How to be a Nazi parent.
H
a) volunteer your abnormal child to as many human experimentation
programs as possible.
b) seek prenatal testing
c) make sure the world knows that you entertain serious thoughts about
taking you and your children off a cliff in a car a la Teddy Kennedy.
d) look for the nearest child gas chamber
e) point all expecting parents to prenatal autism tests and planned
parenthood where the dynamic duo, Sanger and Singer can employ forks
and other sharp metal instruments on your "vermin younglings".
f) enroll in your nearest Church of Euthanasia, Childfree and Negative
Population Now program afterwards and sign up for multiple organ
donations.
Brought to you by Autism Speaks, CAN, DAN and Find a Cure Now Or Else I
Plunge This Stilletto In Me and My Child's Skull Foundation.
The V person
"H" wrote :
> Brought to you by Autism Speaks, CAN, DAN and Find a Cure Now Or Else I
> Plunge This Stilletto In Me and My Child's Skull Foundation.
You forgot Buying the latest and Greatest Super-de -duper
Human Kid metal stripper and paint remover,,,,, Only available through
your Local Quack Medicine Doctor complete with a Death warranty that will
save you big bucks when you cash in on your kiddie insurance.....!!!
Chakolate
@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
> point all expecting parents to prenatal autism tests and planned
> parenthood
uh, is someone pushing you to have prenatal testing done?
Chak
--
Ten decimal places of pi are sufficient to give the circumference of the
earth to a fraction of an inch, and thirty decimal places would give the
circumference of the visible universe to a quantity imperceptible to the
most powerful microscope.
--Simon Newcombe
Terry Jones
>How to be a Nazi parent.
Of course a real Nazi parent brings up their offspring to
unquestioning obedience of the State and the Leader. Now what
contemporary example does that bring to mind? :\
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Ya know, our 18yo lives in fear that someday the "gub'ment" will do a
home invasion and kill everyone in the house because we question too
much and think too much.
Kitten
Faye
http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/
cheerIO,
Faye.
-------------------------------
quite innocent
--
This looks familiar. What is it?
H
I can only think of say Kafi Anan in terms of a global State and Leader
and those who define global politics today. I don't live in a place of
unquestioning obedience. There are those who seek my obedience to
doctrines of a one true intellectual way but I find it's less
scientific than they project and less pragmatic and more political.
There are exception as to what I find exception with but here's a list.
The goals justify any means including bloody revolutions, getting
citizens and soldiers killed that otherwise wouldn't be in harms way,
lying in the press. (ie: NYT, Dan Rather).
Neglecting democracy if the popular opinion is against socilized
reforms that cater to political favorites and spy on political enemies
and create inefficient red tap at a state level that would raise taxes
to create a bureacratic, ineffective powerful state. (case in point, I
couldn't get unemployment even though I was unemployed due to red tape,
fine print and other ridiculous processes here).
Welfare seems made to keep people there. Keep people discontent and
thus useful in revolt.
The lip service to civil liberties while promoting policies that will
ensure long term subservience and dissension, stirring up by these
political pawns or as they term "my useful idiots".
Absolutist anti-capitalism and negative/zero population. Treating of
humans as lower than animals as a kind of "reparations" to the world.
The attempt to use bloody means like fetucide and even seek what some
might think is a mere slippery slope, but is actually promoted in our
colleges and that is the wonderful practices of infanticide by the
Spartans and some Amerindian cultures. Promotion of euthanasia and
eugenecis while giving lip service. Seeking to control anti-eugenecist
movements like ours.
Promotion of sexual diseases and promiscuity while neglecting heart
disease etc and giving yet more lip service to health care. Promotion
of suicide in lyrics. It's unusual the amount that gets put in there.
Promotion of euthanasia, cults, alternatives to traditional fundamental
organized religion and trying to use extreme to portray them as whackos
by the media, movie industry being as subtle as possible.
Unitarian Universalism as a "transitory" faith in converting Christians
into atheists. A religion where it is ok to beleive in anything but
divinity of Jesus. (I'm still agnostic myself but I don't want to see
my family manipulated out of their beleifs and into others that make no
sense).
IOW, organized liberalism and socialism as a global effort and anything
to bring down white, rich, Christian Americans and treat them like Jews
of the holocaust. It's true there are many who are just that. Rich,
powerful and excessively so...however, it seems more and more of the
middle class is under the same assualt out of having traditional
beliefs or sentiments. I don't think it's necessary to attack them.
>From utilitarian standpoints, it doesn't do too much harm IMHO. People
like those living in Provo, the most conservative city in the US, have
the longest life spans, lowest divorce rates, reported higher levels of
happiness.
Shadow
first article.
So.... bitter much?*
(*although I agree about the driving off a cliff thing...I found that video
to be a bit overwrought, myself, and yes I do have an Autistic child).
"H" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152733650....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Terry Jones
<st_brigids...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ya know, our 18yo lives in fear that someday the "gub'ment" will do a
>home invasion and kill everyone in the house because we question too
>much and think too much.
Realistically you have much more reason to fear violence from
unthinking "patriots" / "fundamentalists" towards anyone who dares to
be / think different from them.
Government tends to have it's impact more via the "education" system
and the legal system - And even there I think it's more ideological
instinct then coherent planning.
Terry
Terry Jones
>I can only think of say Kafi Anan in terms of a global State and Leader
>and those who define global politics today.
Why? - The western nations ignore him when he's not doing what they
want, the African states ignore him when he wants to replace AU troops
by UN troops over there, pretty much *everyone* ignores him when it
comes to human rights issues - The UN is underfunded & underresourced.
What sort of real power do you think he has?
>I don't live in a place of
>unquestioning obedience. There are those who seek my obedience to
>doctrines of a one true intellectual way but I find it's less
>scientific than they project and less pragmatic and more political.
I would have said "ideological" rather than "political", in that they
don't seem to care who they alienate, which a classical politician
would.
>The goals justify any means including bloody revolutions, getting
>citizens and soldiers killed that otherwise wouldn't be in harms way,
>lying in the press. (ie: NYT, Dan Rather).
What about lying *to* the press?
The puzzling thing is what these "goals" actually *are* - (Other than
to support some peoples' exaggerated sense of self-importance and
"potency").
>Neglecting democracy if the popular opinion is against socilized
>reforms that cater to political favorites and spy on political enemies
>and create inefficient red tap at a state level that would raise taxes
>to create a bureacratic, ineffective powerful state.
