On "The Object Of Surrealism Is Moral."
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01092...@posting.google.com...
> "... the object of surrealism is moral. The demands it may elicit
> from you do not fall short of a furious revolutionary perspective
> concerning language, poetry, love, science, eroticism, politics,
> dependent on an imaginative exaltation of disquieting materials and
> potential renewal of latent powers requiring a purification of means
> well within your grasp, as easy as the day swallowing the night."
> --- Philip Lamantia, from City Lights Anthology, 1974.
>
>
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> "Jonathan" <WriteInstead@Here> wrote in message
news:<9oebc2$a92$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> > news:9odkh...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > Much like Republicans and Democrats. Terrorism - when it used by the
> > > powerful and rich - has a different face and name, but the bodies look
> > > pretty much the same.
> >
> >
> > I find your attitude unbelievable and illogical. This statement sees no
moral
> > difference in any form of killing. It's all equally evil in your
opinion. As
> > a result you would refuse to kill one to save a hundred, or a million,
and
> > would even call self defense an evil.
One could live a million years and never quite understand what that "lily
with a headache" cythera means by any of her irrelevant addendum to
dialogues mean precisely, but it is relatively easy to find the flaw in
Jonathan's usual idiocy. I have said repeatedly - and no one really needs to
hear this to understand it's true - that slef-defense is always legitimate.
But it is NOT "sefl-defense" if someone first massacres a man's family (or
pays others to starve, rape, exploit and torture a man's family) and then
bombs that man's village ehen he has the audacity to respond. The history of
America's profound involvement in the killing of others is clear to read, if
one takes the time to seach beyond "People" Magazine and that wing of the
White House press room, "Time." We've been killing millions of people and
exploiting many more for quite some time now, and for us to label it
"self-defense" at this point is beyond laughable. Of course, Jonathan thinks
with his ass, and so the fact that his ass can type and reads ranks him up
there with a talking dog, so one can regard him - in that way - as a marvel.
The true moral relativist here is Jonathan who appears to find it quite fine
that the US has trained torturers and paid thugs to kill innocents, and
assassinated legitimately elected officials, and allowed its corporate
entities (Union Carbide in Bhopal, Cargill in Russia, amongst many) to
pollute and exploit third world nations for far too long. And I suppose
there is no reason to think our involvement with Israel has produced any
victims of any worth to Jonathan's mind? A shame that. Just business, of
course. Of course - as I have said but shouldn't have had to - I deplore and
condemn the events in NYC and Washington, but I also happen to know some of
the provocations behind the easily assimilated sentimental idea of America
as some strangely "virginal benificence" in the world. It isn't
"self-defense" to now engage in more of the carpet bombing that we have
become so terribly fond of: it's murder in the interests of power. These
events - for the government - are merely an excuse to step up the momentum
of an already existing system of repression and death. As such, these
"ideas" of Jonathan's (issuing so magnificently from his talking anus) are
just ignorant tripe. Cythera's additions are vapid and incomprehensible as
usual: no surprise from our "lily with a headache." One cannot know what she
is on about. Does she find it more "moral" to bomb the allah out of more
innocent people? Does she find Jonathan's comments intelligent and relevant
to something? Does even she know what she thinks anymore? At any rate, she
is quick to respond, but slow on the ability to express precisely what she
means.
dmh
> >
> > This attitude of yours also sees no value in principles or the
importance
> > to our future of defending them. You see all actions and ideas as
similar
> > shades of gray and only the effects as solid. Your focus on selected
> > effects of a system as a judge of its morality is misguided.
> >
> > The morality of a system is graded by its ability to generate a
> > thriving and humane future. Democracy and capitalism have shown
> > their potential and each is driven by the fundamental principles
> > behind the ideas. The few fundamental forces of a system
> > should be defended first, and the effects of defending them
> > considered second. This is the most effective and humane way
> > of preventing the evils you give such weight.
> >
> > While the world is fighting to provide itself the nutrients for
> > future growth you point out the decay and claim it's all
> > a waste of time.
>
>
> > Jonathan
> >
> > s
>
> cythera.
>
> "... the object of surrealism is moral. The demands it may elicit
> from you do not fall short of a furious revolutionary perspective
> concerning language, poetry, love, science, eroticism, politics,
> dependent on an imaginative exaltation of disquieting materials and
> potential renewal of latent powers requiring a purification of means
> well within your grasp, as easy as the day swallowing the night."
