful to
terrorists.
There is some evidence that terrorists who crashed planes into the World Trade
Center and Pentagon used the Internet to accomplish their mission, Attorney
General John Ashcroft has said.
Ashcroft also told Congress that one person in federal custody had downloaded
information about crop-dusting planes, which could be used for biological or
chemical attacks.
Some watchdog groups and first amendment attorneys worry the Web site
restructuring will separate people needlessly from public information.
"In many ways, it is ridiculous, because this information is public, and the
Internet
is a public domain," said Landry Bolville, a first amendment attorney in
Washington.
"Any piece of information could be used by a terrorist, and it seems like a lot
of
what is being altered is not directly dangerous. You haven't made life harder
for the
terrorist; you've just made it harder for taxpaying citizens."
Dale Houstman
"don wheeler" <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3BCB1C9E...@optonline.net...
>
> OK !
> Lets say that you bomb the cities to the stone age, and totally devastate
a
> people and a land that has been already devastated by 40 years of non stop
war
> and oppression.
> You reduce them to the state of starving refugees dependent on you for any
crumb
> of food handed out in your camps, then what ?
> Do you occupy the country with troops to keep "order" or to go on a
possibly
> years long "posse" to hunt down Mr. Ben Laden, then what ?
From what I've been hearing, the US is considering using the Northern
Alliance forces as a preliminary government. Not a good idea, but probably
the only option (besides a permanent US force, which I don't think would be
viable there). The problem there is that that alliance is a very fractured
object, with little cohesion outside a desire to oust the Taliban. Also,
they are not much "better" than the Taliban in many ways, so the endgame is
a serious problem.
> Do you move the operation to other pre selected countries, pre designated
as
> "terrorist" by our Israeli, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and Turkish allies.
I think the "world war against terrorism" notion will slowly dissipate as
our very limited action in Afghanistan progresses. At any rate, this "idea"
was created by Bush in a very ill-considered speech, and his senior military
advisors have already begun talking him down off those dizzy heights.
> I am also assuming now that by writing this e mail and posting it on a
public
> forum, I am today , or will be judged someday to be guilty of having
committed
> a "terrorist act"
Who knows?
dmh
Eris de Suzerain
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:9qfse...@enews4.newsguy.com...
:
: "don wheeler" <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Last I heard they were considering propping up an old King, one who was
highly ineffective in his brief, inherited rule... hasn't lived there in
lots a lotsa years.... Or did they nix that one already? Also heard talk of
a "Coalition" government, which means: ethnic representation from each group
(there are like, three ethnic groups? i think?) at least for
"transition".... Transition can take years... 20 to 30, to properly acheive
stability - that is if you can prop up a leader that people will support,
and keep the troops acting human long enough to keep the faith of the locals
(i've lived with american military overseas, and the handful of perverse and
cruel people leave a lasting impression on people who live there).
:
: > Do you move the operation to other pre selected countries, pre
designated
: as
: > "terrorist" by our Israeli, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and Turkish
allies.
:
: I think the "world war against terrorism" notion will slowly dissipate as
: our very limited action in Afghanistan progresses. At any rate, this
"idea"
: was created by Bush in a very ill-considered speech, and his senior
military
: advisors have already begun talking him down off those dizzy heights.
The Bush Administration advised the U.N. (last week, wasn't it?) that there
would indeed be further military targets - I think the day before the bomb
got the U.N. mine clearers.... Optimistic thinking - but if one studies
history one will note that maniacal events occur watched by societies who
believe that surely the sane mind will prevail. The text and tone of the
speeches is not changing, Bush is threatening further targets (unspecified,
but certain). His speech just last Friday made a few references to the
extended duration of this "War" - -
:
: > I am also assuming now that by writing this e mail and posting it on a
:
:
don wheeler
Dale Houstman wrote:
> From what I've been hearing, the US is considering using the Northern
> Alliance forces as a preliminary government. Not a good idea, but probably
> the only option (besides a permanent US force, which I don't think would be
> viable there). The problem there is that that alliance is a very fractured
> object, with little cohesion outside a desire to oust the Taliban. Also,
> they are not much "better" than the Taliban in many ways, so the endgame is
> a serious problem.
Hi Dale,
Long time....
It is good to read you again.
I hope all is well with you and yours...
last I heard, the Pakistani's were using their leverage with the George (I want
a coalition like daddy had) Bush administration to argue against helping
militarily or using the "Northern Alliance" folks to set up a "new" government
in Afghanistan (they want the role for themselves), plus the US wants a more
compliant and controllable
client regime installed than the Northern Alliance OR the Pakistanis
> > Do you move the operation to other pre selected countries, pre designated
> as
> > "terrorist" by our Israeli, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and Turkish allies.
>
>
> I think the "world war against terrorism" notion will slowly dissipate as
> our very limited action in Afghanistan progresses. At any rate, this "idea"
> was created by Bush in a very ill-considered speech, and his senior military
> advisors have already begun talking him down off those dizzy heights.
I think the opposite is true.
They seem to be talking escalation, escalation, escalation
Just follow the money.....
> > I am also assuming now that by writing this e mail and posting it on a
> public
> > forum, I am today , or will be judged someday to be guilty of having
> committed
> > a "terrorist act"
>
> Who knows?
The list makers ?
> dmh
don wheeler
cythera wrote:
> don wheeler <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<3BCB1C9E...@optonline.net>...
> > I've been informed that under new laws or guidelines if one is
> > participating in a demonstration and throws a rock through a window in a
> > government building , that person can now be sentenced to life in prison
> > for committing a "terrorist act".
>
> Have you checked the A.C.L.U. site?
>
> > What no one is telling me however is just what is a terrorist, or what
> > are the acts that can or will be defined as "terrorist".
> >
> > Who is it that will be doing that defining ? Will it be Congress , A
> > committee of local civic and religious leaders, a military Tank driver ,
> > or a local cop on the beat?
>
> ?
> Who makes laws in the United States?
Wealthy representiaves of the military industrial complex
>
>
> <snip anti-Israel bit>
My "bit" was not "anti-Israel" .
It was anti-fascist
> > Aside from seeming to destroy every building in every city or village in
> > Afghanistan, and/or any human unlucky enough to be caught in or near them
>
> Your claim is that the U.S. has destroyed every building in Afghanistan?
> That's a lot of buildings with a lot of dead and injured people. hmmm.
> About how many people would you say have been killed by the bombing?
> Please tell us, there are many Americans who would like to know. Thanks.
I did say "seeming to" because that comes closest to what it looks like to me.
You are right to ridicule me for my exaggerations, and I should have kept my emotions from showing
with my obvious poetic license.
For the sake of accuracy, as well as credibility, I should have used verified figures.
The problem it seems is that every side is engaged in a huge lying campaign.
I can't rely on anything I hear or read coming from the principals as being true.
Even so called neutral sources are proving to not be so neutral in this thing.
Truth indeed has become the first causality...
> cythera.
I find it telling that you have chosen to go after a weak target (me) with your
condescending criticisms instead of addressing the real evils in this world.
Why not address and condemn torture, fascism, terrorism, colonial occupations with your time.
Hey , I'm easy. I can be picked apart for a lot of things . Uneducated, poor writing skills, prone
to exaggeration, too emotional , all this and more, .....
I freely admit my flaws and put them out for all to see..., but the issues shouldn't be about you,
me , style or grammar.
they should be about life and human rights..
period...
don wheeler
Morpheal
> Wealthy representiaves of the military industrial complex
Your being similar to most people, you wouldn't really want to pay for
the level of defence against attack upon your way of life and the
freedoms you enjoy or strive to have.... so someone has to donate it.
Then you get the freedom to piss on them.
Way to go, but it's freedom.
M.
jaZZmanian Devil
Relating to the price you pay for additional security, there is a story
in our local paper today which this conversation brings to mind. A local
couple was married this weekend, and flew out the following morning to
Charlotte where they were supposed to catch a connecting flight to
Cancun for their dream honeymoon. Upon arrival at the gates in
Charlotte, the new husband was informed by the recently beefed up
security people that his identification documents (state drivers license
and birth certificate) were not up to snuff and that he could not board
the plane. The couple was forced to return home to try to sort out the
mess and get more ID for him. They are complainging quite loudly.
A small story, but perhaps a sign of things to come. In our efforts to
improve our dismal internal security against terrorists, certain privacy
issues will have to take a back seat, and certain toes will be stepped
on.
--
jaZZ md
- - - -
In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In
peace: goodwill.
-- Sir Winston Churchill
Eris de Suzerain
"Morpheal" <morp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BCC09A2...@sympatico.ca...
Freedom is not forced conscription of youth into the military.
The concept that war is necessary and fought for Freedom is sold to citizens
through media paid for by the same folks who finance the war. Oddly, the
financiers are never the ones who fight it. The same folk who convince you
that McDonalds is what you want, that more consumption period is what you
want, that quality of life is purchasable - those are the same people who
sell the War.
War is sold with emotion, high powered words (Evil, Good, Compassion,
Justice) used in speeches literally devoid of hard facts and philosophical
content, omission of facts. War on ALL sides is always wrong - violence does
not end violence, like creates like and it is no different in the case of
War. Note: our methods may have changed, but oddly enough war keeps
happening.... For a long long time there were no "Big" wars, none that
Americans noticed.... Although they were happening.... Somalia, Haiti, India
and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, outbursts of terrorism occurring across
Europe (which they have been dealing with without bombing people for some
time), etc etc etc....
Humans are capable of amazing things when it comes to thought - the ability
to create and manipulate environments, emotions, behaviors even... With
years of "evolution" under our belts as a species, with so much knowledge
and so many raw materials - it is worth it to try a different approach for
a change, to change the cycle by changing how we react to the same events.
It is actually the ONLY way to change - for you cannot possibly and
effectively kill in advance all "pockets" of people who may potentially be
violent... unless we are going to institute childhood nurseries run by the
state, ala Brave New World. One should also note that nothing new in this
world was ever created by doing the same old shit over and over. Just
because it has never really been tried, just because World Peace and
cooperative autonomy hasn't occurred before doesn't mean it is not possible.
It means radically changing how societies view currency, economy - for what
value is paper? What sense does it make to force the existence of jobs that
we don't need (like coal mining) for "economy", when our "natural economy"
would be better off without them? We force it because the media and the
bosses say we need money, we need jobs to get money - therefore we will
continue outdated practices to force the existence of jobs. Read Buckminster
Fuller, he is much more literate and well-thought-out than I - but it IS
possible to create another way of living WITHOUT cults, religions, uniform
existence, loss of independence and true choice..... And still have your
internet, and DVDs, and fun stuffs. It's called Evolution. It was the
original point of the technological boom - to give us more free time and
make our jobs easier... remember????
The point being - consider where the idea that War is Necessary came from
for you. Consider who and what material reinforces that idea in you - who is
"paying" for the news shows and the entertainment you watch? Or don't - but
I don't believe any one of them. Period. Humans can solve things differently
if they choose too - or they can choose to react with their past simian
programming and bomb themselves and anthrax themselves and worry themselves
and hate themselves right out of existence.
jaZZmanian Devil
Beautiful words. A lovely concept. So please share with us, in this
evolutionary vision that you embrace, what it the appropriate response
to a well organized, highly trained, well financed group of terrori...
errr.. sorry... "idealists" who hate your country and crash planes into
your national landmarks? Nothing? Convert all of America to Islam? Pay
them to stop? I'm all for a non-violent solution if you could propose
one with a chance of working.
Nikolaus Maack
> Beautiful words. A lovely concept. So please share with us, in this
> evolutionary vision that you embrace, what it the appropriate response
> to a well organized, highly trained, well financed group of terrori...
> errr.. sorry... "idealists" who hate your country and crash planes into
> your national landmarks? Nothing? Convert all of America to Islam? Pay
> them to stop? I'm all for a non-violent solution if you could propose
> one with a chance of working.
You've got me wondering -- would paying them to stop be more effective and
cheaper than bombing the hell out of them?
"Your country is poor, ours is rich. You're pissed off at us. For that,
we're sorry. Here's five thousand dollars American for each of your
citizens. No offense, but we're going to hand it out personally, to make
sure it gets to the people. Oh, by the way -- give us Bin Laden?"
You end up spending less than you would on fighterplanes, make all the
people happy, and probably get Osama too.
The way they're doing it now, they're bombing everyone, killing innocents,
pissing everyone off and thus breeding a whole new generation of
terrorists.
I am reminded of the scene in Les Miserables. The priest takes in the
wandering convict, lets him spend the night, feeds him. The convict
rewards the priest by stealing his silverware and beating the priest on
the head. When the convict is captured and brought back, he's told the
cops the priest gave him the silverware. The police laugh at this
pathetic lie.
"Yes, yes, I gave it to him," the priest says. "What's more, you forgot
the candlesticks! I'll have my maid fetch them for you at once."
The convict and the police are stunned.
"Why are you doing this?" the convict asks the priest.
"Do you think only the devil buys souls?" the priest asks him. "I have
just bought your soul. And now you must do good."
Sure, just a piece of fiction. Utter silliness. In real life, a convict
would laugh at this softheaded priest and run off with the loot. Then
again, maybe not.
Nik
jaZZmanian Devil
> You've got me wondering -- would paying them to stop be more effective and
> cheaper than bombing the hell out of them?
>
> "Your country is poor, ours is rich. You're pissed off at us. For that,
> we're sorry. Here's five thousand dollars American for each of your
> citizens. No offense, but we're going to hand it out personally, to make
> sure it gets to the people. Oh, by the way -- give us Bin Laden?"
>
> You end up spending less than you would on fighterplanes, make all the
> people happy, and probably get Osama too.
Ah, but here's the problem with that option. It's not the poor, hungry
people in general that we're after. Some, if not most, probably dont'
give a good rat's ass about America, Christianity, etc. and really just
want a good meal. The ones we need to deal with are well financed (just
look at the planning that went into the 9/11 attacks. Years of training,
flight schools, staying in hotels for months at a time, etc.) and would
not be bought off that easily. They are idealists, would-be martyrs, and
fanatics. We're already dropping food (yes, yes, as *well* as bombs) on
the people you refer to. They don't have two soup bones to rub together.
I don't think they are taking flight training in Florida. Al Qeda is who
we need to address, and I dont' think they'll bite on five grand each,
nor turn over their new prophet.
Nik Maack
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
> Ah, but here's the problem with that option. It's not the poor, hungry
> people in general that we're after.
How strange, then, that we're bombing them.
Nik
jaZZmanian Devil
Agreed. But again, what's the alternative? Yes, yes...... I know... "NOT
bombing the poor hungry people." But apparently we aren't as accurate as
the govt. would have us believe of our marvelous technology. So, I ask
again... what is the alternative? Not attack at all? Then what do we do?
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> "Your country is poor, ours is rich. You're pissed off at us. For that,
> we're sorry. Here's five thousand dollars American for each of your
> citizens. No offense, but we're going to hand it out personally, to make
> sure it gets to the people. Oh, by the way -- give us Bin Laden?"
> You end up spending less than you would on fighterplanes, make all the
> people happy, and probably get Osama too.