ATM it appears that both the US & UK are neglecting democracy to
promote *conservative* "reforms"?
>(case in point, I
>couldn't get unemployment even though I was unemployed due to red tape,
>fine print and other ridiculous processes here).
But is that the result of socialist "rules within rules", or
*conservative* efforts to restrict claims?
>Welfare seems made to keep people there. Keep people discontent and
>thus useful in revolt.
Not sure whether that's *intentional* though - For example the Roman
"bread & circuses" was meant to keep the un & under-employed from
rioting and causing trouble - Sound more like an example of the "law
of unintended consequences" to me?
>The lip service to civil liberties while promoting policies that will
>ensure long term subservience and dissension, stirring up by these
>political pawns or as they term "my useful idiots".
Or "techno peasants" - But as above, I don't see the "elites" as
having anything like the coherence or effective control - Sure they
can do a lot of damage, but so can a virus - Yet because it *needs*
the resources of the host for its' own propagation, an *efficient*
virus should do as *little* damage to the host as possible.
Take Iraq for instance - What the political elites needed was a clear
cut success, a peaceful (and suitably grateful Iraq) - "feelgood" for
the voters. And with the oil revenue pouring into the coffers of the
(predominantly Allied) construction & service companies (to benefit
the money / commercial elites).
But what did they manage to deliver? - A real can of worms.
>Absolutist anti-capitalism
[Not in the UK - There Tony's pushing PPPs (Public / private
Partnerships) - In transport, education, healthcare, etc., where the
private company provides the service, infrastructure, whatever, then
the public service is committed to paying for this over a fixed number
of years.
Personally I don't see the difference between this and the public
service / local authority being authorised to issue bonds for the same
purpose.
But anyway it's not working very well - these privately provided
services have essentially the same problems as the public ones,
inadequate / faulty services, overdue and over budget, etc.. And
because of the fixed term contracts it's difficult to chuck them out.
The one advantage for him is a purely political one, in that it lets
them offload responsibility for these (often long neglected)
facilities onto others.]
However to return to the main point - You know that I'm by no means
statist - but there are definite flaws in the idea of the "Invisible
Hand" - For instance a rational person will produce / trade in, the
most *profitable* items.
So in a country like England where a high population density leads to
high rents (for shops, factories, etc.), it becomes more and more
difficult to find *basic* items - Plenty of places with fashion jeans,
but fewer with plain workaday ones, plenty of supermarkets with
(expensive) Calgon, but few with cheaper washing soda.
It's often a case of taking the expensive "value added" item (even
though you don't want / need what is "added") or doing without.
Likewise of course with affordable housing - in many urban areas
teachers, firefighters, nurses, etc., can't afford to live within a
reasonable distance of the areas which they service.
It looks as if there are a range of perfectly *reasonable* (not
greedy) human needs which free market capitalism *doesn't* deliver
because they're either unprofitable or don't make as *much* profit as
the alternatives.
>and negative/zero population.
Again looking at the UK with nearly ten times the population density
of the US - Urban growth (housing, services & infrastructure) are
eating up farmland, transport links are overloaded, we import a lot of
our food, even water is getting tight. So if we *don't* level off
population growth, then we have to restrict consumption pro rata.
>Promotion of sexual diseases and promiscuity
Need I remind you of the Victorian era - Much more religious than
today, but rampant promiscuity and STDs. Need I remind you *who* are
the worst for this - the poorly educated, not those "stuffed with
liberal notions". And I definitely shouldn't need to remind you of the
general "feet of clay" / "do what I say, not what I do" morality
displayed by all to many of those in authority (not *just* their
sexual morality).
And then there's the observation that groups like the "Ring Thing" are
*just* as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy as their peers. (Less
likely to have sex, but also less likely to be carrying protection
when they do).
So no, you can't really blame "liberalism" for that either.
>neglecting heart
>disease etc and giving yet more lip service to health care.
And what about largely ignoring road traffic deaths and injuries in
favour of much less common causes of death & injury?
>Promotion
>of suicide in lyrics. It's unusual the amount that gets put in there.
Pure capitalism - people produce what they think will be popular.
*Why* there's a considerable market for that sort of thing might be an
interesting question - But you can't blame "liberalism" there either
:)
>Promotion of euthanasia
Depends whether it's voluntary and unpressured - People are living
longer, but the *quality* of that life is not necessarily something
which a reasonable person would be willing to tolerate.
> cults, alternatives to traditional fundamental
>organized religion
You *really* need to read up on the history of "organised" religion.
It's *full* of splits and "cults" - often exactly *because* of the
perceived (and often real) failings of the "official" one.
If you think "traditional" a virtue, then follow shamanism, if you
value traditional *and* organised then perhaps Zoroastrianism or
Hinduism (both older than Christianity & it's variants). If you value
traditional organised Christianity, then Eastern Orthodox or
Catholicism have the older pedigrees.
But AFIK religion has not been shown to have any privileged access to
truth or wisdom.
And as I've said before, it appears to be *impossible* to be
"fundamental" in any of the "big three" book religions because of
their ambiguities and internal contradictions.
>trying to use extreme to portray them as whackos
>by the media, movie industry being as subtle as possible.
Market capitalism again - these people are producing what they hope
will sell. (And they produce religion based films if they thing that
*these* will sell - from the old Hollywood Biblical epics to the Da
Vinci Code).
>Unitarian Universalism as a "transitory" faith in converting Christians
>into atheists. A religion where it is ok to beleive in anything but
>divinity of Jesus. (I'm still agnostic myself but I don't want to see
>my family manipulated out of their beleifs and into others that make no
>sense).
So it's alright for Christians to try and "convert" atheists and
agnostics, but not vice versa?
>IOW, organized liberalism and socialism as a global effort
As above, I don't see the evidence for "organised" or "global",
nothing more than the equivalent of the capitalist or the conservative
"old boy's network" - and similarly based on shared colleges, and
informal social networks.
>and anything
>to bring down white, rich, Christian Americans
Or maybe they've just latched on to a profitable group to "guilt trip"
into handing them some advantage?
Then there's the "politics of envy" - *but* typically this only works
where those at who the "finger is being pointed" are *already* seen as
abusive and undeserving - So the question is, what have white, rich
and (nominally at least) Christian Americans been up to?
It's no *intrinsic* mark of virtue to be white, rich and (nominally)
Christian - think the "Robber Barons" of the railroads, or of Tammany
Hall.