> --- Philip Lamantia, from City Lights Anthology, 1974.
> ---
Jonathan
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fadef76.01092...@posting.google.com...
> "... the object of surrealism is moral. The demands it may elicit
> from you do not fall short of a furious revolutionary perspective
> concerning language, poetry, love, science, eroticism, politics,
> dependent on an imaginative exaltation of disquieting materials and
> potential renewal of latent powers requiring a purification of means
> well within your grasp, as easy as the day swallowing the night."
> --- Philip Lamantia, from City Lights Anthology, 1974.
Bin Laden, the ultimate surrealist!
Jonathan
s
>
>
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> "Jonathan" <WriteInstead@Here> wrote in message
news:<9oebc2$a92$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> > news:9odkh...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:fadef76.01092...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >Michael Cook wrote:
> > > > >What did I miss?
> > > >
> > > > Michael, we already know what it's like to be "judged" as having no
> > > > separation from our government's policy.
> > > >
> > > > Calling terrorists such as Al Qaeda "some religion" is like saying that
> > > > Jerry Falwell is "some religion" -- or that he represents the prevalent
> > > > thinking in our country.
> > > >
> > > > He's a zealot who _uses_ a particular religion -- and its believers --
> > > > to further his own group's _personal_ agenda.
> > > >
> > > Much like Republicans and Democrats. Terrorism - when it used by the
> > > powerful and rich - has a different face and name, but the bodies look
> > > pretty much the same.
> >
> >
> > I find your attitude unbelievable and illogical. This statement sees no moral
> > difference in any form of killing. It's all equally evil in your opinion. As
> > a result you would refuse to kill one to save a hundred, or a million, and
> > would even call self defense an evil.
> >
Uncle Sot
<<much bullshit snipped>>
>"We've been killing millions of people and
> exploiting many more for quite some time now, and for us to label it
> "self-defense" at this point is beyond laughable."
If what you say is true, the U.S. should be an ostracized nation, a world
pariah. Yet we have many more friends than enemies. Are all these nations
insane? Or are you just wrong because you're so steeped in the myths of
radical liberalism that you've never seriously examined your articulate yet
stupid ideas.
No doubt you've spent much time in a university, imbibing radical dogma from
others like you who suck at rich teat of western democracies while
condemning their exploitation of others. What irony.
Who in the hell have you helped today?
Jonathan
Morality is relative. It adapts along with us to suit our needs.
Your attitude towards America is rascist. You are holding
responsible all Americans for the crimes some of it's citizens
committed in the past. And citing these crimes as justification for
further ones. This demonization based on sweeping generalizations
is the best way to reduce our humanity and make such crimes more
likely. Guilt by association and punishment by proxy is your morality.
Can we now kill any jew for the crimes of Israel? If I should do this
would you understand and forgive me? Are we to forgive murderers for the
unhappy childhood that may have contributed to the crime?
Or are we to hold each person responsible for their own actions?
By living in the past and giving in to the idea that past immorality justifies
it's perpetuation you only increase the bigotry that perverts our
perception of right and wrong.
The basic difference in our perspective is easy to see, you look to the
past to determine how one should act now. I look to the future to
decide how one should act now. Your perspective is the one that is
conventional, dangerous and immoral. And it is also lacking in
imagination as it sees only what has been, and not what could be.
Jonathan
s
Dale Houstman
"Jonathan" <forgetit@once> wrote in message
news:9ojpsr$omh$0...@dosa.alt.net...
>
>
>
> Morality is relative. It adapts along with us to suit our needs.
Then why did you chide me for finding no "difference" in morality between
different acts? You're sorta dumb for a stupid person.
>
> Your attitude towards America is rascist.
That's rich.
>You are holding
> responsible all Americans for the crimes some of it's citizens
> committed in the past.
No, I'm not. I am merely suggesting that Americans take it upon themselves
to be what the Founding Fathers hoped that they would be: an informed
citizenry. As for crimes "committed in the past" we are talking of crimes
that are still going on, for one thing. And the other is that America
continues to shelter several war criminals to this day: notably Henry
Kissinger.
> And citing these crimes as justification for
> further ones.