Money can be stolen. Change money for education and infrastructure
and you've got a good point.
#Paul
Nik Maack
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
> Agreed. But again, what's the alternative? Yes, yes...... I know... "NOT
> bombing the poor hungry people." But apparently we aren't as accurate as
> the govt. would have us believe of our marvelous technology. So, I ask
> again... what is the alternative? Not attack at all? Then what do we do?
I still think my plan of buying Afghanistan is not a bad idea. If you
pay most of the people -- even if most of them are poor -- you'll have
an entire country on your side. The terrorists will seem utterly
ridiculous, for wanting to blow up such a wonderful, generous country as
the USA.
Food and bombs, Bush says, thinking that using the carrot and the stick
will fix things -- but mostly the stick. I think he'd get much better
results if he just used carrots.
Buy Afghanistan. Make it a state. Offer it money. Help it get up to
speed technology-wise.
America got mugged. After getting mugged, it's very difficult to get up
off your ass, feel the lump on your head, smile, and say, "Oh well. Shit
happens." Most want the mugger strung up by his balls.
Imagine the breathtaking beauty in the act of finding the mugger,
figuring out what's wrong with his life, and trying to help him --
instead of nailing his ass to a cross and threatening to do the same to
any other mugger that strolls by.
(I think it's China that has a policy of letting itself being conquered
and thus winning the war. "Okay, you win. Move in." And slowly the
conqueror becomes Chinese. China wins.)
Canada (where I live) just passed some scary anti-terrorism laws. They
feature things like holding people without a reason for three days if
they are a suspected terrorist. And, whoops, they kind of forgot to
come up with a real specific definition of what a "terrorist" is. Creepy.
As usual, people seem so keen to punish criminals, as opposed to dealing
with those social dilemmas that bring about crime.
Yes, I am terribly naive and soft-headed and silly.
Nik
jaZZmanian Devil
> I still think my plan of buying Afghanistan is not a bad idea. If you
> pay most of the people -- even if most of them are poor -- you'll have
> an entire country on your side. The terrorists will seem utterly
> ridiculous, for wanting to blow up such a wonderful, generous country as
> the USA.
>
> Food and bombs, Bush says, thinking that using the carrot and the stick
> will fix things -- but mostly the stick. I think he'd get much better
> results if he just used carrots.
>
> Buy Afghanistan. Make it a state. Offer it money. Help it get up to
> speed technology-wise.
Well, that would solve the specific problem of Afghanistan as the
country of choice for Al Qeda to hang out in, I'll grant you that. So
the result? They pack up their trucks full of weapons and satellite
communications equipment and move to <fill in name of next muslim
country here>. Now what? We buy them too? How much cash do we have in
the old purse, anyway? We're going to be buying a lot of the planet
before he runs out of places to hide in. And in the meantime? More
planes crashing, more anthrax, and more people who still care more about
screwing us over than their own lives running along to join him, only
five thousand dollars richer than they were before and well fed. I'm
sorry. I think it's a noble idea, but it just doesn't sound practical on
so many fronts.
> America got mugged. After getting mugged, it's very difficult to get up
> off your ass, feel the lump on your head, smile, and say, "Oh well. Shit
> happens." Most want the mugger strung up by his balls.
I'd hardly equate the 9/11 attacks with a "mugging". Don't you think
that's rather belittling, trivializing, and waaaaaaaaaaay
oversimplifying a tragic episode of monstrous proportion?
> Imagine the breathtaking beauty in the act of finding the mugger,
> figuring out what's wrong with his life, and trying to help him --
> instead of nailing his ass to a cross and threatening to do the same to
> any other mugger that strolls by.
On occasion that will work in our society with a small percentage of
muggers. Again, I think you've trivialized it in this analogy to where
the proposed solution will work in one, but not the other.
> (I think it's China that has a policy of letting itself being conquered
> and thus winning the war. "Okay, you win. Move in." And slowly the
> conqueror becomes Chinese. China wins.)
I see. So we invite Mr. bin Laden and his friends to move to Hollywood
and collect govt. cheese and wait for them to turn into ......
capitalists?
> Canada (where I live) just passed some scary anti-terrorism laws. They
> feature things like holding people without a reason for three days if
> they are a suspected terrorist. And, whoops, they kind of forgot to
> come up with a real specific definition of what a "terrorist" is. Creepy.
>
Scary. Similar limitations on freedoms we previously took for granted in
the US are taking place here as we speak.
> As usual, people seem so keen to punish criminals, as opposed to dealing
> with those social dilemmas that bring about crime.
Again, a solution that might work in the mugger analogy, but not here.
What "social dilemnas" are you referring to? The fact that the entire
muslim world feels put upon by the Jews and Christians, etc. for
centuries of abuse, warfare, etc.? If you've got a viable plan to "deal
with" that, you should be in the White House, and I'll be first in line
to vote for you, Canadian or not.
> Yes, I am terribly naive and soft-headed and silly.
Perhaps, but the sky must be a terribly pretty color in your world, and
I'll confess to being a tad jealous. :-)
Michael voytinsky
> You've got me wondering -- would paying them to stop be more effective and
> cheaper than bombing the hell out of them?
Reading this reminded me of something I read on CNN.COM recently.
They have been interviewing senior Russian officers who actually
fought in Afghanistan. One of them said something to that effect that
you can not fight Afghans, but you can buy them - and everyone knows
what country has the most money.
The bombing is idiotic - it is only being done to show the idiotic
public that something is being done. The fact that the operation was
planned and executed outside of Afghanistan seems to be lost. A real
solution (apart from maybe trying a foreign policy that does not piss
quite as many people off) would require intelligence and police work -
which unfortunately are not as visible as bombings.
> "Your country is poor, ours is rich. You're pissed off at us. For that,
> we're sorry. Here's five thousand dollars American for each of your
> citizens. No offense, but we're going to hand it out personally, to make
> sure it gets to the people. Oh, by the way -- give us Bin Laden?"
I am sure dropping greenbacks on troops would disorganize them more
than dropping bombs. It would also be cheaper and more humane.
> Sure, just a piece of fiction. Utter silliness. In real life, a convict
> would laugh at this softheaded priest and run off with the loot. Then
> again, maybe not.
I'd give it a 50-50 either way. Unfortunately, real life involves
real people, and the more real people we have in a group, the more
stupid the group is.
M
Nik Maack
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
> Well, that would solve the specific problem of Afghanistan as the
> country of choice for Al Qeda to hang out in, I'll grant you that. So
> the result? They pack up their trucks full of weapons and satellite
> communications equipment and move to <fill in name of next muslim
> country here>. Now what? We buy them too? How much cash do we have in
> the old purse, anyway?
I could have sworn the US spent a trillion dollars on a single fighter
plane at one point. I suspect that the same money would be better spent
as gifts to enemies. How much does a single missile cost?
> We're going to be buying a lot of the planet
> before he runs out of places to hide in.
Ah, but you're forgetting -- once the US has good relations with a group
(because they've been bought) that group will be more than willing to
help out. They might even be willing to trick Osama into coming out
into the open.
> I think it's a noble idea, but it just doesn't sound practical on
> so many fronts.
Peace is very impractical.
> > America got mugged. After getting mugged, it's very difficult to get up
> > off your ass, feel the lump on your head, smile, and say, "Oh well. Shit
> > happens." Most want the mugger strung up by his balls.
>
> I'd hardly equate the 9/11 attacks with a "mugging". Don't you think
> that's rather belittling, trivializing, and waaaaaaaaaaay
> oversimplifying a tragic episode of monstrous proportion?
It's a metaphor. And an apt one, in a way. If you'd prefer, how about
we say a mugger attacks, rapes, and murders my sister. Instead of
wanting to kill the mugger (and anyone who harbors him) I could try to
help him become sane.
> I see. So we invite Mr. bin Laden and his friends to move to Hollywood
> and collect govt. cheese and wait for them to turn into ......
> capitalists?
I suspect that, if such a thing were possible, Bin Laden would become a
little more American, and the US would become a little more muslim.
> Again, a solution that might work in the mugger analogy, but not here.
> What "social dilemnas" are you referring to?
Well, for starters, Afghanistan (and the muslim world as a whole) aren't
what I would call "economically happy". They're also technologically
backward. These people feel that an American giant is conquering the
world, and they risk being its slaves. By buying them out, helping
their countries, helping them become healthier and saner, they probably
wouldn't be quite so messed up. For one, the governments wouldn't be
likely to harbor terrorists.
> > Yes, I am terribly naive and soft-headed and silly.
>
> Perhaps, but the sky must be a terribly pretty color in your world, and
> I'll confess to being a tad jealous. :-)
A giant Marilyn Monroe kissed the cheek of my sky, and then smeared the
lipstick around with the end of her pink tongue -- the sun.
Nik
Nik Maack
Michael voytinsky wrote:
> The bombing is idiotic - it is only being done to show the idiotic
> public that something is being done.
"You have been hurt. I will fix your pain by going into the alley and
kicking a garbage can in the name of Freedom and Democracy."
> I am sure dropping greenbacks on troops would disorganize them more
> than dropping bombs. It would also be cheaper and more humane.
I wonder if this would actually work?
> I'd give it a 50-50 either way. Unfortunately, real life involves
> real people, and the more real people we have in a group, the more
> stupid the group is.
Real people usually base their ideologies on fictions. Example, Mario
Puzo's "The Godfather", which taught the mafia how to behave. The book
was complete and utter fiction -- but the mafia loved it and adopted the rules.
It would be nice if someone could make up a piece of compelling fiction
in which behaving sanely came across as cool, intelligent, and sophisticated.
Nik
PS.
Welcome back to the Internet.
Eris de Suzerain
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9qhgbi$pjf$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
I've heard that one - and a really similar one involving a Zen Buddhist
(short vs. = he's meditating, thief steals his fancy objects while he sits
unmoved, as thief walks out door one eye pops open and he reminds the thief
that he left behind the most precious item - the one sitting on the altar
that he is meditating before... etc. etc. - different culture, same tale)
The concept is good, but requires Real Compassion (not that marketed kind),
the kind that knows that the action may not work but the end goal is worth
the long punt.
There is the additional factor to consider, one that this tale takes into
account as well although not on the surface: the true nature of charity.
Charity is not just tossing things people want at their feet hoping they
will leave you alone - charity is done to BETTER their lives and aid them in
their challenges and transitions. Some are better off than others, rather
than that giving them the right to do as they please and enslave those less
fortunate than them some would believe that they have the moral obligation
to use their extra to raise up some from the lower end. Charity has a bad
name around America, too often it is viewed as giving excuses to the lazy -
the truth is not every human was born with the same chance as another. The
truth is that when some are born with the cards stacked against them they
try really hard and succeed with perseverance. The truth is also that when
some are born with the cards stacked against them they are not taught (nor
are they exposed to) other ways of solving their pain and suffering - if
they are not taught to fish how can their lives ever improve? When you put a
Man (generic, women too) in a corner his nature changes, when a Man feels
desperate He will do the irrational in vain hopes to improve His situation
(why, this is how the Taliban originally gained support for their
takeover... they seemed better than the available alternatives at the
time)... and if you pull the thorn out of the paw of the lion, you might
have a powerful friend... for life... (sorry for mixing my metaphors) (and
for the lack of sentence structure)
Eris de Suzerain
"jaZZmanian Devil" <js...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3BCC5EF4...@stny.rr.com...
: Nik Maack wrote:
: >
: > jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
: > > Ah, but here's the problem with that option. It's not the poor, hungry
: > > people in general that we're after.
: >
: > How strange, then, that we're bombing them.
:
: Agreed. But again, what's the alternative? Yes, yes...... I know... "NOT
: bombing the poor hungry people." But apparently we aren't as accurate as
: the govt. would have us believe of our marvelous technology. So, I ask
: again... what is the alternative? Not attack at all? Then what do we do?
: --
The Unthinkable:
Come clean.
As a nation examine our policies and interactions in the world, examine our
domestic policies and the general social environment, consider the impact of
some of our outdated practices on the global ecology AND work environment
(re: overseas factories run by wealthy U.S. companies, living wage, etc.) -
Stop and review with honesty and WITHOUT patriot pomp where we came from,
where we are and what we want to be in the future. These would be expected
of us as people, self-examination in order to adjust unwanted or detrimental
habits. Before anyone thinks I'm blaming the victim here, let us remember
that the victim (as a whole, not as individuals) has not always been kind to
those around it in it's young life.... It is heretical to say these days,
but "What comes around, goes around".... if we do not shit upon others we
will significantly reduce the desire of others to shit upon us.
Let us review the construct of a society that has begat stranger and more
bizarre and frequent murders over the last few years. It is easy to take no
responsibility, to think it is "human nature", or to think that the threat
of punishment will fix this. Truth? All of these people live here - the
Susan Smiths and Trenchcoat Mafia boyz, the Andrea Yates', (the Ukrainian in
Sacto a few months ago) - children who murder, adults who murderer their
children and co-workers - Like it or not, we reap what we sow - we are an
ailing obese nation which has lost touch with human values, a nation which
publicly places the highest importance upon appearances rather than content.
Narcissistic and therefore unwilling to look at our weak spots, the things
we could all do better - not just for ourselves but for our neighbors,
children.
It seems pressing, like we must DO something now - yet Europeans have lived
with terrorism, functioned with it. Other countries have had to/currently do
function with the bigger terrorism - war. Rather than patch the situation
with bombs and police we could put the effort into real, actual long term
solutions and try to be as safe and prudent as possible in the meantime. No
amount of bombing of Afghanistan is going to guarantee your safety. No
amount of police and national guard can keep any of us from dying, either by
violent or natural means. If my death is inevitable then let me spend my
precious life doing what we were put here to do - thinking, solving,
evolving.
So, the answer? What do we DO? Look, listen, feel, TALK - and imagine the
unthought of so it can be created. Humans are amazing when they want to be.
For all of the pessimism in the world, how many crotchety old naysayers
thought women would never amount to anything because we were just
genetically stoopid, how many said that the "colored folk" were little more
the animals so we should treat them as such, how many said we'd never fly,
never walk on the moon, how many could have even imagined the way in which
you and i (and everyone else passing by) are communicating right now? The
impossible is possible when put in the hands of creative genius - but it is
a group project. It is the whole world. We have a wealth of knowledge and
technology to draw upon, the only thing we are lacking is cooperation, a
common goal.
I am just a wayward phreak, you have no reason to take me for more than
such - But I believe there is more possible in our future than bigger,
shinier Wal-Marts. I think we are wasting our energy trying to protect and
save a broken system when we could edit it to fit our current social and
environmental needs (we made the rules in the first place, didn't we? we can
change them then). Buckminster Fuller is cooler and more logical than I -
here is a nice FAQ about his strategy for both world peace and world
prosperity, without loss of individualism and an increase in leisure
http://www.cjfearnley.com/fuller-faq-3.html
don wheeler
cythera wrote:
> Yes, you did say "seeming to", but I don't see _how_ it could seem to
> you
> (if you inform yourself) that the United States (not Britain too ?) is
> "destroying every building" in Afghanistan.