There's the "Ignore the employee's and their pensions as long as I get
my annual bonus" of Enron of course - How pervasive is this sort of
attitude? To what extent do WRCAs contribute to the progress,
development and long term security of companies, compared to "take the
money & run" / "cash cows"?
There certainly often seems to be an emphasis on advertising and sales
versus R&D (same is true in the UK).
And how are they acting in politics - for the wider public good, or in
their own narrow interests?
Basically is this a "self-inflicted injury"?
>From utilitarian standpoints, it doesn't do too much harm IMHO. People
>like those living in Provo, the most conservative city in the US, have
>the longest life spans, lowest divorce rates, reported higher levels of
>happiness.
"Correlation doesn't imply causation" :)
Could be for example a relatively stable local economy, etc.. People
tend to be more conservative when there's a lack of external pressures
which might lead them to question the status quo.
How does Provo compare with (for example) similarly conservative but
more deprived areas in the deep South? (Where the conservatism might
be more "defensive").
Then of course there's "ignorance is bliss" - people who don't
question things, who believe that they *know* the answers would be
expected to worry less than those who are less certain.
Terry
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Terry Jones wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2006 17:51:18 -0700, "Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe"
> <st_brigids...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Ya know, our 18yo lives in fear that someday the "gub'ment" will do a
> >home invasion and kill everyone in the house because we question too
> >much and think too much.
>
> Realistically you have much more reason to fear violence from
> unthinking "patriots" / "fundamentalists" towards anyone who dares to
> be / think different from them.
True. It doesn't help OS's fears that we converted to Mennonite
3-and-a-half years ago, and Mennonites have a history of being
persecuted for disagreeing with the status quo. <shrug>
>
> Government tends to have it's impact more via the "education" system
> and the legal system - And even there I think it's more ideological
> instinct then coherent planning.
>
That's one of the reasons we homeschool. Well, that and the fact that
over-crowding and gov't mandated standardized testing makes it
impossible for public school teachers to actually *teach*.
Kitten
Little Eagle
reading it I fully understand the meaning.Anyways, I feel that
the education system is not very helpful to those of us in the
Autistic Spectrum where, I , Myself had a great amout of
difficulty in progressing through the system so to speak but, I
made it though however; I may not have a wonderful degree
to show for my sincere attempts I've still, managed to learn a
great deal of things from being around various insightful & highly
educated people thereby; I've increased not only my overall
knowledge but wisdom as well. The main thing I can point out
about the way education reacts towards Autistic people can best
be summed up in the following manner.
"if you don't play sing-a-long with the rest of us(NT) then, you
will find you shall be ostracized,isolated,berated."
I'm not the best conversationist yet, I hope my point has
been well stated though.
Little Eagle
H
> On 13 Jul 2006 11:08:09 -0700, "H" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I can only think of say Kafi Anan in terms of a global State and Leader
> >and those who define global politics today.
>
> Why? - The western nations ignore him when he's not doing what they
> want,
"Of course a real Nazi parent brings up their offspring to
unquestioning obedience of the State and the Leader. Now what
contemporary example does that bring to mind? :\ "
Because the world demands unquestioning obedience of the UN State and
the Leader and as you note below...there are huge issues with
corruption, leadership ability and decision making that doesn't
correspond diplomatically to a compromise with the "Western Nations"
and possibly many non-Western nations (Taiwan?) of which you note. As I
see it, the UN was created as a political interest to be humanitarian
etc etc. (when in fact it isn't and just hordes corruption). All the
seats for Humanitarian purposes are occupied by those who have
horrendous terrorist records. To people on the other side of the
political spectrum, imagine GW Bush and Blair occupying those seats.
That's still how it is though to those on this side of the political
spectrum. It isn't good enough to say "well, lets just give these guys
a chance and hopefully they learn from our kind gentle leader's hand"
when that has not been happening and instead, it is used as a
"Ministry of Hypocrisy" and "Clout Control".
> the African states ignore him when he wants to replace AU troops
> by UN troops over there, pretty much *everyone* ignores him when it
> comes to human rights issues - The UN is underfunded & underresourced.
The leader and the system are corrupt. They have lost authority. That
is why they are not taken seriously. It is so ineffective, it is one
place where I think I'd follow your advice and nuke them all "both
sides be damned". (you said this once regarding middle east). What I
mean here is not nuking or referring to two sides. I'm talking about
throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to the UN.
Completely get rid of it and start over with more objective purposes
that don't over-reach state sovereignties. Those that subscribe could
come to several kinds of treaties with other states. Treaties are, and
will always be the basis of international law. There is no law besides
that though. Treaties are breached/broken because nations are dynamic
and it's impractical. There needs to be a way of managing that and
accepting what comes. Perhaps the hugest other effort is maintaining
states that are reaching into arms race territory. They don't do that
very well either. If they were more effective, no one here would have
stepped in and tried to play global cop. Frankly, I'm sick of having to
expend my neighbors to do it and also having to worry about MPs coming
to my door. Some day, I'll have to post on my journal the not so
friendly postcard I got. I have an Honorable Discharge but I still am
threatened to go to my local station. They are also extending the max
age so it seems to grow right along with me, even though I'm not in any
kind of baby boom here. Frankly, many are thinking of putting the
illegal immigrants on the line. After all, part of being in this
country is serving this country and being here without permission and
selling drugs to kids here is perhaps a fitting "volunteer" gesture
IMHO. Give them a good drill sergeant. One of our big beefy bouncers.
> What sort of real power do you think he has?
Enough that everyone begs for deferrment to it.
> >I don't live in a place of
> >unquestioning obedience. There are those who seek my obedience to
> >doctrines of a one true intellectual way but I find it's less
> >scientific than they project and less pragmatic and more political.
>
> I would have said "ideological" rather than "political", in that they
> don't seem to care who they alienate, which a classical politician
> would.
Ok. The words point to roughly the same things IMHO. I tend to be able
to bend the meaning of any word to fit what ever everyone else wants
and I sometimes fail to catch the motive for doing so or the real
meaning. To me, it is associated strongly with political affiliation
and not so much politicians per se although all politics are based on
ideologies and some of them are more and more dogmatic. They include a
long list of things one should and should not vote for as if it were a
standard article of faith or a creed or exacting set of scriptural
canon approved by a political body despite the only spiritual aspect
being druidism and sometimes paganism and perhaps a any and all
alternatives to what people want. IOW, it proselytes too and does so in
the form of every protest.