Also a falsehood: as I said (many tines now, because you seem to be unable
to comprehend simple words): I am not justifying the crimes of whomever
committed the atrocities in NYC, and - in fact - I have said I hope they are
brought to justice. But I also want brought to justice those who have
committed other crimes, many of which are still ongoing, although they
certainly wouldn't have to be: or do you really believe that there is a
statute of limitations on mass murder and assassinations? Or are you the
racist by assuming only crimes committed by "others" demand criminal
charges?
>This demonization based on sweeping generalizations
> is the best way to reduce our humanity and make such crimes more
> likely. Guilt by association and punishment by proxy is your morality.
"Sweeping generalities"? You have got to be kidding! Just one example: the
illegal and murderous assault on a non-warring country (Cambodia) by
American heads of state (notably Nixon and Kissinger) is a well-documented
fact. A generality would be: "Americans am bad."
> ?
> Can we now kill any jew for the crimes of Israel? If I should do this
> would you understand and forgive me? Are we to forgive murderers for the
> unhappy childhood that may have contributed to the crime?
Who's begging for any killing at all? And who is asking forgiveness for
killers? You seem confused.
>
> Or are we to hold each person responsible for their own actions?
I've already said as much. I want the responsible parties in the WTC
bombings brought to justice, and I also want Henry Kissinger tried for war
crimes. It is YOU who are desperate to excuse certain parties for heinous
crimes, not I. Again, you seem confused.
>
> By living in the past and giving in to the idea that past immorality
justifies
> it's perpetuation you only increase the bigotry that perverts our
> perception of right and wrong.
Again: you repeat your confusions as though they were intelligent comments
worthy of another listen, but they are - totally - erroneous assmuptions
based on your inability to comprehend what you are reading.
>
> The basic difference in our perspective is easy to see, you look to the
> past to determine how one should act now. I look to the future to
> decide how one should act now. Your perspective is the one that is
> conventional, dangerous and immoral. And it is also lacking in
> imagination as it sees only what has been, and not what could be.
You're so full of crap you're beginning to draw flies. At least you have
friends now.
To repeat: there is no statute of limitations on murder. It is never "too
far in the past" to be brought to justice.
Also: many of the crimes I ascribe to the US are still ongoing.
Also: your "looking to the future" is as conventional and illogical point of
view as can be: if you are looking to the future, how can you desire to
attack anyone for a crime that happened in the past, even if it was only
last Tuesday? Or when does "the past" begin for you? America is still
punishing Cuba for crimes it committed over 30 years ago. And to think one
can move into a glorious future without making careful plans based on
experience - or a detail knowledge of the past - is almost as silly a
statement as I've evenr heard from someone who purports to be intelligent.
There are people who have this disorder, who lack the ability to recall what
they have just done, but it isn't usually thought of as a wise procedure:
it's a neurological problem.
Oh - by the way - you spoke almost entirely in sweeping generalities. It
seems you can't even recognize what you deplore when it's in your own head.
dmh
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dale Houstman
"Uncle Sot" <un...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Q6cr7.7704$W83.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> According to Dale...
>
> <<much bullshit snipped>>
>
> >"We've been killing millions of people and
> > exploiting many more for quite some time now, and for us to label it
> > "self-defense" at this point is beyond laughable."
>
> If what you say is true, the U.S. should be an ostracized nation, a world
> pariah. Yet we have many more friends than enemies. Are all these nations
> insane? Or are you just wrong because you're so steeped in the myths of
> radical liberalism that you've never seriously examined your articulate
yet
> stupid ideas.
The facts are plain, and - frankly - I'm tired of repeating them for people
who seem unable to understand what power can buy in this world. The reason
(obvious to anyone who thinks) that America is not "ostracized" is that it
own the ostrich! I am not a liberal. I am a person who can read the simple
historic record. That Kissinger - for instance - bombed a non-warring
country is a historical fact, and in the record. He even admits it! That
America killed over a million people in Vietnam alone is a demographic fact.
That the US assassinated heads of state is a fact. That America ran guns and
drugs is a fact; again, even the participants admitted this one. That
America trained torturers is a fact. That America mined the harbors of a
country not at war with them - in defiance of world law - is a fact. That
America has befriended and financed and armed (amongst others) Noriega,
Saddam Hussein, and Bin Laden is a matter of record.
You are - of course - free to make anything of these facts you want to, but
they are facts, not prejudices of my "radical liberalism."