If you take into account the number of substantial buildings still standing
and apply today's "count" (according to pentagon sources broadcast on CNN)
of 2,000 "devices" (read Bombs/cruise missiles) dropped on Afghanistan so far,
and factor in hard-line statment/proclaimations that the bombing campaign is just beginning and
will increase substantially, then I think I am not so crazy to perceive
that "every building in Afghanistan" in going to be or is in the process of being destroyed.. at
least from a figural sense.
It seems that the goal is to destroy the infrastructure of the country so completely
that there would be nothing left worth ruling for the present government.
Nor would any force be left that could mount any kind of resistance to a military occupation. "We"
would then go in and set up a kind of complainant government
to rule a nation of refugees living in a great reservation , declare a victory over "terrorism" and
move on to the next preselected targeted country or group having made an profound example to those
countries we wish to exploit of how far we will go to dominate .
> I live in the United States and I don't appreciate reading that.
Of course you don't appreciate that it is being said, If i correctly perceive where your coming
from.
I live in the United States and for 50 years have been reading about the good things and the evil
things my government does or causes to be done to peoples in the world, and to the very planet it's
self, and I do not like the bad things. But they exist..
> > You are right to ridicule me for my exaggerations, and I should have
> > kept my emotions from showing with my obvious poetic license.
>
> I'm just so tired of reading and hearing anti-American garbage
By this standard, any one who opposed What the Nazis did to the Jews
would be anti German , right ?
Is dissent an act of treason to you ?
Do you think that thoughts or feelings not pro- American are by definition
anti- American ?
What if my country committed international crimes, and I commented that it was a "bad" thing they
did. would I be guilty of writing "anti-American garbage" ?
>
> > For the sake of accuracy, as well as credibility, I should have used
> > verified figures.
>
> If you have any, I would appreciate seeing them.
I don't believe you would appreciate that if I would or could.
You just said... "I live in the
United States and I don't appreciate reading that."
Also you seem highly sensitive and /or resistant to any suggestion that Israel or the United
States could be , or rather has been, guilty of any wrong doing in the area of Human rights
violations or gross interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
My politely worded (guess) perception of why , is that you have bought into the official line, lock
stock and barrel.
> > I find it telling that you have chosen to go after a weak target (me)
> > with your condescending criticisms instead of addressing the real evils
> > in this world.
>
> A word to the wise -- if you are going to post on alt.surrealism,
> best to check your ego, your unfounded comments, and your sweeping
> generalizations at the door.(please see below.) Prior dealings with
> the manipulative and/or grossly uninformed on this newsgroup (there
> are probably just about four people here total who use critical
> thinking)
> has worn away some of my patience.
This statement only illustrates how little you seem to know about the history of this
newsgroups , the people within it , and more importantly the ideas contained within
the surrealist movement.
But more than that , it implies an intolerant and rigid way of thinking.
Just as you will, I will post here and write what I damm well please.
As a matter of fact , my patience is totally shot.
WORD: If you don't like what I say don't read me..
you can comment how ever you like about my facts, sources, or style.
But you may not dictate the fucking tone I speak with.
Nor have any right to choose my venue or agenda.
If I offend you , and if you are what I suspect you are, you can always inform on me to Mossad or
the Republicans as being a suspected "terrorist" .
I think that is the term they use to describe anyone who
does not support their programs.....
> > Why not address and condemn torture, fascism, terrorism, colonial
> > occupations with your time.
>
> Mon Dieu, how do you know what I do with my time?
>
> For that matter how many of my posts have you ever read.
It was a suggestion contained within a question .
I take note that you choose not to answer it.
> > but the issues shouldn't be about you,
> > me , style or grammar.
> Please show me where they have been about _any of that_ in my
> correspondence to you and I will apologize.
You responded to my post.....I responded to the tone you took with me.
Not what you said, but the way you said it.
There was no offense taken. I just felt it deserved a direct response.
I don't look for or want an apology.
> If they are not, then I
> would appreciate that you apologize to me.
I can, and have apologized for mistakes, but
I do not apologize for saying to your face what I think or feel.
> > they should be about life and human rights..
> In the last post, my issue with you was that you seemed uninformed and
> just venting.
My problem is that I am informed.
All i can do about it however, is to vent.
> If that's what you want to do, I could just not read
> you.
Like I said , *that* would be way cool.....
> And if you want to lead by example, that would be fantastic. Take
> care.
>
> cythera.
No, I have no desire to lead, or to be an example of any thing to any one.
And my concept of what would be fantastic, would be peace, love, and enlightenment
for all beings.
> > don wheeler
don wheeler
Morpheal wrote:
Hi,
I pay taxes.
I understand that national defense is necessary.
I enjoy a standard of living, mobility, and certain personal liberties because
my ancestors along with others who shared the same goals, put their lives on the
line and took up the gun to create a democratic republic where there was none.
I see what they fought and died for being pissed away and eroded from within by
corrupt , dishonest, and dishonorable men.
It grieves me deeply as i watch in horror, a population of tens of millions,
allow and even enable it's own subjugation.
I don't really mean to sound so dramatic . I've just been dwelling on the issue
lately that we have allowed the finest free press in the history of the world to
decay into a media of entertainment where the 1984ish party line has been
compacted into the slickest little sound byte this side of The Marlboro song .
What happened people...???
Those rights they told us would laws forever are being rewritten as we speak by
the lawyers for the multinational / military / industrial / energy/
conglomerates.
Social Security ?.......Guess what is now paying for the conquering of the world
that is still up for grabs...
Elections ? Do you remember the last one ? .....I rest my case...
pessimistic ?... You betcha......
don
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
> In our efforts to
> improve our dismal internal security against terrorists, certain privacy
> issues will have to take a back seat, and certain toes will be stepped
> on.
> --
> jaZZ md
> - - - -
> In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In
> peace: goodwill.
> -- Sir Winston Churchill
I pray with every ounce of my being that you are right jaZZ, and that is
the whole story...
Sadly though, I have read a little of the continuous history of mans behavior,
and I fear far worse from what is implied.....
d..
don wheeler
Eris de Suzerain wrote:
{a long and thoughtful post I agree with was sniped here }
> The point being - consider where the idea that War is Necessary came from
> for you. Consider who and what material reinforces that idea in you - who is
> "paying" for the news shows and the entertainment you watch? Or don't - but
> I don't believe any one of them. Period. Humans can solve things differently
> if they choose too - or they can choose to react with their past simian
> programming and bomb themselves and anthrax themselves and worry themselves
> and hate themselves right out of existence.
Just two quick points my friend,
First being, that war in my opinion is not only unavoidable in some cases, but
can even be absolutely necessary to preserve life and the precious fruits of
liberty.
Secondly, Humans do not always find them selves in a position to have the
strength power, or resources to solve things differently If they choose to.
Sometimes they are in positions where there is no choice.
I think the prime directive is to always be in a position where one can exercise
a choice.
One can then have the freedom to allow the luxury of evolution to take its
course , hopefully evolving to a higher plane of civilization and nobility...
d...
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
It is too bad no one person could just stand up and say STOP !
It is over. no more planes into buildings, no more tanks blowing away kids with
rocks,
no more teenagers with dynamite strapped to their bodies blowing up pizza
parlors.,
no more indefinite detention with daily torture sessions, No more ethnic
cleansing, no more pictures of little boys at funerals holding daddy's fire
helmet, no more !
No more will be permitted ! No more hurting people will be tolerated. It is a
crime, and it is no longer allowed. Any person committing violence will be
confined to prison.
Of course everyone would have to vote on it and all agree at the same time..
Please don't ask me about the enforcement issues...
don wheeler
Michael voytinsky wrote:
Damm, you are smart !
And , I mean that in the good sense....
don wheeler
don wheeler
Nik Maack wrote:
Yes they did love it.
Why,
Because it told them they could be men of honor...
It told them they could be the best part of themselves if they wanted to.
And they wanted to...
And they became men of honor for a while.
They became monsters with codes of honor..
The two things are not necessarily contradictory...
Good and evil can serve to complement themselves in some rare instances.
One can feel grief to a degree of having ones heart ripped out by the immensity
of the evil committed against humanity in New York last month. The scope and
depth of the pain caused is almost immeasurable given the number of people touched
in some way by it, yet one can still look with awe to the point of incomprehension
to
the wills and convictions of the men who carried out the here before never
comprehended acts of using cheap low tech box cutters to turn Airplanes into guided
missiles capable of killing thousands . That, coupled with the fact that it took
years to complete the necessary steps to finalize the act. Just the discipline
alone is a thing of marvel. I mean they had to teach them selves how to fly. And be
willing to damm them selves to eternal hell fire for the grave sins they were to
commit , and according to their religious beliefs, forgoing the heavenly paradise
that they were sure existed .
All of this just to show the US how much it was hated for the evils it supported
and or
created in the world. They didn't do it because they hated our goodness or our
freedoms they did it because they hated the hypocrisies of the evils we do.
I don't admire them because they have become the same thing they made the statement
about. I do admire however and am in awe of the power of human will.
The secondary tragedy is that, that will was used for the destruction of so much
that day instead of any other thing it had the potential to become.
To salvage any good whatsoever from this history is to open our minds and our eyes
to the injustices that brought humans to commit such desperate acts of barbarity so
that we might effect some change to the status quo as it exists in US foreign
policy.
don wheeler, one month after
scot...@qwest.net
wrote:
>Hey , I'm easy. I can be picked apart for a lot of things . Uneducated, poor writing skills, prone
>to exaggeration, too emotional , all this and more, .....
Don,
With it's exaggerations and all I liked your post. Within an hour of
reading it I gave it to a friend who is a true believer in
civilization's war against the barbarians. I told him it expressed
very well thoughts and feelings that he has not experienced, but that
many in this country are experiencing.
There are people who have never met me who want to kill me. That
makes me feel uneasy.
And I'm made uneasy by all the flag waving and by all the crap I hear
all around me. I've never in my live felt so strongly that I live
among barbarians who happen to be rich, powerful, good at killing...
who have little collective conscience... and who are now frightened
and full of vengeance.
There is no real safety anywhere.
I don't much like the idea of flags. But a few weeks ago I was
wishing there was some kind of flag that was universally understood as
a symbol for life. Had such a flag existed I might have put it on my
car... . A useless statement about where my allegiance lay.
I thought perhaps this flag of life could contain a bar code
describing the simplest genome required for life on this planet.
And now it occurs to me that I read last year that some bio research
company may patent just such a genome.
So my flag might get me sued.. oh well....
Take care. Good to see you writing here again.
jaZZmanian Devil
(My apologies for top posting against normal netiquette, but this is a
long post which I'd rather leave in for reference. I haven't much to
add, so I may as well do so at the top.)
That was a long, flowing, thoughtful, and well written speech. But
unless I missed something, after one scrapes away all the social
commentary about how decayed and bloated our national culture is, you
are advocating that we do nothing. No direct action against the
terrorists responsible for 9/11. That we simply shoulder the blame for
it, move on, and try to start making everyone in the country live thier
lives in a way that bin Laden will approve of, and cross our fingers,
hoping Al Qeda will stop bombing us.
Did I miss part of your post?
jaZZ md
--
jaZZmanian Devil
> > From what I've been hearing, the US is considering using the Northern
> > Alliance forces as a preliminary government.
>
> _Not at all._
>
> The U.S. is not going to alienate Pakistan and we know plenty about
> the Northern Alliance's grotesque humanitarian record. No one wants
> to replace one Taliban with a new one.
> The U.S., with Pakistan, is looking to help form a government there made
> of up of representatives from the tribes.
Simply fascinating. Having followed the extended discussion between you
and don, I would like to first say that I've yet to hear a pacifist
based suggestion which sounds even remotely practical in this or any
other thread on the current Afghanistan situation. I'm not happy with
the bombings, but I'm also not happy with planes falling from the sky or
Anthrax being mailed to my place of business. I don't have a better
solution to the situation than the one being attempted by the
government, and so I keep my criticism of their method to myself.
Finding fault with someone's method without offering a better
alternative is just carping in the wind, as I see it.
That being said, I fully believe that any attempt by the U.S.
government and/or its allies to set up a puppet government in that
country based on some type of representative republic or democracy is
doomed to failure. I will say one thing for the anti-American folks in
this debate who complain loudly about all the evils we've committed
overseas, and who condemn our government for any military action against
the Taliban and Al Qeda; They've gotten one point right on the money.
There is a bizarre sense of denial in the American public, and seemingly
our leaders as well, as to the cultural differences that exist between
our nation and Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
We seem to not only believe that a democratic republic such as ours
is the best type of government for us, but that it's also the best type
of government for *everyone* if the idiot's would only get their heads
out of their asses long enough to realize it and get with the program.
There are societies in this world with very different mindsets. There
have been monarchies which stood for centuries where the majority of the
people truly seemed to believe that an enlightened, benevolent leader
could be given supreme executive authority and act in the best interest
of the people. There are societies where the people's religious beliefs
are so fundamental to the fabric of their culture that a theocracy is
the only viable form of government to their way of thinking.
This stubborn instance we have to keep going into places like these
and "fix them" by setting up something that resembles our government is,
IMHO, one of the greatest signs of America's collective ignorance and
prejudice. Attempting to convert a Muslim nation like that, by force,
into some sort of democratic republic is nothing but a recipe for
disaster, and opens the door for the next generation of terrorists who
will attack us for continuing to try to dismantle their cultural
heritage.
None of this, by the way, changes my opinion on the necessity of
taking military action against Al Qeda, Usama bin Laden and his
followers, but I shudder to think what the future holds over there even
if we succeed. Our track record in such things is pretty damn dismal.
Eris de Suzerain
: Eris,
: (My apologies for top posting against normal netiquette, but this is a
: long post which I'd rather leave in for reference. I haven't much to
: add, so I may as well do so at the top.)
:
: That was a long, flowing, thoughtful, and well written speech. But
: unless I missed something, after one scrapes away all the social
: commentary about how decayed and bloated our national culture is, you
: are advocating that we do nothing. No direct action against the
: terrorists responsible for 9/11. That we simply shoulder the blame for
: it, move on, and try to start making everyone in the country live thier
: lives in a way that bin Laden will approve of, and cross our fingers,
: hoping Al Qeda will stop bombing us.
:
: Did I miss part of your post?
: jaZZ md
__________________________________________________________
:>I think we are wasting our energy trying to protect and
: > save a broken system when we could edit it to fit our current social and
: > environmental needs (we made the rules in the first place, didn't we? we
can
: > change them then). Buckminster Fuller is cooler and more logical than
I -
: > here is a nice FAQ about his strategy for both world peace and world
: > prosperity, without loss of individualism and an increase in leisure
: > http://www.cjfearnley.com/fuller-faq-3.html
Did you read the Fuller, at least the top paragraph? I am advocating
reviewing and changing our Modus Operandi - rather than wasting our energy
on bombing in a place where you will not hit one fifth of the terrorists who
exist in the world. I don't think we or anyone else should simply shoulder
the blame for it and move on, I am suggesting tackling some of the issues
that created this environment, honestly and with a desire to create a
lasting peace for everyone. Yeah, I know "Impractical" - right.. "No
substance" - I don't personally have a direct "Solution", and I don't
believe there is ONE direct solution. I believe that YES we should do
things, but what we should do is find ways to reduce and/or eliminate the
conditions that allow for manipulative murder cults to take over. Period.