> >The goals justify any means including bloody revolutions, getting
> >citizens and soldiers killed that otherwise wouldn't be in harms way,
> >lying in the press. (ie: NYT, Dan Rather).
>
> What about lying *to* the press?
It wouldn't matter. The press does what it wants. One could tell the
truth, they'd tell a lie. One could tell a lie and accidentally tell
the truth or a worse lie. So even if one is lying, it becomes harder
and harder to know if it really was or not because of the
untrustworthiness of the press. So now people are confused and don't
know what to think and political or rather ideological (very specific
ideologies with a list of tenets on "issues") proselyters seem
desperate to "move people on" and "unite people for justice" and the
"Only true American Way" for all the "People". They say it's the "new
soc" but it smells like the old due to some left over codewords. Even
if they changed them, it would amount to nothing more than how my
spammers try to get around my filters. It's going to be seen. Actually,
this happens on both sides and not just one. Both sides have their
version of the exact same thing but with different meaning. "One True
American Way" can refer to Pax Americana as much as People for the
American Way. with both sides disrespecting my liberties, my ability to
vote with my wallet, etc. Today, corporations are lobbied against
heavily. Those that support too much of the opposition party are
slandered and their deficits called out often ignoring competition that
does the same or worse. It's very tricky in appearance.
> The puzzling thing is what these "goals" actually *are* - (Other than
> to support some peoples' exaggerated sense of self-importance and
> "potency").
The goals are outlined as taking citizens and making them all subject
to international laws that are favorable to a particular party's goals.
Those goals I've outlined elsewhere but it is to demolish human dignity
and science even in the name of workers rights so that power can be
centralized and old systems completely demolished and civilization
completely undone so it can start over in some idea of blissful nomadic
abortion paradise perhaps not too far off from say the world of the
Canonites, Molech and Chemish, Baal and Asteroth. Seems there are
pretty clear messages in old books after all.
> >Neglecting democracy if the popular opinion is against socilized
> >reforms that cater to political favorites and spy on political enemies
> >and create inefficient red tap at a state level that would raise taxes
> >to create a bureacratic, ineffective powerful state.
>
> ATM it appears that both the US & UK are neglecting democracy to
> promote *conservative* "reforms"?
Not at all. Here in the US at least, conservatism is about allowing
people to vote instead of supreme courts. The supreme courts are
supposed to protect the minority, follow the rule of law but instead
"legislate from the bench". They are one unelected official able to
overturn votes from hundreds of thousands of people. They are often
judges that carry the extreme ideological principles of those who
instate them. They often have to try and pass as normal. This isn't
about presidents merely appointing and confirming judges. It's their
job to. The president has done one good thing and tried to pick judges
that a) won't try to create new laws from the bench, only take down
existing restrictions on things people agree to democratically. They
don't listen to the masses per se but rule on principle but again,
their job is to interpret the law, not make new laws based on these
principles. Which faction then is promoting the judicial system the
heaviest here? What is the political bent most lawyers, journalists and
judges have here? They are not conservative. While some protect
minorities, they usually do democracy great disservices. I don't have a
problem with protecting minorities but sometimes, they pick cases that
go with an agenda more than what the minorities would democratically
want.
Case in point. There is a community of African Americans and they
wanted certain protections. The lawyer had a different agenda because
if they got what they wanted, they'd no longer be malcontents. The
lawyer, working for the ACLU (which is anything but), wanted to pass a
different law for a different agenda. He sets up a case, takes it all
the way up to the supreme court and the court grants it to him. The
ruling actually went against what the community had wanted. They were
sold to carefully by the media. This was in the deep south where many
democrats were former slave owners. (ie: D senator Byrd was a former
KKK member).
The moral here is that the ruling in one individual minority case does
not always go the way that minority would want if that minority were
allowed democratic options. They would not stand for it if the African
Americans were given a vote so they use a court case to make law.
Same thing with abortion. Everyone knows that at the time it was passed
in the early 70s as Roe vs Wade, most women were against it. I don't
think anyone would dare bring up the suggesting at the ACLU of allowing
all women to vote on the issue. No, instead, they get laws passed with
one case that doesn't represent the minority as a whole. So what is
good for the minority isn't always what is being passed by courts doing
minority "civil rights" (codeword alert for "one true church"/"whatever
the ACLU/PFAW wants") cases.
> >(case in point, I
> >couldn't get unemployment even though I was unemployed due to red tape,
> >fine print and other ridiculous processes here).
>
> But is that the result of socialist "rules within rules", or
> *conservative* efforts to restrict claims?
To be completely honest, it's both. Some of the rules were put there or
agreed to as compromises bipartisan or some 'unilaterally' by majority
etc etc. But the system was created as the inefficient beast that it
was, without much conservative restriction at all. Conservatives have
not been focused on how to add red tap to unemployment but when it was
created, they probably agreed to a few rules added by motions on the
conservative side that had to pass. Still, the part that
non-conservatives do is to make a lot of fine print and use very
loosely worded policies so as to empower state officials to be able to
decide politically how they want to treat individuals. Those not in
favor with them politically can be black listed and discriminated on
based on politics. Black listing is a growing and unsettling new trend
and it is in schools, the IRS tax system, welfare system etc. They
often like to see capitalists hit rock bottom as a kind of modern day
"reeducation camp" almost. Anyone with a middle wage income seems under
this "attack" as well. i'm hardly a capitalist but I might be seen as
an opponent and on some black list...perhaps even online. So the idea
is "fine", socialists will just help other socialists. There is no
"repentance" in the socialist system without nearly losing your life if
not losing your life.
> >Welfare seems made to keep people there. Keep people discontent and
> >thus useful in revolt.
>
> Not sure whether that's *intentional* though -
I guarantee it is by the way it's talked about by some of these lawyers
who go to synagogue with my friends and I (I visit their synagogue on
occasion).
> For example the Roman
> "bread & circuses" was meant to keep the un & under-employed from
> rioting and causing trouble - Sound more like an example of the "law
> of unintended consequences" to me?
I wish it were so benign in intent but it doesn't seem that way from my
perspective. At least, from my point of view, if they aren't disconent
enough, they try to make them more discontent in appearance. Let's look
at Magic Johnson, Michael Jackson for a moment and also look at their
comments which sometimes are not analyzed very thoroughly by those
listening to the tube.
> >The lip service to civil liberties while promoting policies that will
> >ensure long term subservience and dissension, stirring up by these
> >political pawns or as they term "my useful idiots".