>
> No doubt you've spent much time in a university, imbibing radical dogma
from
> others like you who suck at rich teat of western democracies while
> condemning their exploitation of others. What irony.
Well, my sucking at the "rich teat" of western democracies has landed me -
at 50 - in the situation of no money in the bank and a low-paying job. You
may find that a seductive posittion, but I don't somehow. I'm not making
any money off any teats. And - for the record - what you set up isn't irony.
But don't worry - Alanis Morrisette doesn't know what it is either. I do
like the rather ugly idea though that living in a country somehow precludes
you from criticizing it. That's called tyranny in my world.
> Who in the hell have you helped today?
You'd be surprised. But - unlike many - I don't go around making hoopla over
my little services to mankind. And who have you helped? And what -pray
tell - does my helping someone or not helping someone have to do with my
rights as a citizen to expect my government to act within an ethical
framework?
dmh
Michael C
Defining the present based on history won't win friends and influence
people, abandon that crazy notion, climb on board! Define it based on the
future! Get with the in crowd be cool. Grab a teat and pull up a seat were
goin have a whole lot of fun.
And its two, three, four, what are we writin' for
Don't ask me I don't give a damn next stop is Afghanistan
Five, six, seven, eight.ping! Damn! guitar string broke. Be right back.
mdc
Michael C
Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Reality needs your help again.
It's got itself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Afghanistan
So put down your books and pick up a pen,
We're gonna rewrite history again.
And it's one, two, three,
What am I writin this for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Afghanistan;
And it's five, six, seven,
Well there ain't no crime like a shitty rhyme,
Whoopee! lets all jump in da line.
Here is the original:
I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die Rag
Words and Music by Joe McDonald
Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those reds -
The only good commie is the one who's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Huh!
Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.
And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:9ojvf...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Jonathan
"Michael C" <co...@mw.mediaone23.net> wrote in message
news:sWjr7.90705$Hm.10...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
Funny, I was just humming that tune this morning!
That and "where have all the flowers gone....."
Jonathan
>
>
Jonathan
>
> "Jonathan" <forgetit@once> wrote in message
> news:9ojpsr$omh$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > Morality is relative. It adapts along with us to suit our needs.
>
> Then why did you chide me for finding no "difference" in morality between
> different acts? You're sorta dumb for a stupid person.
> >
> > Your attitude towards America is rascist.
>
> That's rich.
>
> >You are holding
> > responsible all Americans for the crimes some of it's citizens
> > committed in the past.
>
> No, I'm not. I am merely suggesting that Americans take it upon themselves
> to be what the Founding Fathers hoped that they would be: an informed
> citizenry. As for crimes "committed in the past" we are talking of crimes
> that are still going on, for one thing. And the other is that America
> continues to shelter several war criminals to this day: notably Henry
> Kissinger.
You simply wish to win an argument the easy way, by rehashing other
events that you can win instead of addressing the question at hand, which
is the morality, or lack of, of our current actions.
>
> > And citing these crimes as justification for
> > further ones.
>
> Also a falsehood: as I said (many tines now, because you seem to be unable
> to comprehend simple words): I am not justifying the crimes of whomever
> committed the atrocities in NYC, and - in fact - I have said I hope they are
> brought to justice.
But your constant harping on these other crimes, many of which I agree, implies
we deserved payback.
> But I also want brought to justice those who have
> committed other crimes, many of which are still ongoing,
OK world, lets stop what we're doing untill all the crimes of history
have been solved. Where would you start, with the Crucifixion as they do
in the middle east? Or is that where you would stop?
>although they
> certainly wouldn't have to be: or do you really believe that there is a
> statute of limitations on mass murder and assassinations? Or are you the
> racist by assuming only crimes committed by "others" demand criminal
> charges?
I suppose that in war and politics it's difficult to draw the line
between murder and liberation. I try to look at intent as a large
part of determining whether some act is a crime or a
legitimate act of war. If one assassinates for greed as in Allende I would
call it a crime, but killing say, Pol Pot, to stop massacres would be
legitimate and moral. Perhaps I just see a different intent and see
them as negligent in many of the crimes of America you cite, of
which I could name many more.
>
> >This demonization based on sweeping generalizations
> > is the best way to reduce our humanity and make such crimes more
> > likely. Guilt by association and punishment by proxy is your morality.