I've have grown so tired of people in the world saying "Gee, that'd be
nice - but it's just not possible"... nothing is possible if people do not
put effort into. Change IS a solution - evolution. It doesn't happen in one
year or two, it is a road you travel down.
No, I don't have specific solutions (five year plan, road map to peace) - I
do not believe, however, that just because I do not have THE solution I
should defer to the current approach. If I do not know how to treat the
cancer on my hand should I let the guy with the chainsaw help me out?
Solutions can only come when there is DIALOGUE, interplay - ideas get
created and built upon by those with more knowledge in their individual
areas. How about putting some focus on alternative energy sources and fast
track the development of cars which burn less or no conventional fuel -
relieve us of our need to buy oil. And then give the technology away to
relieve others of their need to buy oil. There is no ONE solution, there are
many small and seemingly unrelated solutions - and they can be found if
(enough) people are willing to cooperatively seek them.
If we continue to react in the same manner we have in the past, we will
continue to yield the same crop. What is wrong with the unthinkable, the
wild, the wacky, the improbable?
High-speed travel, high-speed computing, laser surgery, genetic engineering,
teeny tiny processors - etc.... wacky ideas which did not spring up
overnight, but were developed over time. It seems like a long time, but not
really.... technology moves exponentially. Well thought out solutions can do
the same (although slower than war, they yield better results) - but like I
said, Buckminster Fuller (the guy who "invented" the geodesic dome,
'member?) has(d) ideas and makes more sense than those such as myself who
only froth at the mouth.
:
don wheeler
You have expressed the same kind of feelings
my better side has been holding in.
I have been venting some very poisonous and hateful rhetoric
lately because I am so emotionally damaged by the trauma of the bombing, and so damm frightened by
fascist tilt to the right my fellow citizens are allowing (enabling) our government to enact .
I see a citizenry populated by complacent , confused , misdirected and ignorant consumers
unquestionallaby compliant . Silly putty in the hands of the demagogues.
See what I mean ?
There I go again.......
Maybe I should take an old suit (not that I ever owned one) fill it full of straw,
put a Bush mask on the face , a ben Laden mask on the back, a chevron logo on the cap, and beat the
crap out of it with a baseball bat instead of venting my anger in the newsgroup..
I remember your posts to me fondly, and I wish you well.........
don wheeler
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Simply fascinating. Having followed the extended discussion between you
> and don, I would like to first say that I've yet to hear a pacifist
> based suggestion which sounds even remotely practical in this or any
> other thread on the current Afghanistan situation. I'm not happy with
> the bombings, but I'm also not happy with planes falling from the sky or
> Anthrax being mailed to my place of business. I don't have a better
> solution to the situation than the one being attempted by the
> government, and so I keep my criticism of their method to myself.
> Finding fault with someone's method without offering a better
> alternative is just carping in the wind, as I see it.
> [...]
this sounds an awful lot like the empty arguments that discounted Viet Nam
era protests simply because they didn't offer a "solution" to a specific
problem created by others that was acceptable to those same others, when in
fact we were rejecting the _premises_ that lead to the problem in the first
place and demanding that further action not be taken based on those same
fundamentally flawed premises.
[and just for the record, alternatives to those fundamentally flawed
premises _were_, and _are_ offered.]
saying that you remain silent because you "don't have a better solution"
implies that you think the current course of action is a "solution".
finding fault with an action being taken in your name and not objecting is a
de facto endorsement.
more importantly, the essence of human "freedom" is the unavoidable
biological imperative to define ourselves relative to the larger global
context within which we _must_ act (i.e., there is no way to avoid creating
the specifics of our local situation, within the context of a global
situation that includes the actions of others, our historical and
evolutionary inheritance, etc.). the cumulative effects of this biological
imperative in action further shape the global context and our evolutionary
direction.
while none of us are social alchemists who can take the leaden mass of
thousands of years of religious superstition and transform it into an inert
gas, we do shape our social context and history by the actions we take now.
you can abdicate your imagination to POWER, but not the responsibility to
define your relationship to it.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
(we may even finish #4 one of these days)
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
Very perceptive, and well thought out jaZZ.
I do not want you to take this the wrong way as I do not mean this as
an underhanded insult to your intelligence, perception of world affairs, or
political leanings, but I am blown away by the level and depth of understanding
you exhibit of the problems addressed in your post.
I did not know you had this kind of knowledge of those cultures.
I guess I'm so used to the average American's ignorance of word culture
(especially the mid east and Islamic peoples), geography , religions, and
(*TRUE*) history, I kind of expect everyone to be an ignorant bigot. (shame on
me)
I also happen to share all of the views you expressed here.
I suspect we must share others as well, and assume there are also areas where we
will diverge.
In the mean time , I applaud your statements.
Not just because I agree with them , but because of the rationality and humanity
they proclaim in this time of uncertain misinformation and mass hysteria.
Keep up the good fight my friend....
don wheeler
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
Very perceptive, and well thought out jaZZ.
I do not want you to take this the wrong way as I do not mean this as
an underhanded insult to your intelligence, perception of world affairs, or
political leanings, but I am blown away by the level and depth of understanding
you exhibit of the problems addressed in your post.
I did not know you had this kind of knowledge of those cultures.
I guess I'm so used to the average American's ignorance of word culture
(especially the mid east and Islamic peoples), geography , religions, and
(*TRUE*) history, I kind of expect everyone to be an ignorant bigot. (shame on
me)
I also happen to share a lot of the views you expressed here.
I suspect we must share others as well, and assume there are also areas where we
will diverge.
In the mean time , I applaud your statements.
Not just because I agree with some them , but because of the rationality and
humanity they proclaim in this time of uncertain disinformation and mass
jaZZmanian Devil
> this sounds an awful lot like the empty arguments that discounted Viet Nam
> era protests simply because they didn't offer a "solution" to a specific
> problem created by others that was acceptable to those same others, when in
> fact we were rejecting the _premises_ that lead to the problem in the first
> place and demanding that further action not be taken based on those same
> fundamentally flawed premises.
*sigh*
Yet another person trying to draw a comparison between protesting a war
that we had no business being involved in, where a solution _was_
offered (i.e. get the hell out of Nam) and the current situation. Apples
and oarnges. We've been attacked by a hostile force. Further attacks
were essentially guaranteed. It was only a matter of time. A response
was required. We are responding. It's not pretty, but we're responding.
> [and just for the record, alternatives to those fundamentally flawed
> premises _were_, and _are_ offered.]
Were, yes. *Are*? Perhaps, but I've not read the threads yet where they
were, then. Sorry. I'll try to dig through the archive. Certainly you're
not referring to the suggestions which effectively state that we should
not mount any military response to Al Qeda, but rather make ourselves
quickly "evolve" into something that the terrorists will find more
palatable. That is an admirable long range goal. It is not, sadly, a
response or solution to the current conflict, nor will it stop the cycle
of violent attacks on us by terrorists, which, possibly to your
surprise, many Americans find unacceptable.
> saying that you remain silent because you "don't have a better solution"
> implies that you think the current course of action is a "solution".
No. The part where I *said* it was a solution implies, or rather states,
that I feel it's a "solution". The best solution? Doubtful. But I've yet
to hear anything better unfortunately.
> finding fault with an action being taken in your name and not objecting is a
> de facto endorsement.
If you think that constitutes hurling stones at me, then you are sadly
mistaken. I may find fault with the current solution, and wish there was
something better, but I'll still endorse it as I dont' know what else
can be done which is a *realistic* approach. (Finding a realistic
approch is key here. Lofty theories about enlightening our society and
changing our relations with our global neighbors is a wonderful goal,
and should be worked towards. It sadly does nothing *now* about the
specific dangers from Al Qeda.
--
jaZZ md
- - - -
"I'm donating my body to science... fiction."
-- Steven Wright
jaZZmanian Devil
> Very perceptive, and well thought out jaZZ.
Thank you... thank you... send all contributions to
www.buyjaZZanewboat.com
> I do not want you to take this the wrong way as I do not mean this as
> an underhanded insult to your intelligence, perception of world affairs, or
> political leanings, but I am blown away by the level and depth of understanding
> you exhibit of the problems addressed in your post.
> I did not know you had this kind of knowledge of those cultures.
Over the last several years, I've been lucky enough to not only work in
a large place where contractors from many nations are employed, but to
participate in a historical recreation group with a huge focus on
research into the history and culture of other places, primarily Europe.
One of our best friends is and expert on the history of Armenia and the
surrounding areas. I also tend to be a news hound and read/watch
international versions of the news to get an outside perspective of how
other's feel about the US. So, some people are born to seek great
knowledge, but others just have knowledge thrust upon them. <g>
> I guess I'm so used to the average American's ignorance of word culture
> (especially the mid east and Islamic peoples), geography , religions, and
> (*TRUE*) history, I kind of expect everyone to be an ignorant bigot. (shame on
> me)
You are sadly correct. The number of people right in my home town who
are ready to shoot at anyone in a Turban is massively depressing.
> In the mean time , I applaud your statements.
> Not just because I agree with some them , but because of the rationality and
> humanity they proclaim in this time of uncertain disinformation and mass
> hysteria.
>
> Keep up the good fight my friend....
Thanks, Don. Of course, there's virtually nothing I will be able to
personally do to impact this situation and improve it, but I try to stay
informed and keep down some of the prejudicial backlash when I run into
it. (Yes, I know.... shocking to hear this from a conservative
Republican war monger, eh? <grin>)
--
jaZZ md
- - - -
don wheeler
barrett john erickson wrote:
Hi Barrett,
It is a nice surprise to see your post over here in pouting sandwich again.
I always enjoyed reading you.
I just wanted to comment on what I think or perceive of my friend jaZZ's
"motives"
You wrote to jaZZ saying:
"saying that you remain silent because you "don't have a better solution"
implies that you think the current course of action is a "solution"."
I think that though jaZZ claimed to remain silent, he actually was making a
strong statement with the post.
He also was expressing IMHO, his quandary of wanting the death penalty for the
monsters who killed the 6,000 in New York, and at the same time having
reservations
about bombing a country back to the stone age.
This is just my interpretation of his motive, and I 'm sure I will hear from him
loud and clear if I am wrong about it.
You wrote:
"finding fault with an action being taken in your name and not objecting is a
de facto endorsement."
Of course you are right Barrett, and yes he did say he was choosing "to remain
silent", but I still maintain that his other statements are evidence of his
objections and protest of actions .
As to the bombing specifically I don't think he wants to say that he opposes
punishing
"the guilty" as a matter of telling the truth., but I also do not believe that
he supports
the indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians.
AS we know , the bombing of Afghanistan is punitive , and indeed is collective
punishment along the Israeli model intended to deliver a message to all who
would oppose the status quo of American Domminance in regards to the worlds
natural resources. It marks the dawn of an Imperial American Empire...
Personally I like having cheap gas and a car, but if it means killing or
oppressing large numbers of people to get it , I'll catch a horse somewhere.
I have no problem with civilazizations "prizes" I do object however when people
are exploited to produce them. I as a consumer am then exploited by price
gouging capitalists who pay the asian worker a dime a day, and Michael Jordan a
billion , with me having to pay the inflated difference for the sneaker.
To this day (if I have to have a pair) I will only buy the cheapest sneaker made
.
Being 1/4 Cherokee I have strong feelings in regards to settler culture and
ethnic cleansing.
i'M STARTING TO RANT. SORRY... I got off the subject ..
Ill quit now....
don
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
> barrett john erickson wrote:
snip
I think one of the pit falls here is that the attack was carried out by
a "SHADOW" group.
A brotherhood of loosely allied people who oppose the bad things done
in the name of America.
We respond as if it was coventenial warfare, by attacking and bombing targets
we identify with or as the "terrorists"..
These people are like smoke...
You will have to eradicate a billion to ensure the demise of the few ..
The ones doing the dying are dying because they have been identified as having
APPROVED of the attacks....
And now , a whole bunch of people have been declared to be "terrorist"
The Russians have nominated the Chechens, The Israelis - Any arab over the age of
2,
The Indians - All of Pakistan, The Chinese- the millions of Muslim "minority"
peoples
unlucky enough to be under their domination. The list goes on and on.....
The taliban government may indeed be horrible human rights violators to the people
they exercerise control over, but that issue of justice is another question,
perhaps best left to a "world court.
This all gets back to my fear that the definition as to what or who is a terrorist
is now in the hands of the politically motivated ....Right wing military
industrial Fascist pigs
that seem to be the ones in charge every where...........
a new world order indeed....
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
> don wheeler wrote:
> > I did not know you had this kind of knowledge of those cultures.
>
> Over the last several years, I've been lucky enough to not only work in
> a large place where contractors from many nations are employed, but to
> participate in a historical recreation group with a huge focus on
> research into the history and culture of other places, primarily Europe.
> One of our best friends is and expert on the history of Armenia and the
> surrounding areas.
How many know that Hitler used the example of the Turkish (still denied by Turkey)
Genocide (the word was coined because of this) when proposing the eradaction of the
Jews by stating "After all, who remembers the Armenians"
> Thanks, Don. Of course, there's virtually nothing I will be able to
> personally do to impact this situation and improve it, but I try to stay
> informed and keep down some of the prejudicial backlash when I run into
> it. (Yes, I know.... shocking to hear this from a conservative
> Republican war monger, eh? <grin>)
> --
Well.... frankly, Yes...
But I do believe and support you..
barrett john erickson
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> > this sounds an awful lot like the empty arguments that discounted Viet
Nam
> > era protests simply because they didn't offer a "solution" to a specific
> > problem created by others that was acceptable to those same others, when
in
> > fact we were rejecting the _premises_ that lead to the problem in the
first
> > place and demanding that further action not be taken based on those same
> > fundamentally flawed premises.
>
> *sigh*
> Yet another person trying to draw a comparison between protesting a war
> that we had no business being involved in, where a solution _was_
> offered (i.e. get the hell out of Nam) and the current situation. Apples
> and oarnges.
no, i was drawing a comparison between your comment on keeping silent if you
had no alternative "solution" to propose (vs. the need to express any
opposition you may be feeling to current policy) and the very same argument
used 30+ years ago against those of us who voiced our opposition to the war
in Viet Nam.
> We've been attacked by a hostile force. Further attacks
> were essentially guaranteed. It was only a matter of time. A response
> was required. We are responding. It's not pretty, but we're responding.
my point was: a "response" is _always_ required. given that, the question
is _always_: what kind of response leads us toward the world we desire.
if the response selected by our "leaders" is not "pretty" by our
standards -- if we in fact object to it -- why should we tolerate it rather
than denounce it?
> > [and just for the record, alternatives to those fundamentally flawed
> > premises _were_, and _are_ offered.]