>
> Or "techno peasants" - But as above, I don't see the "elites" as
> having anything like the coherence or effective control -
They are designed to be less centralized. They are trying a completely
decentralized approach. codwords like "grass roots movement" are meant
to cause the "McDonalds franchise effect" in the world. The internet is
a primary tool as well. They don't have control necessarily
locally...and even that is hard to determine with all the conspiracy
theory floating around Bohemian Grove/Skull and Bones and the like.
Look up "central banker's central bank". Maybe it's more private as
power that is effective is often hard to see. Power that is too out in
the open is a target in the artillery FO's (forward observer) scope.
> Sure they
> can do a lot of damage, but so can a virus - Yet because it *needs*
> the resources of the host for its' own propagation, an *efficient*
> virus should do as *little* damage to the host as possible.
Interestingly, capitalism is as much a tool that can be used to
accomplish all other goals or even bend to later goals. Monopolies are
often a step away from becoming municipally/state/federally controlled.
> Take Iraq for instance - What the political elites needed was a clear
> cut success, a peaceful (and suitably grateful Iraq) - "feelgood" for
> the voters. And with the oil revenue pouring into the coffers of the
> (predominantly Allied) construction & service companies (to benefit
> the money / commercial elites).
If there's oil, none of us have seen it yet. Prices are up because of
instabilities they say, shortages and or lack of drilling/exploration.
Some of it is blamed on environmental regulation. ie: ANWR is a
relatively low impact environmental oil drilling project that would
reduce dependency but no, these regulations have made it so that there
are more conflicts between us and who gets blamed for the conflicts?
Who is trying to increase the conflict? Al-Jezeera doesn't seem to want
to reduce it. We have a mild mannered president who I would say is too
weak to run a way and some say Kafi is weak. At least the world jumps
in when he says something. His wars are not contested and neither were
Clinton's wars. They're not called wars. It's not politically correct
euphemism. The problem is that he's corrupt too so that not everyone
will and so that's where his weakness is. This is all about using a war
and unpopularizing it to gain political advantage regardless how many
of your or my neighbors are killed over it when this and many other
wars of similar scale are taking place all the time. Not exactly the
same notoriety. We didn't use nukes but we didn't hold back per se
either. It's only because we did it under a conservative president and
the rest of the world holding a more leftist ideology sees that
ideology as the only true gospel on earth that it means making as much
conflict and trouble as possible about it. Why did we go in you might
ask? I must admit, it's shakey looking or the job trying to justify it
has been poor but there was attempts at using the UN route to enforce
their own resolutions and it didn't work. There were threats, even if
there weren't "smoking guns". When a threat is made, they become
self-fulfilling prophecies and smoking guns are seen whether they are
really there or not. Leaders bluff to leverage and we were probably not
quick at seeing that as a whole and neither was anyone in the media
really saying that, they were focused on politics instead and the goals
of left-right...which is a true case but it didn't help with all that
conflict in place created by opposition...what it did do was create a
reverse psychology in Bush and the administration and they did the
predictable thing and now there's beef to slice on top of the usual
coathanger protests. There are minor smoking guns in terms of chemicals
found...obviously disassembled for inspections and the like.
> But what did they manage to deliver? - A real can of worms.
Apparently not any oil either. Even that would have been better than
nothing while we hit the $5/gal mark. I think we're closing the gap.
China now gets better prices than we do by far. They brag to me all the
time. China is the new industrial power as they hoped. Their Great Leap
finally leapt but with capitalism as the catapult. Apparently, the Gang
of Four vision was not bought into and the state of affairs are as they
are today.
> >Absolutist anti-capitalism
>
> [Not in the UK - There Tony's pushing PPPs (Public / private
> Partnerships) - In transport, education, healthcare, etc., where the
> private company provides the service, infrastructure, whatever, then
> the public service is committed to paying for this over a fixed number
> of years.
>
> Personally I don't see the difference between this and the public
> service / local authority being authorised to issue bonds for the same
> purpose.
I think anti-capitalism is mostly talk...for the time being. An
identifying meme more than anything but more of an end goal. Everything
else being seen as transition. The Labour Party there is part of SI or
socialists international which see evolution, not revolution as the
peaceful and more palatable solution to creating socialism. They look
to Scandanavia as an example although, they are a special case that may
not work well. They are probably a little like a Canada to Germany and
perhaps Russia/Ukraine ... IOW, if a country is surrounded by economic
giants (relatively) or are small fishes in big bowls, they can feed
with the rest of them. We supply Canada for example with a lot of drug
revenue now and there are always natural resource trades. The point
being is that they almost function like states outside federal control
and can conduct a hyper capitalism to support their internal socialism.
IOW, high reliance on foreign trade can help fund all kinds of social
programs and I shouldn't say just internally. Canada has been a very
huge support internationally as well. Countries that are more or less,
"hosts" can't survive like that. I myself have wanted some socialism in
terms of healthcare but with one requirement. That the quality remain
the same or else their services are put up for private bid. That or
they are disbanded and the system reverts. (which most fear would
probably happen at this point)
> But anyway it's not working very well - these privately provided
> services have essentially the same problems as the public ones,
> inadequate / faulty services, overdue and over budget, etc.. And
> because of the fixed term contracts it's difficult to chuck them out.
Yes. Corporations also fill their own bottom line needs first. The way
I look at it is this in terms of rights/freedoms, government rights,
business rights and individual rights. Individuals first. This includes
the power of the wallet and private property/estate etc. The
corporations should have more restriction and less liberty but within
reason. Governments last. I agree with something you said earlier about
requiring more supermajority voting. That means creation of less laws.
Lawmakers are judged by how many laws they make but what if they were
judged by how many laws they got rid of? Right now, the bureacracy of
state and federal codes weigh more than a pregnant elephant. In your
Parliament, it's probably not too much better. (you tell me if it's
worse). But at the same time, the democracy should not suffer...if
people want something, they should more or less get it. So this means
IMHO, first limit the courts, then limit the executive and lastly limit
congress but mostly limit campaign contributions/lobbying (bribing),
etc etc. Some on the right call campaign contribution free speech but I
call it pandering to corporations over consumers and human individuals.
(it doesn't jive with the model I just described either).
Right now, some far right conservatives are considering abolishing
bankruptcy laws. This would create a panic of a kind of debtors prison
restored or lifelong debt and no end in sight until death. They only
want to apply it to non-corporate individual entities. Corporations,
being humans, when they go bankrupt, the investors lose money but it
doesn't touch what they didn't invest in, ie: their home, their own
savings etc. Not quite fair.