>
> "Sweeping generalities"? You have got to be kidding! Just one example: the
> illegal and murderous assault on a non-warring country (Cambodia) by
> American heads of state (notably Nixon and Kissinger) is a well-documented
> fact. A generality would be: "Americans am bad."
And your long list of crimes by America doesn't say exactly that?
It was the north that first brought the war to Cambodia. And it was the north that
brought it to the south via that country. Attacking the supply routes
of an enemy is a legitimate tactic of war. Those that start a war then hide
among civilians or in other countries to avoid attack should be held responsible
for the civilian deaths. The Christmas bombing of Hanoi is much harder to
defend.
I am surprised you would cite such an arguable crime as
a prime example. You should be forcing me to defend, say, the US bombing of
cities in WW2 instead.
>
> > ?
> > Can we now kill any jew for the crimes of Israel? If I should do this
> > would you understand and forgive me? Are we to forgive murderers for the
> > unhappy childhood that may have contributed to the crime?
>
> Who's begging for any killing at all? And who is asking forgiveness for
> killers? You seem confused.
It is you, mired in the crimes of history, that can't think clearly now.
You argue against action now which is giving quarter to criminals.
You only question our current policy without offering any alternatives.
Imo our current posture is the most humane. Our agressive stand gives
us the best chance of getting the criminal without a war, failing that
it gives clear warning to the civilians what is to come and they are
leaving the cities in droves. As a result the refugees are likely to be the
largest humanitarian problem of which the UN and Pakistan are already
gearing up for. I see few civilian caualities likely in the upcoming fights.
I also see an end to a regime that whose crimes of late against the Afghan people
are sufficient reason alone to legitimize our actions. We are sacrificing to
clean up the mess left by the Soviets.
Those likely to die are the terroists, the Taliban and those that chose to
defend them. It is easy to argue that all of these are criminals that need
capture, dead or alive.
> >
> > Or are we to hold each person responsible for their own actions?
>
> I've already said as much. I want the responsible parties in the WTC
> bombings brought to justice,
HOW??? State your alternatives and let a relevant argument begin.
>and I also want Henry Kissinger tried for war
> crimes. It is YOU who are desperate to excuse certain parties for heinous
> crimes, not I.
Not excuse per se, but I fail to see the relevance to this situation except
in it's ability to prevent us from acting morally now. If it's your desire to
display these other crimes to provide a frame of reference for our decisions now
that is fine, but you will not fare well in that argument either as a great lesson
of history is to not appease or refuse to confront true evil until it is
too late. In the immortal words of Barney Fife we need to
"nip it in the bud"!
Again, you seem confused.
> >
> > By living in the past and giving in to the idea that past immorality
> justifies
> > it's perpetuation you only increase the bigotry that perverts our
> > perception of right and wrong.
>
> Again: you repeat your confusions as though they were intelligent comments
> worthy of another listen, but they are - totally - erroneous assmuptions
> based on your inability to comprehend what you are reading.
> >
> > The basic difference in our perspective is easy to see, you look to the
> > past to determine how one should act now. I look to the future to
> > decide how one should act now. Your perspective is the one that is
> > conventional, dangerous and immoral. And it is also lacking in
> > imagination as it sees only what has been, and not what could be.
>
> You're so full of crap you're beginning to draw flies. At least you have
> friends now.
>
> To repeat: there is no statute of limitations on murder. It is never "too
> far in the past" to be brought to justice.
And would you start with the most distant crime and work forward?
Or use the sane and wise approach of starting with the most recent?
>
> Also: many of the crimes I ascribe to the US are still ongoing.
Such as? You'll find that under close examination of each of your
crimes that it's not so easy to pin the blame on America, let alone
any one person.
>
> Also: your "looking to the future" is as conventional and illogical point of
> view as can be: if you are looking to the future, how can you desire to
> attack anyone for a crime that happened in the past, even if it was only
> last Tuesday? Or when does "the past" begin for you?
Are you completely unable to prioritize based on future needs? The world
now needs this threat to be stopped to prevent a worldwide depression that
could harm hundreds of million. Where is you desire for justice, to the
people of the past or the future? Both would be nice, but not
practical at this point in time.
I realize trying to turn a surrealist into a realist is futile as you are lost
in the imagery of the horrors of life, but I'm patient, and more importantly
I'm right!