>
> Were, yes. *Are*? Perhaps, but I've not read the threads yet where they
> were, then.
am i to conclude you can't imagine any either?
> Sorry. I'll try to dig through the archive. Certainly you're
> not referring to the suggestions which effectively state that we should
> not mount any military response to Al Qeda, but rather make ourselves
> quickly "evolve" into something that the terrorists will find more
> palatable. That is an admirable long range goal. It is not, sadly, a
> response or solution to the current conflict, nor will it stop the cycle
> of violent attacks on us by terrorists, which, possibly to your
> surprise, many Americans find unacceptable.
evolution is "long range".
you mean to say that we can somehow maintain "long range goals" that are
contradicted by our current actions? ends justify the means?
sorry, rejected that one back in the Viet Nam era.
we do before we are and we emerge from what we do (existentialism meets
autopoiesis).
so how is it you think trying to kill Bin Laden or even all of Al Qaeda will
"stop the cycle"?
surely you can't mean to say that the current course of action will actually
end the "long range" conflict?
selective assasination hasn't exactly been a success for the isreali's has
it?
> > saying that you remain silent because you "don't have a better solution"
> > implies that you think the current course of action is a "solution".
>
> No. The part where I *said* it was a solution implies, or rather states,
> that I feel it's a "solution". The best solution? Doubtful. But I've yet
> to hear anything better unfortunately.
a solution to what? certainly not a solution to making us feel safer as
living entities engaged in the pursuit of our desire.
how much safer do _you_ feel since last sunday?
do you really think anyone will be safer once Bin Laden is dead and hundreds
if not thousands rush to take his place in the dreary line of martyrs to one
"belief" or another?
> > finding fault with an action being taken in your name and not objecting
is a
> > de facto endorsement.
>
> If you think that constitutes hurling stones at me, then you are sadly
no, i wasn't hurling stones. i was responding to your post -- as i am
now -- not yet having a clear idea of your over-all position.
> mistaken. I may find fault with the current solution, and wish there was
> something better, but I'll still endorse it as I dont' know what else
> can be done which is a *realistic* approach. (Finding a realistic
> approch is key here.
pragmatism reduces all considerations to the realm of what is possible
within the current situation. what we need is to envision our dream (on
both individual and social scales) and move toward it.
it's all a matter of where we start in our analysis.
> Lofty theories about enlightening our society and
> changing our relations with our global neighbors is a wonderful goal,
this is no "lofty theory", this is our evolutionary inheritance and
biological imperative. it is, as i said, the essence of our "freedom" and
precisely what makes us "human" in the common understanding of that
classification.
> and should be worked towards. It sadly does nothing *now* about the
> specific dangers from Al Qeda.
the "now" in which we are entangled emerged from the actions of past. our
future "now" will emerge from our current actions.
barrett john erickson
"don wheeler" <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3BCDC4AA...@optonline.net...
> [...]
> perhaps best left to a "world court.
of course we have no recourse to a "world court", having rejected it long
ago when it pointed out that our mining of Nicaraguan harbors was a
violation of what was then called "international law".
> This all gets back to my fear that the definition as to what or who is a
terrorist
> is now in the hands of the politically motivated ....Right wing military
> industrial Fascist pigs
> that seem to be the ones in charge every where...........
> a new world order indeed....
exactly.
barrett john erickson
>
> Hi Barrett,
>
> It is a nice surprise to see your post over here in pouting sandwich
again.
somewhat unintentionally, i must say.
> I always enjoyed reading you.
> I just wanted to comment on what I think or perceive of my friend jaZZ's
> "motives"
>
> You wrote to jaZZ saying:
> "saying that you remain silent because you "don't have a better solution"
> implies that you think the current course of action is a "solution"."
>
> I think that though jaZZ claimed to remain silent, he actually was making
a
> strong statement with the post.
my purpose was only to comment on one aspect of his post i found troubling
for it's historical echoes and restricting perspective.
>
> He also was expressing IMHO, his quandary of wanting the death penalty for
the
> monsters who killed the 6,000 in New York, and at the same time having
> reservations
> about bombing a country back to the stone age.
> This is just my interpretation of his motive, and I 'm sure I will hear
from him
> loud and clear if I am wrong about it.
>
> You wrote:
> "finding fault with an action being taken in your name and not objecting
is a
> de facto endorsement."
>
> Of course you are right Barrett, and yes he did say he was choosing "to
remain
> silent", but I still maintain that his other statements are evidence of
his
> objections and protest of actions .
perhaps, but his response to my post indicates more serious ambivalence of
perspective.
> As to the bombing specifically I don't think he wants to say that he
opposes
> punishing
> "the guilty" as a matter of telling the truth., but I also do not believe
that
> he supports
> the indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians.
neither does the shrub, but he controls the bombs that are killing them.
> AS we know , the bombing of Afghanistan is punitive , and indeed is
collective
> punishment along the Israeli model intended to deliver a message to all
who
> would oppose the status quo of American Domminance in regards to the
worlds
> natural resources. It marks the dawn of an Imperial American Empire...
well, lets hope we don't continue along the isreali model...
> Personally I like having cheap gas and a car, but if it means killing or
> oppressing large numbers of people to get it , I'll catch a horse
somewhere.
> I have no problem with civilazizations "prizes" I do object however when
people
> are exploited to produce them. I as a consumer am then exploited by price
> gouging capitalists who pay the asian worker a dime a day, and Michael
Jordan a
> billion , with me having to pay the inflated difference for the sneaker.
> To this day (if I have to have a pair) I will only buy the cheapest
sneaker made
exactly. we can't choose the global situation, but we have the inescapbable
burden of choosing our specific interaction with it.
> .
> Being 1/4 Cherokee I have strong feelings in regards to settler culture
and
> ethnic cleansing.
justifiably so. let's hope we don't continue along the USA model either.
> i'M STARTING TO RANT. SORRY... I got off the subject ..
> Ill quit now....
don wheeler
barrett john erickson wrote:
> "don wheeler" <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3BCDBF1C...@optonline.net...
> > Hi Barrett,
> > It is a nice surprise to see your post
I understand what you said then and what you are saying now.
There is no disparity.
I am just heartened that there are good men (and women) out there
who give a shit about what really matters...
Problem is I don't see any of you any where but on the internet...
If I were to judge this country and its people by what is portrayed in
the media Then I might want to kill you all too...
jaZZmanian Devil
> no, i was drawing a comparison between your comment on keeping silent if you
> had no alternative "solution" to propose (vs. the need to express any
> opposition you may be feeling to current policy) and the very same argument
> used 30+ years ago against those of us who voiced our opposition to the war
> in Viet Nam.
>
> > We've been attacked by a hostile force. Further attacks
> > were essentially guaranteed. It was only a matter of time. A response
> > was required. We are responding. It's not pretty, but we're responding.
>
> my point was: a "response" is _always_ required. given that, the question
> is _always_: what kind of response leads us toward the world we desire.
>
> if the response selected by our "leaders" is not "pretty" by our
> standards -- if we in fact object to it -- why should we tolerate it rather
> than denounce it?
Pretty words. Very, very pretty words. But I must ask, if you will, for
the "meat" of your point? It's very easy to spout off idealism. But I
choose to live in the real world. Where is the solution you propose that
will result in tangible result? (Please insert here, the maximum
emphasis on the word "tangible") Evolution is wonderful, and tends to
head towards a beneficial and tangible end result. But if you were to
take any of the first furry mammals in the end of the Jurassic, and ask
them how much life had improved since the time of their grand sire's,
they might answer, "Not a bloody lot."
We're Americans. We're used to instant gratification. If not "instant",
then at least measurable improvement in our lifetime or our children's'.
Why? Because we have evolved to the stage where we've the means to
achieve it. Where is your answer? Tell me to evolve? Fine. I shall, in a
cultural sense over generations. But if you choose to play armchair
quarterback in the Here and Now, where is *your* answer to the problems?
It's a very simple question. I'm not looking for vacuous platitudes or
predictions of long term evolution, which (as we've all already agreed
to) we need to strive for. What *specifically* would you *DO* now? Or is
there no answer in your philosophy to answer that? I've seen none yet.
> > > [and just for the record, alternatives to those fundamentally flawed
> > > premises _were_, and _are_ offered.]
> >
> > Were, yes. *Are*? Perhaps, but I've not read the threads yet where they
> > were, then.
>
> am i to conclude you can't imagine any either?
Beyond what we're currently doing, which I think is a sad but needed
thing? No. I can't. Can you? (see above to clarify that question.)
> > Sorry. I'll try to dig through the archive. Certainly you're
> > not referring to the suggestions which effectively state that we should
> > not mount any military response to Al Qeda, but rather make ourselves
> > quickly "evolve" into something that the terrorists will find more
> > palatable. That is an admirable long range goal. It is not, sadly, a
> > response or solution to the current conflict, nor will it stop the cycle
> > of violent attacks on us by terrorists, which, possibly to your
> > surprise, many Americans find unacceptable.
>
> evolution is "long range".
Allow me to insert an interpretation of that to be, "Evolution is long
range. I'll propose long-term solutions now, and I'll be long dead along
with my grandchildren before we see if I'm right or not."
> you mean to say that we can somehow maintain "long range goals" that are
> contradicted by our current actions? ends justify the means?
Yes. I mean precisely that. Sometimes actions on the instant are not the
most pointed towards the long term objective. Hence the axiom, "losing
the battle, but winning the war." It's very real. It's called
compromise. It's found as a speed bump on the road to many a victory,
and only those so blinded by uncompromising idealism that they can't
envision a victory are unable to see the reason in it.
> sorry, rejected that one back in the Viet Nam era.
apples and oranges. I would have rejected the Spanish American war. I
would have supported WW2. Next.
> we do before we are and we emerge from what we do (existentialism meets
> autopoiesis).
pretty, pretty words.
> so how is it you think trying to kill Bin Laden or even all of Al Qaeda will
> "stop the cycle"?
Please, stop with your cynical insults. No person with seven brain cells
thinks that. However, on the other end of the scale, no person but a
blind idealist would think that there would be no positive result, if
only in the short term, of taking out the key players in international
terrorism and destroying their financial network and infrastructure.
It's a blow that will win a minor victory on the way to final conclusion
and bring peace to many who were wronged by the perpetrators. Or,.... do
you think that the terrorists did no wrong? Not accusing, here... just
asking for clarification.
> surely you can't mean to say that the current course of action will actually
> end the "long range" conflict?
End it? No. Slow it and build support in the international community
against it? Yes. Only the most radically unrealistic would argue that,
in my opinion.
> how much safer do _you_ feel since last sunday?
>
> do you really think anyone will be safer once Bin Laden is dead and hundreds
> if not thousands rush to take his place in the dreary line of martyrs to one
> "belief" or another?
Yes. There's a short sweet answer for you, for once in this dialogue.
> pragmatism reduces all considerations to the realm of what is possible
> within the current situation. what we need is to envision our dream (on
> both individual and social scales) and move toward it.
>
> it's all a matter of where we start in our analysis.
Again... pretty, pretty words.
> > Lofty theories about enlightening our society and
> > changing our relations with our global neighbors is a wonderful goal,
>
> this is no "lofty theory", this is our evolutionary inheritance and
> biological imperative. it is, as i said, the essence of our "freedom" and
> precisely what makes us "human" in the common understanding of that
> classification.
pretty words. See above.
> > and should be worked towards. It sadly does nothing *now* about the
> > specific dangers from Al Qeda.
>
> the "now" in which we are entangled emerged from the actions of past. our
> future "now" will emerge from our current actions.
You observe a problem, sit upon a high throne and disparage those who do
*something* to address it, and offer nothing in exchange. I find your
position to be of little material value to the here and now.
--
jaZZ md
*******
"Any ship can be a minesweeper ... once."
- - anonymous
barrett john erickson
> Problem is I don't see any of you any where but on the internet...
> If I were to judge this country and its people by what is portrayed in
> the media Then I might want to kill you all too...
that _is_ a serious problem isn't it?
i get foamy-mouthed any time i hear one of the recurring TV/radio "heads"
say "nobody is saying..." because it is almost certain that whatever they're
about to claim "nobody" is saying is something i've been saying as loudly as
i'm capable of saying at any given moment, to anyone who's within range of
my voice, given my budget restrictions.
and beyond my fellow surrealsits, nobody i know seems to recognize the
"officials and experts sydrome", epidemic in media of all size and
orientation, as a ubiquitous and dangerous restrictor of debate.
for example, we have a "mid-morning" talk show host on our local public
radio station that seems to never challenge the blanket pronouncements of
any of the "officials" or "experts" she gives dozens of hours of airtime to
each month -- unless they are saying something about "the press" she doesn't
think is justified (she's a former newspaper reporter). yet, on the
extremely rare occasion she has someone like Todd Gitlin on (former SDS
"leader", regressed into semi-respected historian of the '60's) -- which is
to say: when the "computer guru" or "garden guru" are unavailable on short
notice -- the program proceeds in short incoherent jerks as she interrupts
nearly every point to "clarify" facts.
it usually takes 10-15 minutes of similar examples to get otherwise
perceptive friends to recognize how "public" TV and radio has become
primarily a mouthpiece for corporatism.
of course Ashcroft recognizes that the internet is still open enough to be
dangerous.
Parry
don wheeler wrote:
>
> cythera wrote:
> > I'm just so tired of reading and hearing anti-American garbage
>
> By this standard, any one who opposed What the Nazis did to the Jews
> would be anti German , right ?
> Is dissent an act of treason to you ?
> Do you think that thoughts or feelings not pro- American are by definition
> anti- American ?
> What if my country committed international crimes, and I commented that it was a "bad" thing they
> did. would I be guilty of writing "anti-American garbage" ?
Here’s a bit of “anti-American garbage” (which is what makes Cythera
“so tired”) from her former glorious leader Ralph Nader:
Nader Blasts Bush's War at S.F. Rally By Jonathan Nack October 12, 2001
SAN FRANCISCO - Former Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader
roundly criticized the Bush Administration's war on terrorism in a
speech before an enthusiastic paying audience of approximately 2,500 at
the San Francisco Masonic Center last night. Nader called for a
democratic debate over the Administration's policies saying, "the
mindless bombing of Afghanistan's infrastructure will not end well for
Afghanistan and, I fear, it will not end well for us." "We are entitled
to ask what this war will cost: what it will cost Afghans, what it will
cost our rights and democracy here, and what the huge shift of money
into the military and corporate bailouts will cost our domestic
programs?"
Nader called for, "sobriety in these moments of impetuousness,
restraint, and to move forward under international law to apprehend the
criminals." "This is an international crime and we've got to find ways
to bring these criminals to justice."
Nader said that, "grief and mourning for the victims must eventually
give way to honoring their memory," and quoted a statement by President
George W. Bush that the terrorists, "hate our freedoms: our freedom of
religion, our freedom to assemble, our freedom of speech, and our
freedom to disagree," in justifying the appropriateness of his own
remarks. Nader said that the best way to honor the memories of those
lost on September 11th was to exercise and defend our democratic
freedoms and to "make sure our government doesn't slaughter the lives of
hundreds of innocent people."