> The one advantage for him is a purely political one, in that it lets
> them offload responsibility for these (often long neglected)
> facilities onto others.]
The long term contracts without periodic review is the same issue with
our judicial appointees being up there for life. (although, that's an
incentive for them to be impartial regarding re-election and being less
subject to that.). I agree. I'm in favor of sunset clauses with both
laws and with contracts that are long term muncipal/contractor
contracts...in terms of construction, it's more feasible to have a
project term contract but in terms of recurring services, it doesn't
make as much sense to give them so much benefit if they are
ineffective. Even for the construction project, there might need to be
more avenues to drop the deadweights when needed.
> However to return to the main point - You know that I'm by no means
> statist - but there are definite flaws in the idea of the "Invisible
> Hand" - For instance a rational person will produce / trade in, the
> most *profitable* items.
You mean the "invisible hand of laissez faire" capitalism described in
Wealth of Nations? I know what you mean. There are flaws there but the
point is that even though it's problematic, it's "fairly so". IOW,
redistribution of wealth is essentially state theft...especaially if
it's not democratic. That would go against the whole reason we
separated from mother England. "Taxation without representation". In
the old days, they would gasp in shock at the idea of a court being
able to use powers of the purse or pass tax decisions but that's done
at more local state court levels under new codewords and euphemisms.
We've become elitist and statist almost here I think. The court
justices knowing and their buddy lawyers knowing what's better for us
(and the minorities they offer lip to) than we do to add insult to
injury. The flaws of the invisible hand I would say are that there are
times when democratically, it might be fair to take wealth out of the
hands of megacorporate-media-government lobbying collusions and give it
to the poor or create the safety net with it. If you remember, Robin
Hood didn't steal from just any ol' rich person, he stole from a
Sheriff, the state government official in a corrupt government that
taxed heavily and stored gold for the usurous and luxurious
aristocratic kingdom (let them eat cake?). The rich who were rich
because of military power and force and oppressively so. The ones who
were rich by means of the laws passed favoring them or (even
"environmental groups". I'm not for helping the rich and destroying
environment but there are some regulations for example that created
some of our current conflict.). IOW, Balance and Reason with regulation
and restricted more than individuals but not quite as much as
government (which seems now to be losing all it's restrictions in the
name of new nomenclature used to get around our constitution)
> So in a country like England where a high population density leads to
> high rents (for shops, factories, etc.), it becomes more and more
> difficult to find *basic* items - Plenty of places with fashion jeans,
> but fewer with plain workaday ones, plenty of supermarkets with
> (expensive) Calgon, but few with cheaper washing soda.
Yikes. Sounds like it caters to tourists (from China maybe). Calgon ==
Ancient Chinese Secret. (commercial joke)
> It's often a case of taking the expensive "value added" item (even
> though you don't want / need what is "added") or doing without.
So basic amenities are hard to come by because marketing dictates that
everyone afford upper class goods. Seems a bit like the east orient to
me. Places like Japan of course suffer similar real estate but they
also have things that are ridiculous to me like $5000 rice cookers.
$10000 miniature washing machines that seem like they are out of a
sharper image catalog only covered in the local heiroglyphic. We use
big old steel washing machines that are noisy and require wrench work
to repair but their goods seem made to break down often and their
wastes are surpassing ours. We used to call the washing machines in
Taiwan "Barbie machines". They have unusual spinning systems and
gadgetry and knobs that seem to do nothing. The clothes come out in
knots when spun/vibrated/centrifuged dry....but they do take up little
space and are made of the same plastic (only a dull green instead of a
bright pink) used in doll house appliances for barbie dolls by snobby
little girls here in the US. Such machines are made for less space
consumption and disposability and priced to be barely affordable so
that it creates in the minds of most citizens a feeling of having to
dream hours daily about obtaining their next crepe toaster or electric
tea water boiling system.
> Likewise of course with affordable housing - in many urban areas
> teachers, firefighters, nurses, etc., can't afford to live within a
> reasonable distance of the areas which they service.
Some places in the east orient seemed like apartments partitioned with
hanging blankets on string for "rooms" so that there were 5x5' (almost
2 meters square) rooms. Each had a small trusty water boiler (water is
impure unless boiled there, also, 2nd most polluted area in world after
Mexico.) and a cot with a blanket and a small vinyl collapsible
wardrobe and often a cheap 5th hand desk. Food was always eaten
outside. Tea was a personal meal FTMP unless one went to a tea house. I
myself find jasmin most fragrant (and it also grows here). Some people
didn't eat well and studied very hard. Funny how somtimes, being hungry
makes one more alert.
> It looks as if there are a range of perfectly *reasonable* (not
> greedy) human needs which free market capitalism *doesn't* deliver
> because they're either unprofitable or don't make as *much* profit as
> the alternatives.
Yes. So the invisible hand doesn't solve problems. It is meant to be
fair based on effort (but fails at that even). Capitalism is perhaps
valid in terms of private ownership. There is the John Locke standard
from which Marx stole that talked about owning only as much capital as
one could use individually. This ideology prefers a cottage industry
kind of system. Such systems have remained to this day but at first
were dismal failures due to neglected agriculture in places like China
during their great leap forward (or rather backward).
> >and negative/zero population.
>
> Again looking at the UK with nearly ten times the population density
> of the US - Urban growth (housing, services & infrastructure) are
> eating up farmland, transport links are overloaded, we import a lot of
> our food, even water is getting tight. So if we *don't* level off
> population growth, then we have to restrict consumption pro rata.
They say in some parts of europe, that negative population is
problematic. With the case of land locked places like England, it's
reasonable. Resources are an obvious issue but the agenda of zero
population is to cause death via any means including immoral ones. The
"war" ideology does so a different way. Some anti-war anarchists think
this war, while immoral at least has the potential benefit of reducing
population...but it isn't doing a good enough job. They want to reduce
the population of all opposers to their ideology and fast. Getting away
with it is one issue they've yet to resolve, perhaps fortunately for
us. We are, both of us enemies of much of the world for being able to
do what we do here. ie: own computers and have internet conversations.
I'm not against birth control and many measures for reducing burden on
resources but the agenda of zero population is more radical. It is not
literal here but more or less a concept with associations to many other
concepts which are immoral *and* unethical IMHO. I don't mind people
who are "child free" as long as they keep their religion to themselves.