>America is still
> punishing Cuba for crimes it committed over 30 years ago.
I happen to live just across the bay from dear sweet Fidel, and no one,
I mean no one, that has left Cuba wants to go back until he is dead
and forgotten. He still has his pilots practicing bombing runs on the
Turkey Point nuclear plant just down the road from me and I can still
see the flames of the Cessnas he shot down over just off our coast.
English is a second language both where I live and work due to the
refugees that float, and die, daily trying to flee his crimes against humanity.
Castro has the power to lift the sanctions against him as soon as he stops
trying to overthrow every fragile goverment he can in this hemisphere.
And to think one
> can move into a glorious future without making careful plans based on
> experience - or a detail knowledge of the past - is almost as silly a
> statement as I've evenr heard from someone who purports to be intelligent.
The past is overrated as a guide to the future. If there is one point I tried to
drive home in my endless posts on complexity theory is that the future is
not predictable in any detail, but only trends are discernible.
It's analogous to plotting the path of a hurricane, it's useful to look at
past hurricanes, but that pales in comparison to looking at what the
storm is doing right now. The present is always a better guide to the
future then the past. How many concrete examples of this do you want?
> There are people who have this disorder, who lack the ability to recall what
> they have just done, but it isn't usually thought of as a wise procedure:
> it's a neurological problem.
>
> Oh - by the way - you spoke almost entirely in sweeping generalities. It
> seems you can't even recognize what you deplore when it's in your own head.
It's all in it's application. You pile one crime upon the other to reach an
erroneous
generality. I use them because the truth is too broad to define.
The framework I use to decide right from wrong comes from complexity theory.
The truth is that any systems future behavior is primarily guided by the few
fundamental forces of that system. In this discussion democracy, freedom,
capitalism are some of the key driving forces. A wise course for promoting
justice to the future is to look after these driving forces first. As the system
created
by these forces are inherently more stable and predictable. Defending the
ideals behind these forces is the compassionate and just thing to do.
Since our current intent is to protect our "system' from further instability and
murder I see the deaths to come as justifiable provided they are done in a
competent way.
I see the intent of the terroists as an effort to destroy our system out of spite
alone.
Considering their actions self-defense strains credibility as far as it goes.
We have the high ground here and now regardless of the crimes of the past.
You're thinking with your heart and not your head, I would expect this from a
twenty year old, but a geezer!
We'll see what happens, I am pretty confident both the west and Afghanistan will
be better off after the dust has settled. I will enjoy pointing this out in the
coming months.
Jonathan
s
>
> dmh
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > s
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Uncle Sot
I think we all recognize that Vietnam was a period of insanity spawned by
Cold War paranoia. The bombing of Cambodia was illegal, yet the decision
makers felt they had to respond to our enemy who was illegally using
Cambodia to move troops and supplies. The support of Noriega, Hussein, and
Bin Laden were, each in their way, mistakes made from fear of our Soviet or
other enemies exploiting instabilities in areas of strategic importance:
Central America and the Middle East. The fact was that our government
behaved as one would who has a weapon pointed at his head.
Even the collapse of the Soviet Union, thought to be a positive, resulted in
wars and atrocities in Eastern Europe that drew us into more conflict. The
dismantling of the Soviet Union has probably put nuclear weapons in the
hands of rogue nations and terrorists. Governments constantly fail to
foresee future consequences of their acts. People are just not that smart. I
have no interest in blaming Kissinger for responding as he did to the Cold
War and the potential of a dominant Soviet Union.
The problem is that governments don't behave morally because they operate in
a community of governments that behave solely in their self interests,
without regard to either morality or legality. To behave morally or legally
in that community is to put a nation at risk, or so the thinking goes.
Realpolitik is the term political scientists use to describe this amorality.
Governments are like Doberman Pinchers who bark wildly at an intruder and
attack with ferocity, but are loyal and generally kind to those with whom
they live.
Our government has behaved better than most. We survived the Cold War.
Let's hope we survive this next battle. I'm supporting the guard dog.