Nader charged that, "thought police in Washington dismiss all critical
analysis as justifying the terrorist attack," calling for a rejection of
that notion while describing the terrorists' act as, "criminal butchery,
a massacre more than an attack, and with no justification". He urged the
audience to, "never allow Washington to tell you to shut up, get in
line, and waive the flag." "Never let them take your flag away from
you." Nader urged the audience to think for themselves, to not inhibit
what they have to say, and asked, "how many times have we been told that
they were dropping bombs only on military targets?" Nader concluded that
there was no such thing as limiting bombing to only military targets and
that, "we are not going to be able to bomb our way to a solution of this
problem."
Nader described the Administration's rationale for the bombing as "cheap
propaganda", which is, "going to get more rancid and grim." "U.S.
attacks on Afghanistan will spread more hatred of our country and our
allies." He also worried that 7.5 million Afghans face starvation this
winter, which he said was only four weeks away in Afghanistan, while the
U.S. has dropped only "135,000 snacks."
Quoting approvingly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's assertion
that, "poverty, disease, and illiteracy are breeding grounds for
tolerance of terrorism," Nader proposed a profound reorientation of U.S.
foreign policy to support democratic forces and to, "side with the
millions and millions of workers and peasants rather than with dictators
and oligarches." He proposed a, "balanced approach to resolving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict," and an end to economic sanctions against
Iraq which he said was taking the lives of 5,000 Iraqi children a month.
"You do not destabilize a dictator by destroying the lives of innocent
children and adults," said Nader.
Nader also called for a renewed defense of civil liberties, opposition
to unwarranted curtailment of them, and reform of intelligence agencies,
including making them "leaner and more efficient" by reducing their
bloated budgets and bureaucracies", which, said Nader clearly couldn't
protect us.
The focus of Nader's speech was a major departure from the usual agenda
of the longtime consumer activist who usually sticks closely to themes
concerning how corporations have gained too much power and are
subverting democracy. Nader did draw a connection to those themes,
noting that corporations are taking advantage of the tragedy of
September 11 for their own greedy purposes. He pointed to corporate
lobbying for government bailouts, even by industries in trouble long
before the terrorist attacks, for the limiting of regulations, including
the opening up of the Alaskan Arctic reserve, and opposing benefits for
workers who are losing their jobs.
The event was billed as a "People Have the Power" rally in support of
San Francisco ballot initiatives for a Municipal Utility District, which
would create public control of power in response to California's failed
electricity deregulation. Nader, and numerous speakers before him,
called for volunteers for a grassroots campaign which could overwhelm
the big money being spent by Pacific Gas & Electric to defeat the
initiatives. However, Nader and other speakers clearly felt compelled to
address the war. The event was also organized as part of a series of
"super rallies" being held around the country by Nader's new Democracy
Rising Campaign.
For more information on Democracy Rising:
<http://www.democracyrising.org>
-End-
Subscribe Address: LLNews-s...@igc.topica.com Unsubscribe Address:
LLNews-un...@igc.topica.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
> >
> > OK !
> > Lets say that you bomb the cities to the stone age, and totally devastate
> a
> > people and a land that has been already devastated by 40 years of non stop
> war
> > and oppression.
> > You reduce them to the state of starving refugees dependent on you for any
> crumb
> > of food handed out in your camps, then what ?
> > Do you occupy the country with troops to keep "order" or to go on a
> possibly
> > years long "posse" to hunt down Mr. Ben Laden, then what ?
>
> From what I've been hearing, the US is considering using the Northern
> the only option (besides a permanent US force, which I don't think would be
> viable there). The problem there is that that alliance is a very fractured
> object, with little cohesion outside a desire to oust the Taliban. Also,
> they are not much "better" than the Taliban in many ways, so the endgame is
> a serious problem.
Depends on the endgame, which is a military secret. The Alliance has
been described as a “confederacy of warlords, patriots, rapists and
torturers.” If the purpose of the bombing is simply to disable the
terrorist operations base in Afghanistan, then the turf wars of an
Alliance government aren’t a concern -- and the way the bombing is
going, there may not be anything left to fight over anyway. Presumably,
a more stable and compliant government is wanted if the oil pipeline is
ever to be. As another poster mentioned, Afghanistan’s last king has
been fished from oblivion to help “restore democracy,” what didn’t exist
there in the first place. So if this rickety fossil lives long enough he
could become a nationalistic figurehead on a semi-permanent transitional
government.
> > Do you move the operation to other pre selected countries, pre designated
> as
> > "terrorist" by our Israeli, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and Turkish allies.
>
> I think the "world war against terrorism" notion will slowly dissipate as
> our very limited action in Afghanistan progresses. At any rate, this "idea"
> was created by Bush in a very ill-considered speech, and his senior military
> advisors have already begun talking him down off those dizzy heights.
I think otherwise. Certainly the current fever pitch can’t be sustained
indefinitely. This anthrax scare is flushing every crank with a dusty
envelope out of the brushes (and has conveniently knocked the
intensified bombing campaign off the top of the news). It’s an hysteria
the likes of which probably haven’t been seen in the US since the 50’s,
back when a power failure on the subway could provoke a lethal stampede
among passengers who thought the Soviets had attacked. The anthrax scare
has even shut down buildings where I live -- which is *in the middle of
fucking nowhere*. One incident involved a 77-year-old man finding what
is thought to have been foot powder on a university student’s locker.
Still, the “war on terrorism” itself surely has legs. It’s been going on
for decades anyway (contrary to weird sentiments which have been
expressed about how America lost its innocence on September 11), and now
terrorism is the centrepiece of security rhetoric, providing new weapons
to fight both old and emerging enemies. As for bombing and
nation-building, the US has heavily intimated that once its done with
Afghanistan it will go after other countries; Iraq keeps coming up as
the next best candidate. Domestically, police powers are being expanded
by anti-terrorist legislations which are being passed in the US and
Canada and probably elsewhere with little debate or dissent, and there’s
every expectation that they will be used against the likes of
anti-globalisation protests which had been increasingly successful. And
other crimes like computer-hacking have been brought under the rubric of
terrorism so there's lots of "war" to go around.
-- Parry
jaZZmanian Devil
Idealism, without a mechanism for implementation, is nothing more than
mental masturbation.
Sad, but true.
Eris de Suzerain
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3bce026c$0$329$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
:
:: <bountiful snips>
: pragmatism reduces all considerations to the realm of what is possible
: within the current situation. what we need is to envision our dream (on
: both individual and social scales) and move toward it.
:
: it's all a matter of where we start in our analysis.
tx, this was some of what i was trying to say with a lot less words.....
:
:
: > Lofty theories about enlightening our society and
: > changing our relations with our global neighbors is a wonderful goal,
:
: this is no "lofty theory", this is our evolutionary inheritance and
: biological imperative. it is, as i said, the essence of our "freedom" and
: precisely what makes us "human" in the common understanding of that
: classification.
I was thinking this morning on the way to work - thinking about how this
nation was created initially. The concept was created with thought,
discussion, philosophy - portions were laid down on paper, other portions
added to the paper later... the ideals were taught, the concept evolved. A
system that started off open only to white male landowners opened up to let
the rest of us in. But it started with an idea, then action. The idea wasn't
perfect to start with (still isn't perfect) but time and work and thought
allowed it to improve (in many respects). It IS possible to conceive of a
way of life and create, human nature is NOT static, fixed, immutable.
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BCE1A...@perfectOMITmail.com...
Yes. Today I heard some government bigwigs discussing "the next phase."
Seems they want to bomb Afghanistan until November (when Ramadan begins) and
then turn their loving attentions to possibly Somalia, finishing up Dadda
Bush's dirty little fuckup. Then, since we're onto eliminating terrorism, I
suppose we might bomb Northern Ireland for the British and help Russian chew
up Chechnya. The possibilities are quite heady!
>The Alliance has
> been described as a "confederacy of warlords, patriots, rapists and
> torturers." If the purpose of the bombing is simply to disable the
> terrorist operations base in Afghanistan, then the turf wars of an
> Alliance government aren't a concern -- and the way the bombing is
> going, there may not be anything left to fight over anyway.
There wasn't much to begin with. It is horribly amusing to see the bomb
sites and view a hovel of stones and dirt reduced to stones and dirt. It
seems odd.
>Presumably,
> a more stable and compliant government is wanted if the oil pipeline is
> ever to be. As another poster mentioned, Afghanistan's last king has
> been fished from oblivion to help "restore democracy," what didn't exist
> there in the first place. So if this rickety fossil lives long enough he
> could become a nationalistic figurehead on a semi-permanent transitional
> government.
Yes, I heard that today and saw a picture that made him seem quite moronic.
>
>
> > > Do you move the operation to other pre selected countries, pre
designated
> > as
> > > "terrorist" by our Israeli, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and Turkish
allies.
> >
> > I think the "world war against terrorism" notion will slowly dissipate
as
> > our very limited action in Afghanistan progresses. At any rate, this
"idea"
> > was created by Bush in a very ill-considered speech, and his senior
military
> > advisors have already begun talking him down off those dizzy heights.
>
> I think otherwise.
From what I heard today, you may be right. It does seem to be made up as it
goes along, so I'm as confused as anyone I suppose.
>Certainly the current fever pitch can't be sustained
> indefinitely. This anthrax scare is flushing every crank with a dusty
> envelope out of the brushes (and has conveniently knocked the
> intensified bombing campaign off the top of the news).
This sort of terror hysteria is bound to get worse. Too bad Ted Kascinski
(spl?) is in prison: he'd be in his hey day.
>It's an hysteria
> the likes of which probably haven't been seen in the US since the 50's,
> back when a power failure on the subway could provoke a lethal stampede
> among passengers who thought the Soviets had attacked. The anthrax scare
> has even shut down buildings where I live -- which is *in the middle of
> fucking nowhere*. One incident involved a 77-year-old man finding what
> is thought to have been foot powder on a university student's locker.
In Minnesota they found a strange "jelly-like substance" in a Science
Museum. Turns out the substance was on a plate and in a kitchen. Probably
was jelly.
>
> Still, the "war on terrorism" itself surely has legs. It's been going on
> for decades anyway (contrary to weird sentiments which have been
> expressed about how America lost its innocence on September 11),
I saw America is the most overused virgin in history. Surely a country that
began by slaughtering indians and then itself can't have too much of that
precious commodity left in its genitals?
Oh well - wait and see. Rambo is needed!
dmh
don wheeler
Parry wrote:
You know this , I know this, Every one with a spark of decency in their soul
has the incentive to find it out if they don't already know this is so, but even
so.....
It is our human responsibility to keep repeating it over, and over, and over.
We simply must keep speaking, to share every scrap of information, to write , to
never be complacent thinking that someone else will pick up the slack.
We must ignore any ego based feelings that we will look foolish with our poor
writing skills , or by repeating a message that others are already expressing.
The way I see it , This internet just might be the last way people can inform each
other, organize if necessary, or freely express thoughts and ideas to a mass
audience.
So Thank You Parry for posting that...
don wheeler
barrett john erickson
> As a side note:
> Idealism, without a mechanism for implementation, is nothing more than
> mental masturbation.
> Sad, but true.
well, as i am a surrealist (posting from alt.surrealism) my implied
"mechanism for implementation" is self-evident to fellow surrealists.
i suspect that you, as a pragmatist, would give it no serious consideration
because it begins with the general ability to recognize "the appalling
contrast between the possible constructions of life and its present
poverty", then arrives at its specific form through creative action taken
toward reconciling this contrast on both individual and social scales.
you on the other hand, are apparently arguing that we must begin with an
acceptance of "the way things are" and take only that action that doesn't
contest the fundamental organizing principles of that existing order.
there is also a latent but persistent confusion at the base of your argument
between personal action and governmental action that i reject.
and there lies the corpse of our dialog.
jaZZmanian Devil
> I am just heartened that there are good men (and women) out there
> who give a shit about what really matters...
> Problem is I don't see any of you any where but on the internet...
> If I were to judge this country and its people by what is portrayed in
> the media Then I might want to kill you all too...
All I'm trying to figure out is how my silly newsreader manages to get
your responses to barrett's posts hours, if not days, before the
original post appears.
Ah, technology. Far from perfect, but at least it usually sucks.
--
jaZZ md
- - - -
"Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas."
-- anonymous
jaZZmanian Devil
> well, as i am a surrealist (posting from alt.surrealism) my implied
> "mechanism for implementation" is self-evident to fellow surrealists.
I'm sure it does, since (based solely on your comments concerning
Afghanistan in this forum, so please pardon if I'm in error) you've
chosen to define reality in a totally unrealistic way. I'm actually
envious. I would love to be able to live my life under such lovely
delusions, unfettered by the pesky details of the world around me.
Unfortunately, with planes crashing into my home town and madmen sending
anthrax to my governmental leaders through the US mail, it's rather hard
to maintain the illusion. I give you credit for managing it.
> i suspect that you, as a pragmatist, would give it no serious consideration
> because it begins with the general ability to recognize "the appalling
> contrast between the possible constructions of life and its present
> poverty", then arrives at its specific form through creative action taken
> toward reconciling this contrast on both individual and social scales.
You may choose to bandy about the word "pragmatist" as an insult. I
choose to wear it as a badge of honor. The infrastructure of our, and
other, societies was built by, and continues to be maintained by,
pragmatists. This is often done under the additional burden of being
constantly criticized by those who are not pragmatic, but rather choose
to criticize constructive efforts while offering no alternative of
substance. As to what you "suspect" that I may or may not give serious
consideration to, it is, of course, nothing more than that; suspicion
and speculation. You certainly would have no way of knowing. I can
easily envision long range goals which might lead to improvements in the
global society, and US policies which could assist towards that end. I
also know, as perhaps "a surrealist" wouldn't, that those things will
take a very long time, and that there are pressing problems requiring
immediate attention in the here and now.
> you on the other hand, are apparently arguing that we must begin with an
> acceptance of "the way things are" and take only that action that doesn't
> contest the fundamental organizing principles of that existing order.
Yet another assumption designed, apparently, to do nothing but try to
draw some sort of contrast between two schools of thought. And again,
entirely incorrect, by the way. I have asserted no such thing. Speaking
as a realist (a far better term for my point of view than a pragmatist,
but take your pick) I do not feel forced to accept any existing
situation. Where I see problems, I will endorse change, both short and
long term to improve the situation. Unless you are choosing to define
the word "accept" to mean, "believe in". Yes, I believe in the current
state of reality. And it leaves us with lots of work to do. Action is
required to solve problems. Tell me, if you and a friend were walking on
the railroad tracks in the countryside, and suddenly noticed a train was
coming, would you launch into a diatribe on how the dangers posed by the
train to your persons was part of some flaw in the organizing principles
of our society, or would you, in fact, get off the fucking tracks?
> there is also a latent but persistent confusion at the base of your argument
> between personal action and governmental action that i reject.