I don't mind if they are child free as long as they don't tease those
who have children or chose to have one child to replace themselves.
They want to control reproduction and tell women how to use their
bodies too. I don't mind them but sometimes, their journals are full of
hate towards children, loud crying children, some of them even
autistics but surprisingly, even many autistics are in the movement
although they aren't quite the same as many others in that movement.
They are more simply not desirious and want a group to relate to while
pehaps sharing some earth preservation agendas.
> >Promotion of sexual diseases and promiscuity
>
> Need I remind you of the Victorian era - Much more religious than
> today, but rampant promiscuity and STDs. Need I remind you *who* are
> the worst for this - the poorly educated, not those "stuffed with
> liberal notions". And I definitely shouldn't need to remind you of the
> general "feet of clay" / "do what I say, not what I do" morality
> displayed by all to many of those in authority (not *just* their
> sexual morality).
You need not but obviously....marketing has value. Otherwise, no one
would do it. It isn't that people who "restrict" or promote
unreasonable puristic / puritanical / celibacy for all monasticism are
not problematic. As we can see with priests who touch little boys etc,
it is problematic to repress but at the same time, promoting is going
to cause STDs too. This becomes an argument from ignorance. This
doesn't mean we are ignorant. It just means that, similar to the common
deist argument. "prove there is a God" and "prove there isn't one",
just because saying that the opposite stance causes problem X doesn't
mean that the promoted stance doesn't cause problem X. Both can cause
problems in their extremes. The extreme promotion of sex or puritanical
Victorianist hypocrisy both have their issues. One is a psychological
addiction issue and the other is a repressed psychological reverse
psychology or "black market STD" issue. IOW, if people can't be open
about sex, the problems of STDs don't get addressed like they should.
If one is promoting rampant sex, people get more STD's to worry about.
They promote all the low fat vegetarian organic, no GMO foods while
taking in a plethora of bacteriophages and viral issues during bareback
sex. Anal sex, (male or female) in particular is risky. The anus has
one lining. The vagina has three and is better lubricated with nature's
best antibacterials, antifungals and antiviraals while off the shelf
lubes are mostly just meant to keep rubbers from breaking and killing
sperm.
> And then there's the observation that groups like the "Ring Thing" are
> *just* as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy as their peers. (Less
> likely to have sex, but also less likely to be carrying protection
> when they do).
Again, the phenomenon of promotion of sex I've singled out. With it
should come the promotion of protection in the most fated cases.
> So no, you can't really blame "liberalism" for that either.
But can you blame conservatism for that then? I say both have issues.
Conservatism is too worried about sex education perverting kids while
liberalism seems to be too worried about kids not enjoying sex enough
and overpromoting it. There is a way to teach sex education without
titillating the audience. Putting the condom on the end of a wooden
flagpole or instruction stick / vegetable isn't entirely useful. The
practical experience has to be done personally / privately and at the
right stage by the youth. They boy knows when he's horny and wants to
"get some". The boy should know that this is a good time to experiment
with the condom privately and talk to a doctor or nurse. School nurse
even. The goal doesn't seem to be sex education as much as titillation.
Yes, I can blame liberalism for promotion because they seem to want
porn sellers near schools, blocking zoning ordinances for them. They
cause pregnacies and STDs like chlamydia, herpes and syphillis and now
in the more southern districts Hepatitus if not HIV. The case studies
are real here for porn districts like the erotic spa corner by the
freeway junctions.
> >neglecting heart
> >disease etc and giving yet more lip service to health care.
>
> And what about largely ignoring road traffic deaths and injuries in
> favour of much less common causes of death & injury?
They seem not to care about drinking either. We have transportation
issues here. Busses and trains I've long promoted as being solutions as
you know. There is the big metal shield phenomenon people have when
buying a car where everyone has a big metal shield that could someday
hit their smaller metal shield and so it's like a small arms race but
with vehicles. Good point. One good thing about the higher gas prices
might be more economic car buying over safety metal armor/tank
consumption in the industry. More and more telecommute now too. I do
now finally. Telecommuting gets around a lot of that.
> >Promotion
> >of suicide in lyrics. It's unusual the amount that gets put in there.
>
> Pure capitalism - people produce what they think will be popular.
But the record industries and the people who run them are that segment
of the corporate population, like porn and journalism, that tends to be
leftist in thought. Most rock stars are given more "expert" points than
many experts. Such is the treasuring of science by the left. They don't
really like science. they disdain any science that disagrees with
agenda. ie: that maybe women are better at homemaking etc. The old left
hated science too. The Maoists had oppositional professors killed in
the Hundred Flowers. Yah, let there be 100 flowers of ideas and 100
schools of debate on communism and then lets put 100 bullets in their
flowery heads. Oh, and since there is a food shortage, let's use them
as soup stock. I'm not saying neoliberalism is like this but science or
democracy doesn't seem to be things they like if they stand in the way
of a religion that is mostly the one true faith of voting prochoice,
anti-this, anti-that, pro-this and pro-that. I agree with a portion
actually but I feel persecuted even when I do because I might disagree
with one point when most of the NTs in the group agree whole heartedly
with each other and agree on a lot of each other's politics...often
without thinking about it. They are straight ticket Dems. To hide the
fact they have no ideas, they attack the other side. Anyone but a
republican. (even though our democrats suck, your GOPs suck worse).
Granted, a lot of them suck on things like equal rights for the new
black. The new black being homosexuals, autistics and perhaps
immigrants (although, the latter is a "rule of law" issue which
strangely enough gets used by the left when it suits them)
> *Why* there's a considerable market for that sort of thing might be an
> interesting question - But you can't blame "liberalism" there either
> :)
I could. There is a market for this stuff because of the little
cultural revolutions promoted by the left or liberalism of course.
Actually, "liberalism" is a trick word here. There is classic
liberalism which most liberals today hate but which I find just fine.
It is constitutionally defined liberalism FTMP. I think they had it
right because they had just finished fighting and thinking through all
these issues. We're a bit lazy and inexperienced here and without
experience, we won't know everything.
> >Promotion of euthanasia
>
> Depends whether it's voluntary and unpressured - People are living
> longer, but the *quality* of that life is not necessarily something
> which a reasonable person would be willing to tolerate.