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:9ojvs...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Dale Houstman
"Michael C" <co...@mw.mediaone23.net> wrote in message
news:sWjr7.90705$Hm.10...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
means, but it sure sounds like denial to me. I suppose it's related to the
whole idea of "real politics" and the culture of pragmatism we have evolved:
it may not be good but if it works, to hell with it. I don't comprehend
Jonathan's "point" (hidden as it is by his hair) but I already can tell it's
a form of idiocy.
dmh
Michael C
I have the perfect answer to all our perfect problems. This came to me in a
vision and as such must be true. The whole question of good and evil falls
to the interpretation of a few poorly written books. Therefore I think it
our duty to rewrite the Koran, we can clear up the ambiguous language, edit
out reasons to hate and murder and so on. Pack the finished product...no,
wait. We slap a loin cloth on chucks fat-ass, give him a superman cape and
a coon-skin cap then drop him and his Shwinn into the Afghan mountains from
there he will pilgrimage to Kabul preaching the new word as he goes.
Remember chuck; if Allah promises 70 virgins you give um 80 to look forward
too, say the new good book demands they lower the age of consent and promise
drugs for all, what righteous man (self or otherwise) could pass up the
prospect of a sixteen year old with big tits, no self respect and a bucket
of ludes? well, you get the idea. After tidying up the Koran mess we can
then start on the Bible and or Torah. Life will be good, it has to, we'll
write so.
Fernando
>
> I have the perfect answer to all our perfect problems.
Okay, you've got me sceptic.
> This came to me in a vision and as such must be true.
I'm still sceptic
> The whole question of good and evil falls to the interpretation of a few
poorly written books.
Still am sceptic
> Therefore I think it our duty to rewrite the Koran, we can clear up the
ambiguous language, edit
> out reasons to hate and murder and so on.
And ofcoarse convince those Middle East guys that our crusades are not the
same as Hitlers conquest.
Even though both carried a cross, everybody can see which is good and which
has lost in it's conquest.
> Pack the finished product...no,
> wait. We slap a loin cloth on chucks fat-ass, give him a superman cape
and
> a coon-skin cap then drop him and his Shwinn into the Afghan mountains
from
> there he will pilgrimage to Kabul preaching the new word as he goes.
Expect him to come back, Laden with harem girls.
> Remember chuck; if Allah promises 70 virgins you give um 80 to look
forward
> too,
Chuck, you better hurry getting those 70 virgins pregnant to return 80
virgins. Just call if you need a stand-in. ;-)
> say the new good book demands they lower the age of consent and promise
> drugs for all,
If the girls resent Chuck that much, shouldn't we send someone else?
> what righteous man (self or otherwise) could pass up the
> prospect of a sixteen year old with big tits, no self respect and a bucket
> of ludes?
Of coarse she isn't your daughter.
> well, you get the idea. After tidying up the Koran mess we can
> then start on the Bible and or Torah. Life will be good, it has to, we'll
> write so.
>
>
How about becoming a Hindu? You could still believe and respect your own God
that way. Except maybe you have to except that there are a lot of them Gods.
Alacrity Stone
Tell me Dale, what is your goddamn obsession with America's guilt? Do you
think that you would have the time or opportunity to run off at the mouth
via the internet if your country wasn't exploiting half the globe? Of course
America had it coming, but is this a down payment on her burgeoning karmic
debt? Don't be a fool. Is this some divine act of retribution? Don't be a
fool. Civilization, as we both know and love it, with all its potential for
the very ideals you espouse, must be able to defend itself, it must be able
to exploit what resources are available for its continued prosperity. This
is not about morality, it's about something better than survival; It's about
prosperity and the freedom to say what you believe, oh disgruntled son of an
imperfect but benevolent Nation. I think you know all of this and phrase it
much more eloquently than myself. I respect the fact that you are taking
stand against the rising tide of hysteria, the mob mentality that
politicians are so adept at exploiting - there it is again, that word.
What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that America's war machine has
people like yourself at the controls, more so than any other nation. People
who don't need to be angry or vengeful to take action. America's "new war"
is not about revenge or retribution to these people, it's about stabilizing
American dollar, the stock market, and enhancing America's position as a
world power.
Patriotism is a given for anyone with your intelligence. I don't doubt
that you are a patriot, but you need to get yourself a surf board if you
want to go against the waves.
R.F.
Uncle Sot
I don't get it either. I thought he was agreeing with you.
Uncle Sot
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:9ol0u...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Michael C
"How about becoming a Hindu? You could still believe and respect your own
God
that way. Except maybe you have to except that there are a lot of them
Gods."