Reject what you like. Again, you make assumptions about others with no
information to base those assumptions on except your own fantastic (i.e.
based in fantasy) view of existence. And again, you err. There is no
confusion between personal and governmental action in my view. In fact,
on a larger scale, there isn't even a difference. They are one in the
same. The actions of the government are nothing more than the combined
action of the people, since the people *are* the government. I realize
we've long had dissatisfied splinter elements of our population who feel
that's not so, but if one feels totally un-represented by the
government, that may be an indicator that one is very far from the needs
and views of the majority of the population.
> and there lies the corpse of our dialog.
I'll be fascinated to see if you wish to continue discussing the issue
of how to deal with terrorism and and the problems in Eastern Europe,
or if that last line indicates that you are preaching, not discussing,
and having made your pronouncement on how the world shall operate
henceforth, are done talking.
--
jaZZ md
- - - -
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
Because your CIA robot censor loves you more than Barrett's loves him.....
go figgure....
don "knows a good robot when I sees one" wheeler
http://www.robotwisdom.com/
Morpheal
> been described as a “confederacy of warlords, patriots, rapists and
> torturers.” If the purpose of the bombing is simply to disable the
> terrorist operations base in Afghanistan, then the turf wars of an
> Alliance government aren’t a concern --
I don't think it is that simple, or likely to be that quick.
Afghanistan is of more importance to Iran, Iraq and other nearby or
neighbouring moslem states. Look on any truly detailed
map of the topography and transportation routes there and you will
easily discern why it is a bone of contention.
M.
Morpheal
>
> Nik
If you were a member of a group of freedom fighters who chanced to
be fighting against those who would otherwise enslave you, wouldn't
you welcome some bombs dropped on those whom you were fighting ?
It would be far different if you did WANT to be enslaved by them,
but you don't. So do you say stop the bombs or drop the bombs ?
Doesn't seem to be much option in an otherwise endless war to the
death of one side or the other, does there ?
M.
Morpheal
> pay most of the people -- even if most of them are poor -- you'll have
> an entire country on your side. The terrorists will seem utterly
> ridiculous, for wanting to blow up such a wonderful, generous country > as the USA.
In a previous lifetime you are Russian and you remember Alaska.
It's an idea. Who owns it though ?
We might check out the proper title deeds, in the Akashic records as
to that. There must be a record as to the true ownership of it somewhere
in there. Right ?
What would you do with it once it was bought ?
It's mostly dust. Dust, dust and more dust.
M.
Morpheal
plane at one point. I suspect that the same money would be better >
spent as gifts to enemies. How much does a single missile cost?
Osama is too clever for all that to be so simply understood.
He must have seen it coming and lured them deliberately to Afghanistan.
The question is why did he do it and in conjunction with whom ?
That does not change the fact that the bases of terrorism there have to
be dealt with in a military manner. That goes without saying. However,
why did Osama WANT what is happening now to happen. I have not quite
figured out all his motives.
M.
Morpheal
> Money can be stolen. Change money for education and infrastructure
> and you've got a good point.
> #Paul
But what if another group's ideas about education happen to be
that all they need to know is to be found in one book that was
written more than a thousand years ago ? What do you do then ?
As for infrastructure, their ideas might be as different about
that also....
How do you overcome the prejudice and ignorance, and bring
the people into the 21st century and towards your concept of
what it means to be civilized ?
Your turn....
M.
Morpheal
> the plane. The couple was forced to return home to try to sort out the
mess and get more ID for him. They are complainging quite loudly.
A small story, but perhaps a sign of things to come. In our efforts > to
improve our dismal internal security against terrorists, certain privacy
issues will have to take a back seat, and certain toes will be stepped
on.
I don't see the problem in that. Why not require that EVERYONE simply
carry a passport when travelling. The same document would suffice for
everything internal and external when it comes to flying from
destination to destination or entry and exit.... It's simple and I think
necessary. No need to complicate things with lack of uniformity amongst
all kinds of different documents and certificates.
I keep my passport valid. I don't mind carrying it when I travel. Why
should it bother someone else, unless they are up to no good ?
Robert Morpheal
Morpheal
> Freedom is not forced conscription of youth into the military.
It isn't the cops breaking up a bar room brawl either.
It isn't forced payment of income taxes.
It isn't forced driving on the right hand side of the road. The free
might want to drive on the left hand side and damn the traffic.
No, it isn't freedom, but it is necessary.
M.
Bill Cleere
> > I still think my plan of buying Afghanistan is not a bad idea. If you
> > pay most of the people -- even if most of them are poor -- you'll have
> > an entire country on your side. The terrorists will seem utterly
> > ridiculous, for wanting to blow up such a wonderful, generous country > as the USA.
>
> In a previous lifetime you are Russian and you remember Alaska.
>
> It's an idea. Who owns it though ?
>
> We might check out the proper title deeds, in the Akashic records as
> to that. There must be a record as to the true ownership of it somewhere
> in there. Right ?
A worthy suggestion. Have the Akashic records been
digitized, or must we still consult the preserved mind
of Dr. Steiner?
Eris de Suzerain
: > How strange, then, that we're bombing them.
Not that i believe anything i read - but according to this article some of
the freedom fighters are unimpressed
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/18/war11
8.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/10/18/ixhome.html
Again, not that i believe much of "unnamed sources" all the way around,
just what some reporter claims is truth... may or may not be.
Eris de Suzerain
: Eris de Suzerain wrote:
:
: > Freedom is not forced conscription of youth into the military.
:
: It isn't the cops breaking up a bar room brawl either.
no, but condoning and encouraging drunken behavior (which much of our
entertainment media does) creates an environment of implied permisiveness.
(this does not mean i believe that media is responsible for the existence of
drunken or other socially destructive behaviors - just that they seem to
glorify it)
:
: It isn't forced payment of income taxes.
money was invented to allow for the easier collection of taxes. much easier
to collect than grain and chickens, you know. the purpose of money is taxes.
:
: It isn't forced driving on the right hand side of the road. The free
: might want to drive on the left hand side and damn the traffic.
that is cooperation - freedom requires responsibility. When everyone drives
on one side of the road it greatly reduces the chance for injury to all
involved - cooperation is a symptom of evolution, doesn't require giving up
freedom. it can actually increase the value of your freedoms.
:
: No, it isn't freedom, but it is necessary.
at one time people believed kings were necessary. It was revolutionary to
believe that people could rule themselves. priests convinced people it was
necessary to keep the bible out of their hands (thusly putting the priests
in a position to misinterpret their scriptures and enslave their
congregations in some poor and rural areas of Europe and the middle east).
one must live today and do what one can, but one can also plot for the
future today - because in order for anything to grow there has to be a seed.
Peace or true freedom may not be possible today, but it requires working
towards in a cooperative manner - just like driving. The asshole who bullies
other cars off the road usually gets shot in a fit of road rage (or flips
his truck and kills himself by accident), when cars move smoothly and in
each others best interest everyone gets there.
:
:
tangential, sorry.
*
Morpheal
> no, but condoning and encouraging drunken behavior (which much of our
entertainment media does) creates an environment of implied
permisiveness. (this does not mean i believe that media is responsible
for the existence of drunken or other socially destructive behaviors -
just that they seem to glorify it)
You're definitely a bright light. Please use the dimmer control. I can
hardly see anything around here with that glaring at me !!!!!
> money was invented to allow for the easier collection of taxes. much easier to collect than grain and chickens, you know. the purpose of money is taxes.
Something to collect simply for the sake of collecting it. Yes, an
obsessive compulsion to gather up pieces of variously shaped metal, or
pieces of coloured paper.... I knew it was a psychiatric disorder, all
along. Good that you pointed that out to everyone.
> that is cooperation - freedom requires responsibility. When everyone drives on one side of the road it greatly reduces the chance for injury to all involved - cooperation is a symptom of evolution, doesn't require giving up freedom. it can actually increase the value of your freedoms.
And I thought co-operation was when there is a transplant from a donor
who is known to the recipient and it is done in the same operating room.
That is, after the accident. And imagine waking up with someone else's
nose attached to your face when you look into the mirror in the morning.
What a shock.
I knew I had misunderstood something.
> : No, it isn't freedom, but it is necessary.
Actually we know there are no free doms. The doms always become the
prisoners of their slaves. It's inevitable.
> at one time people believed kings were necessary. It was revolutionary to believe that people could rule themselves. priests convinced people it was necessary to keep the bible out of their hands (thusly putting the priests in a position to misinterpret their scriptures and enslave their congregations in some poor and rural areas of Europe and the middle east).
All of that was entirely correct. Good idea to keep the bible out of
their hands. They definitely would read something wrongly into it, and
they always do.
As for governing themselves, have you ever seen any proof among humans
that they could do so ? Without any government or authorities exerting
some control ? Govern themselves ? You mean to say as in the wild wild
west, where the ownership of a six gun was sufficient to determine right
? Or did you have some other idea of what governing themselves might
come to ? A street gang perhaps ?
>one must live today and do what one can, but one can also plot for the future today - because in order for anything to grow there has to be a seed.
Nah. Spores would be sufficient. And unless you want to postulate the
first seed (along with the first egg for the first chicken) you have a
big problem. Which came first the plant or the seed ?
How do we know that you yourself are not a plant ? Planted into
alt.surrealism to influence us all towards some hidden purpose ?
You could be like that guy in Wacko. Koresh. You could be the Koresh of
alt.surrealism trying to gather followers for your own purpose.
>Peace or true freedom may not be possible today, but it requires working towards in a cooperative manner - just like driving. The asshole who bullies other cars off the road usually gets shot in a fit of road rage (or flips his truck and kills himself by accident), when cars move smoothly and in each others best interest everyone gets there.
Oh,... how many people have you shot during your fits of road rage ?
Inquiring surrealists want to know.
>tangential
Yeah, the guy who spent too much time in the sun. Should have used his
sun screen, but no, couldn't be bothered to do that either.
M.
Morpheal
> I don't much like the idea of flags.
Are you another agent of Osama bin Laden ?
We have already found a few of them hiding in alt.surrealism.
So far all plots to destroy alt.surrealism have been foiled.
Osama would say the same as you do. Flags are only temporary
symbols and without real significance in the larger scheme of
things that he believes in. He wants to see the whole world
under one flag. Not his, but the flag of the ideology he
happens to believe in. (At least his interpretation of it.)
It has sometimes been said that among Islamic countries there
are really no flags, and they are all in it together as a kind
of loose knit conspiracy.
Do you think that might be true ?
I am only conjecturing based on western scholarship. ;-)
M.
Morpheal
> I've been informed that under new laws or guidelines if one is participating in a demonstration and throws a rock through a window in a government building , that person can now be sentenced to life in prison for committing a "terrorist act".
We are materialists here. So the solid piece of stone tossed through the
window has potentially harsh consequences. Almost an act of treason, and
a little worse than sedition ?
Now, if you threw a stone through the Taleban office windows that would
not be likely to be so very bad. You might get a bit of a beating for
your naughtiness.
If, however, you tossed rock and roll music through their window you
would be executed.
You see, they are more spiritual than we are. We punish people more
severely for throwing stones through government office windows. There
they exercise the most extreme penalty for throwing the spirit of rock
and roll through their government windows.
Gives us an idea, doesn't it ?
What would you do ?
Inquiring surrealists want to know.
M.
Morpheal
> The U.S. is not going to alienate Pakistan and we know plenty about
the Northern Alliance's grotesque humanitarian record. No one wants
to replace one Taliban with a new one. The U.S., with Pakistan, is
looking to help form a government there made of up of representatives
from the tribes.
Don't you think that Pakistan only wants to be assured it can keep
building up its military power for its wars with non Islamic states
such as India ?
Do you think there is anything else motivating Pakistan's political
behaviour in the world as we know it ?
Michael voytinsky
> > The bombing is idiotic - it is only being done to show the idiotic
> > public that something is being done.
>
> "You have been hurt. I will fix your pain by going into the alley and
> kicking a garbage can in the name of Freedom and Democracy."
Unfortunately, that is human nature. If humans were rational, not
only would 9-11 would not have happened, but the bad foreign policy
that is in large part to blame would not have happened either.
All things considered, the American response has been surprisingly
controlled. When the US embassy in Kenya was bombed, the Americans
responded by bombing a random pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan.
My guess is that the terrorists were hoping for a much more
indiscriminate response and a lot more civilian deaths in the Muslim
countries.
> > I am sure dropping greenbacks on troops would disorganize them more
> > than dropping bombs. It would also be cheaper and more humane.
>
> I wonder if this would actually work?
It has never been tried, but I would not be surprised if it worked.
It would also be a rather cheap thing to try - a few million in small
bills would be a drop in the bucket of military expenditures. Maybe
if enough people emailed this suggestion to the Pentagon or the
Whitehouse?
In case you want to do this, here is some contact information I found
on the net:
White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414
White House Fax: 202-456-2461
George W. Bush: pres...@whitehouse.gov
Dick Cheney: vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov
on-line comments to the Pentagon can be made at:
http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html
They also have a phone: (703) 697-5737
The mailing addresses of a whole bunch of important military dudes:
http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/dod_addresses.html
> Real people usually base their ideologies on fictions. Example, Mario
> Puzo's "The Godfather", which taught the mafia how to behave. The book
> was complete and utter fiction -- but the mafia loved it and adopted the
> rules.
Well, God wrote a bunch of stuff using the first person - a common
literary device - and suddenly people treat it as commands rather than
some experimental fiction. Idiots.
> It would be nice if someone could make up a piece of compelling fiction
> in which behaving sanely came across as cool, intelligent, and sophisticated.
It would be difficult. The reason "The Godfather" worked had to do
with the irrationality of the characters - disguised as rationality.
> Welcome back to the Internet.
I have to get my fix of time-wasting, pointless discussions.
M
don wheeler
Morpheal wrote:
Short footnote M,
The correct is Muslim not moslem.
d
don wheeler
Morpheal wrote:
I would make the passing of , or executing of a death sentence a mortal offense.
Capital punishment would be dealt with the ultimate penalty.
Up the barricades ! Criminality must be outlawed
Morpheal
> A worthy suggestion. Have the Akashic records been
> digitized, or must we still consult the preserved mind
> of Dr. Steiner?
I visited the Akashic records, by means of astral travel, one night many
years ago. In fact when I was in my teens. What I found there were three
large volumes, among many others. One was labelled World War I. Another
was labelled World War II. Then there was a third similar volume. I
opened the first, and inside were actual scenes from WWI. It was
somewhat similar to looking through a window. Same for the second book.
The third book was blank. Nothing. I was informed that the volume was
empty because anything might appear in it that we choose, as human
beings, to appear there.
They were all digital, I would suppose.
M.
don wheeler
Morpheal wrote:
> kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl wrote:
>
> > Money can be stolen. Change money for education and infrastructure
> > and you've got a good point.
> > #Paul
>
> But what if another group's ideas about education happen to be
> that all they need to know is to be found in one book that was
> written more than a thousand years ago ? What do you do then ?
Almost everything, or should I say most American's ideas about Islamic history
or culture, of how Muslim people think, or become educated , or interpret the
Koran, or for that matter live, is learned or gleaned from inaccurate
information.
Information passed on by ignorant , misinformed, or malicious people.