Nope, that wont do, its either one God or no Gods. As we both know the
idiots are the majority and idiots love a God, they will not, cannot,
stagger through life without one.
If they had no God what would they live for? No, no and no what you propose
simply will not do. We need to give them a God that cannot be twisted to
hate, that thought is the foundation for my initial proposal. The trick is
to accommodate inherent hedonism, excuse hypocrisy, modern religion has come
a long way but falls short of my goal.
mdc
Chuck Lysaght
"Michael C" <co...@mw.mediaone23.net> wrote in message news:<Tspr7.92167$Hm.10...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
Fernando
Ah, but there is only one God. But a lot of people have the freedom to focus
on one of his aspects. You will see that it is the common folk who only
study and follow that one aspect and who are keeping themselves ignorant of
the whole. Muslims and Christians are just two of them who do it best and
reluctantly accept that there are more aspects of the one God. Also,
everybody knows that a way of life can be enforced, but not believes.
Only the priests can dedicate their lives to the true way of the God. Though
you will notice that some people will sometimes gather more followers for
their view of the path. Sidartha Guatama for example. Confusesius an other.
Both just a view of living life as best you can. Taoism/Daoism which
requires commitment to the greater opinion and submission of those leading.
You might understand that some people might get lost if they try to picture
the whole of that one God. People need to be able to relax while
practicioning living the best way. They should be able to rely on Priests
who help them capture their part, or even the greater part of the God which
they are able to understand. Whether that be through feeling God or pure
logical determination of existence or any combination in between.
The shifting between those who can understand only part of him and who can
grasp more will show sooner, or later. As long as you understand, there is
only one God.
Alacrity Stone
news:<1vsr7.37598$g45.16...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>...
> > > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9odkh...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Much like Republicans and Democrats. Terrorism - when it used by
> > > the powerful and rich - has a different face and name, but the
> > > bodies look pretty much the same.
>
>
Honey, far more Americans are killed by Americans than by "terrorists".
Like dale, I fail to see how 10,000 senseless deaths in a small area are any
more tragic, outrageous and demanding of some form of action than the same
number scattered over a larger region of the space time continuum. More
lives trickle away through the split seams of public awareness than ever
make the front pages. I can understand anger on behalf of Americans, but the
"moral outrage" thing is a little sickening from the only nation to ever
detonate a thermonuclear device on not one, but two cities.
Get angry, get revenge but can the "wounded innocent" shtick.
R.F.
Dale Houstman
exactly like she does, or she's forced to reconsider her illusory
centrality.
This snit of hers isn't new by the way: she blew clotted raspberries because
not everyone felt the same loss as she did over her father. She's one of
those hapless souls who wear gravestones for tampons, and turns into a
nazi-nanny every time she finds out that someone isn't wearing them too.
There is no use talking politics to her: she has proven that once she gets
her dander up the flakes render her blind to reason.
By the way, when someone says to me that this is a "tragedy" I tell them it
strikes me as more of a "dramedy."
dmh
Alacrity Stone
Hmm. I tend to look at the greek origin of the word, which is, to the best
of my knowledge, "goat song".
Welcome back from shanghai and I hope my little parody of your visceral
interaction with Cyth didn't offend you to the point of accusations of
plagerism.
You produce such valuable images; I'd hate to see them burn in OT flames.
Fan, friend, critic and antagonist,
R.F.
Dale Houstman
Better than lamb sonata I guess.
> Welcome back from shanghai and I hope my little parody of your visceral
> interaction with Cyth didn't offend you to the point of accusations of
> plagerism.
> You produce such valuable images; I'd hate to see them burn in OT flames.
Cythera blew more raspberry chunks over the fact that I didn't go on any
extended hiatus, but - strangely enough - I think I have the right to come
and go as I please. It's just that the entire "9/11" subject was getting too
unwieldly, and I had real business to attend to.
>
> Fan, friend, critic and antagonist,
Don't know which of those titles actually suits me. "Jerk" seems to be the
best overall sobriquet. It's good enough for my mother.
dmh
Alacrity Stone
Tell me about it. I've been spending a lot of time on aapc lately. It may
sound oatmealy, but I feel indebted to this news group. So much I've learned
from so many talented people. At risk of being labelled an ass kisser once
again, thanks for being you Dale, and welcome back:)
R.F.