Some of this information is in part factual, some of it is even true, but most
if it is
wrong..
Most of it is misrepresented, misinterpreted, or taken out of context with a
distortion
of it's meaning.
As an example I would point to the statement you just made.
I heard the same kinds of blanket statements made over American television a few
nights ago, the story was true about the small number of people and the school
it referred to, but may have been represented by the broadcast or by you to
reflect a reality about millions upon millions of people that is not true. I
assume that was the source of your information, though I have seen the same
kind of thing many times before this.
I don't have the luxury of money or time to spend much of my energy writing
every time this happens, so I will try to limit this post.
There are many statements in the Koran that suggest or direct a person to
acquire
the broadest and most definitive education one can get or afford.
The first of these is a directive to become literate.
This is to enable the message of the book to be transmitted, and secondarily to
learn the knowledge to better ones self as a human being.
To roughly translate: The first statement says Read!
Another verse proclaims:
Seek knowledge ! Even if it comes from China.
The worlds oldest ongoing university is the Al Alzar in Cairo.
And yes, many muslim people abuse or oppress others in the name of Islam.
but they are a minority just as a child molesting priest, or a Jerry Falwell or
david Koresh is a minority within Christianity.
I shouldn't have to explain here how so much of of western science, medicine,
philosophy, music, ecet. all came from Islamic "Arab" sources at the end of the
"dark" ages. It is a matter of historic record that much of the paltry crumbs of
knowledge that remained of ancient Egypt and Greece came to us trough Islamic
hands and over Islamic lips.
And how was this repaid ? with "holy" crusades...and colonialism
I wish God would wipe mankind's brains of all traces of him or his memory.
Obviously all we do with the information is misinterpret it justify the pillage,
torture and murder of our fellows.
I think I hate fundamentalists of all stripes even more than the all of the
fascists and Republicans put together......
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil
While we are bemoaning the turn of events in the "war on terrorism", let
us not go too far in the other direction. There are certainly those who
are going overboard and associating everything bad about the Taliban
with all people of Islamic faith, and this is certainly wrong. However,
the converse is just as dangerous. Taking all that is good in the
Islamic faith, and all of the positive teachings of the Koran, and
associating these things with *all* followers of that faith (including
the Taliban) is equally incorrect. Any set of rules found in some holy
scripture can be "reinterpreted" and twisted around to a sinister
purpose.
Let's not forget the many laws which the Taliban has put in place since
taking power, based on one or two scraps of text found either in the
Koran, or worse, in later writings and interpretations of various "holy
men" over the ages. Did you know that all music has been forbidden in
Afghanistan? Previously, you could at least listen to approved "holy
music", but now even that is banned. A CNN reporter travelling there
wrote that, while travelling in a taxi, the radio was playing music from
across the border. While approaching a security check point, the driver
quickly changed the station, informing the reporter that if the the
guards had caught them listening to music, they would have been beaten
and imprisoned. All that is played on the radio now are recordings of
men reading scripture and prayers.
Singing has also been outlawed. Even religious tunes. One Afghanistan
man had the poor taste to join in with several friends at his *wedding
day* party to (very quietly) sing a traditional holy song to bless his
marriage. One of his guests, fearful of being caught associating with
such scofflaws, called and reported him. Police showed up, beat the man
severely and imprisoned him. When he was finally released several months
later, he found that his new bride had mysteriously "left the country"
and her whereabouts were unknown.
And don't even get me started on all their legislation designed to "keep
women in their proper place."
Yes, by all means let's not get caught up on some bigoted extermination
campaign and convict everyone with a turban by association, but at the
same time, let's not turn the Taliban into a bunch of saints, either.
This is not to say that the "Northern Alliance" is any better,
obviously, since they are reported to be a very loose coallition of
rival gangs, essentially. I don't think there *is* any significant group
over there who we would normally side with, should we foolishly engage
in any sort of "nation building" when this is over.
Do we have the right to go in there and tear down their government
because of these actions? I think not. But given my western upbringing,
I certainly can't endorse their regime either, and I'm hard pressed to
come up with much sympathy for the Taliban if they get wiped out in the
process of trying to hunt down bin Laden and his thugs.
--
jaZZ md
*******
"Rascality has limits; stupidity has not."
- - Napoleon Bonaparte
Morpheal
> The United States is finally getting around to kicking the Taliban
> and it's just to make a show.
No it isn't. I hope that was sarcasm....
I think you would agree it is making an example of some nasty varmints
who share a system of beliefs that they try to force upon everyone else
with violent means.
To surrealists it stands for the freedom to have dreams. Yes, night time
when you sleep, dreams in black and white or technicolour.
It stands for women being able to be surrealists as well as men, and to
be regarded equally.
It stands for the freedom to make art that includes the human form.
Naked or clothed and all of it, and male or female.
It stands for the freedom to write surrealist poetry and prose.
It stands for the freedom to have music with secular lyrics.
It stands for the freedom to make and watch films or theatre
performances. It stands for women being allowed to act in them.
It stands for the freedom to have a drink of beer if we want to.
It stands for a lot more than that.....a lot more.....
> Now how many do you think the Taliban executes in one month for "crimes" like adultery and homosexuality?
I don't like homosexuality, and I have never practiced adultery, but I
can't condone their execution, that's for sure.
Executing people for their not wanting to conform to a way of life that
is the same as it was 1400 years ago, ought to result in the execution
of the executioners..... and that is what is happening.
M.
Morpheal
> Short footnote M,
> The correct is Muslim not moslem.
> d
Actually it doesn't matter. You could always write it in arabic
and that we would have no dispute.
M.
Morpheal
> "We are going along with the United States because that's the best
> thing for us to do. This is what to say to the Taliban: no one else
> has supported the Taliban like Pakistan, you know that."
Are you surprised that they support their servants, to a point, and then
sacrifice them for their own survival ? No surprises there.
> And we have to be in bed with this guy, primarily to make sure that
> some Al Qaeda type group doesn't take over Pakistan and get its hands on their nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, what's going to happen to Kashmir?
What makes you so absolutely certain that an Al Qaeda type group is not
involved in Pakistan and Iran ? I would think that both those regimes
similarly have similar elements there that have ties to the Al Qaeda.
It isn't simply Afghanistan. That is one of the hubs of a network that
extends its tentacles into many nations.
M.
Morpheal
> I would make the passing of , or executing of a death sentence a mortal offense.
You were found with a bottle of beer, so you were excuted.
You were found with a copy of Penthouse or Playboy so you were executed.
Yes, I would tend to agree with you.
Those who hold the belief that people ought to be tortured, imprisoned,
and often executed and in the most violent ways, ought to be executed by
means of military force.
Now what were you going to do to the Saudis ?
What day was your invasion force going to enter Arabia to stop the
executions there and bring some freedom to that region ?
Read the CIA factbook entries for Saudi Arabia and you will recognize
that they are no better than Osama bin Laden in many respects.
M.
jaZZmanian Devil
> > Now how many do you think the Taliban executes in one month for "crimes" like adultery and homosexuality?
>
> I don't like homosexuality, and I have never practiced adultery, but I
> can't condone their execution, that's for sure.
Are we to infer from this that surrealism and homosexuality are mutually
exclusive, or is that just a personal view?
--
jaZZ md
*******
"The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the
comfortable. "
- - Clarence Darrow
Nik Maack
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
> Are we to infer from this that surrealism and homosexuality are mutually
> exclusive, or is that just a personal view?
THE OFFICIAL SURREALIST POSITION ON HOMO AND HETERO SEXUALITY:
The majority of humans believe heterosexuality is "normal" and
homosexuality is "abnormal". Surrealists believe that these sorts of
opposites do not exist. There is no normal or abnormal. There is no
hetero or homo sexual. There just is.
Therefore, in an attempt to unify "normal and abnormal" and
"heterosexual and homosexual", all surrealists MUST engage in homosexual
AND heterosexual acts. If a surrealist insists on being purely
heterosexual, or purely homosexual, they are a traitor to the surrealist cause.
If you should happen to catch a purely hetero or purely homo surrealist,
you must tie them up and force them to suck on the genitals counter to
their preference. By doing so, you will assist them greatly in
expanding their consciousness.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Nikolaus Maack
Self-Elected High Priest and Grandmaster of Surrealism
Morpheal
> Are we to infer from this that surrealism and homosexuality are mutually exclusive, or is that just a personal view?
I didn't say that. I don't think that sexual predilection or gender
has anything to do with what art genre one chances to find affinity
with. Sexual predilection is and ought to neither be a sufficient or
a necessary condition either for being an artist or for being a
surrealist artist.
The problem only occurs when that basic principle is violated and
someone attempts to make gender or sexual predilection a necessary
condition for affinity, inclusivity, or achievement. Then it rightly
becomes a battle.
I refuse to be coerced into any particular sexual orientation, or as to
my gender characteristics, so as to be allowed to be an artist or any
particular type of artist. I happen to be purely heterosexual, and
somewhat non stereotypical male. Some men like the intimate
companionship of men, but I definitely don't like it and have known many
males who do not like it at all. They work together with men, and get
along with their coworkers same as any others, but they don't bond,
buddy up, and center their whole personal lives outside their work on
life with the boys. Some do that, and some don't. Part of the freedoms
we necessarily enjoy and value within our culture.
Did you know that in Osama bin Laden's culture that kind of freedom as
to mixed gender and mixed sexual predilection working relationships is
not an available option. The boys there don't mix with the girls in
anything. They don't even dance together. The women only dance and they
dance in a separate room. It is all too bizarre and primitive for our
western North American or modern European tastes and cultural
conditionning, preferences and habits. It goes against our basic values
and concepts as to human freedom as to human relationships and manners
of relating. It is hardest for really truly heterosexual North Americans
or Europeans. Latent homosexuals, who dislike women and like hanging
around only with the boys all day and night would fit right in with that
eastern crowd. To us it is too painful a scenario in strictly
psychological terms. We don't belong in their society and they don't
belong in our's. The values are too exceedingly different.
M.
don wheeler
jaZZmanian Devil wrote:
You, I, and most of the civilized world regardless of religion or region are agreed in
our judgment of the moral stature of the Taliban and fundamentalists like them who
commit the barbarous acts and human rights violations they are reported to have
committed .
I can only hope that the people who actually are guilty of the crimes against
humanity in NY on 9-11 are brought to justice in NY or killed resisting.
Anything more or worse than what justice calls for makes me like them.
The problems with the Taliban however are different.
First of all they are the Government of a Sovereign country, And where their rights to
live like they want to and our moral human duty to relieve suffering and oppression
conflict or converge is a thorny and tricky issue.
In a way this "problem" is neatly avoided if we are engaged in a humanitarianly
" just " conflict with them.
If they have attacked us or are allied with those who have , then I say war is
justified. Just wage it with conviction and honor.
The remaining problem that has not been resolved for me is my total lack of trust in
the cartel that is in power here.
They have traditionally lied to us for as long as my living memory.
How can I believe anything they say or do ?
Should I trust they have had a sudden change of heart ?
don
don wheeler
Nik Maack wrote:
Gimme a break !!
Do what you want with any one who will consent , but keep your hand off my knee
unless I ask you to put it there please, or I'll be giving you a break..
Dale Houstman
"don wheeler" <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3BD24CEA...@optonline.net...
>
>
> First of all they are the Government of a Sovereign country, And where
their rights to
> live like they want to and our moral human duty to relieve suffering and
oppression
> conflict or converge is a thorny and tricky issue.
> In a way this "problem" is neatly avoided if we are engaged in a
humanitarianly
> " just " conflict with them.
> If they have attacked us or are allied with those who have , then I say
war is
> justified. Just wage it with conviction and honor.
Our "moral human duty to relieve suffering and oppression" would be a sight
more compelling if we as a nation did that even at home, but we don't. It is
hypocritical of us (not to say murderous) to be dropping anything on
Afghanistan if we think we are doing it to relieve suffering and oppression.
The US is not over there to do either, and it is only propaganda that we
are. Let's call it what it is: an eye for an eye, saving face, cleaning up
some old problems, and the exercise of power. I also am not thrilled pink at
the conduct of the Taliban, but if we bombed every culture we found even
slightly odious, we'd be bombing parts of Atlantic City, Amsterdam, and
Anaheim. Maybe not a totally awful idea, but one even we might find onerous
in the extreme. As for "conviction and honor," please!
>
> The remaining problem that has not been resolved for me is my total lack
of trust in
> the cartel that is in power here.
> They have traditionally lied to us for as long as my living memory.
> How can I believe anything they say or do ?
> Should I trust they have had a sudden change of heart ?
>
Only if you're very, very drunk and not much up to giving a shit. There are
new lies being produced every day by our government, and you don't have to
look hard to find them.
dmh
Nik Maack
don wheeler wrote:
> Gimme a break !!
> Do what you want with any one who will consent , but keep your hand off my
> knee unless I ask you to put it there please, or I'll be giving you a break..
Sucking cock is a vital component of surrealism. No lesser man than
André Breton said (and I quote) "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but
a fuck with a greased-up sailor in a sauna -- now that's hot loving."
Dali spent most of his days having sex with men. He originally got the
idea for his melting watches when he stared down at a pool of his own
semen on the back of a man he'd just finished sodomizing. He wondered,
"What time is it? Will my wife be home soon?" His cum turned into tiny
melting clocks. The rest is history.
Picasso is well know for fucking women. He was just as talented at
fucking men. There's a story going around that he once, at a fancy
costume ball, had sex with a circus performer on a tightrope high above
the crowd. He was masked, so to this day no one is sure it was him.
But the discipline involved in the fucking certainly points in his
direction. Of course there was no net. Picasso never used a net, no
matter what he was doing.
So, Don, it's your responsibility as a surrealist -- if you want to be a
surrealist -- to engage in "sexual deviancy". Make the "love that dare
not speak its name" as public as a Pepsi commercial. And if you're
unwilling, perhaps what you need is a little encouragement. A little
"push", so to speak. Or a pair of handcuffs.
Nik
Morpheal
> Sucking cock is a vital component of surrealism.
You're stripped of all your priestly offices and declared excommunicata.
You will no longer be entitled to receive the surreal sacraments.
However, you may still partake of the dialogue, and are encouraged to do
so, for the sake of your surrealist soul which is surely doomed to a
surreal perdition.
It is NOT a vital component of surrealism. Your personal sex life and
its predilections have NOTHING to do with surrealism. When will you get
it through your thick skull that artists do NOT have to be homosexual. I
wonder which shrink is feeding you this abominable crap that to be
credible as an artist you must be homosexual, cohabit and sleep with
men. It's absurd. You might as well join the Taliban !
M.
Morpheal
> > Nikolaus Maack
> > Self-Elected High Priest and Grandmaster of Surrealism
> Gimme a break !! Do what you want with any one who will consent , but keep your hand off my knee unless I ask you to put it there please, or I'll be giving you a break..
If you put YOUR hand on my.... one more time, the way you did a few
moments ago, I will chop it off !
Now you've been warned.
After that I will declare you excommunicata.
Robert Morpheal
Pontiff
of Surrealism