Good point. What I refer to is involuntary similar to what Schiavo had
to go through. An involuntary, or not clearly voluntary desire to be
dehydrated to death which is painful to the core. The pain is obvious
to an onlooker but dismissed out of political. It's like those
sacrificing children to Molech. The priests would beat drums loudly as
the little kids screamed in pain so the parents wouldn't rescue their
child "passing through the fire" or sittin in the arms of the bull oven
with glowing red cradling arms. As the skin tightened around the skull
of the child, the mouth tightened and the priests would say "this child
was smiling, enjoying his trip to the otherworld". It's what is being
done in euthanasia. When some of them die, children ask grandma, do you
want to go? Squeeze my hand if you don't. The nurse would then say how
involuntary it is. Some of these doctors and nurses are no better than
priests of Molech. I would like to say how and when and in how much
pain I will be in if I have to die in a hospital.
> > cults, alternatives to traditional fundamental
> >organized religion
>
> You *really* need to read up on the history of "organised" religion.
> It's *full* of splits and "cults" - often exactly *because* of the
> perceived (and often real) failings of the "official" one.
The only official cult I see is the UU cult and the state promotes it's
beliefs to the point it seems a separation of church and state issue. I
will say I'm against organized liberalism. There is nothing inherently
wrong with organized. Would it be better if it were chaotic and
disorganized?
Sure, the Christian faith, just like all faiths has orthodoxy, cults,
all start out small but not all are mind controlling, cultlike and
absolute singular in truth. I can't say that Christianity is
necessarily a cult. Jesus said Follow me but didn't grab people and put
them in a compound and give them guns or offer them Koolaid with
poison. I have read up on the history of organized religion but it
seems that the modern day UU one has a similar chant that dem do about
"anyone but Bush". Theirs is "anything but divine Christianity". Since
much of the religion here is Christian, this basically excludes a lot
of people who are "preclear". Sure there are failings in the past. But
those were days of illiteracy too. No one *knew* what the bible said.
In these days, there are disputes but it is generally not understood to
be "whatever Rome spits out". A split is not an issue. What I refer to
is the promotion of cults that do evil. The cults of scientology brain
wash, the cult of Satanism uses psychodrama and sex based mind controls
ie: tantric things that Crowley was trying to master. Some of this crap
made it to scientology which has caused numerous suicides. Look up the
story of Lisa McPhereson or the unfunny truth. The liberal church or
the UU is hosted by PFAW and world socialists and is mostly Satanists
inhabiting the corpse of the old unitarian + universality body with a
few Christians in name only or confused people not quite kicked out
yet.
> If you think "traditional" a virtue, then follow shamanism, if you
> value traditional *and* organised then perhaps Zoroastrianism or
> Hinduism (both older than Christianity & it's variants). If you value
> traditional organised Christianity, then Eastern Orthodox or
> Catholicism have the older pedigrees.
Zoroastianism is very very traditional. I actually study it quite a
bit. I think the events at the time of Jesus are significant though. I
like Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism. Both lay claim to being "first
and original" and having unbroken lines. However, I think there wre
apostacies. That is, after Jesus died/resurrected (bear with me/assume
my pov here), the apostles went out amongst the Gentiles, Paul and
various others had dreams about the lifting of certain religious taboos
like kosher, sabbath, circumcision etc. All the old was supposedly done
away. It was a new faith, non Hebrew really. The apostles died without
reconvening to set up secessions. The church died and GrecoRoman
empires (the popular culture and the one Paul was teaching to the most)
were creating a gnosticism. After that, the Roman empire grew for a
time. There was Constantinople and Christianity became a state religion
of Rome. It was not the same religion of Jesus though so that's why I'd
support other kinds of claims to authenticity. Although, right now...I
have been thinking in some Taoist ways along with some Jainism and
perhaps some Quaker concepts as well as retaining some of my upbringing
culturally. I'm currently still a bit agnostic. Still, the traditions
here are not all evil and as you note, there are many to chose from
which have valid ideas.
> But AFIK religion has not been shown to have any privileged access to
> truth or wisdom.
The evidence isn't very supportive as you've brought up a lot of
issues. ie: perfect scripture canon etc. Then again, the writers put
disclaimers for their shortcomings but the words and messages are
supposedly simple enough. Some truth is considered unworldly or
archetypically symbolic. It is subjective to say for example that a
scarab can't be truth or an allegory of the mouse and the lion or a
parable etc etc. Somethings are just profound but not really ideal
accurate truth like philsophical axiom. Wisdom there is plent of
sources for both religious and secular but it's folly to discount
religious sources completely since there are tried and real genius or
perhaps divinity to some of the ideas. Ideas that have long outlived
either of us.
> And as I've said before, it appears to be *impossible* to be
> "fundamental" in any of the "big three" book religions because of
> their ambiguities and internal contradictions.
I'm just using the codewords of the left that they use to mark an enemy
of their choice. There is no definition here. Therefore, it can't be
argued by definition. It is basically an attack on [certain]
[disagreeing] Christians because Christians have had so much perceived
power and other cultures don't have it. They see powerful bodies that
they can't infiltrate like they do in the political realm and they are
hard pressed to the point Howard Dean keeps announcing (ever so
foolishly as he usually is), that "we need to appeal to more
Christians!". You know btw that his favorite book in the New Testament
is Job?
> >trying to use extreme to portray them as whackos
> >by the media, movie industry being as subtle as possible.
>
> Market capitalism again - these people are producing what they hope
> will sell. (And they produce religion based films if they thing that
> *these* will sell - from the old Hollywood Biblical epics to the Da
> Vinci Code).
You're right. It is much geared to that but the hopes are that it isn't
going to sell Christianity very well. A lot of Hollywood rotten egg
face over "The Passion" as it was to the point the film actors guild
were having a lot of hush hush strategies for how to "handle" f$#@'in
mel gibson and his f@$#@%'n movie putting Jesus in a positive and
sympathetic light. It made so much news. Or at least, this was bringing
out of the subconscious what people think.
> >Unitarian Universalism as a "transitory" faith in converting Christians
> >into atheists. A religion where it is ok to beleive in anything but
> >divinity of Jesus. (I'm still agnostic myself but I don't want to see
> >my family manipulated out of their beleifs and into others that make no
> >sense).
>
> So it's alright for Christians to try and "convert" atheists and
> agnostics, but not vice versa?
It's hypocritical to gripe about missionaries and then not be griped
against for doing so. I'm one of the first I believe. While I'm a bit
biased and think they are converting wrongly, it isn't atheism but it's
dogmatism into a one true gospel. I've already had so much of that
myself. I realize now that there are true good things in all religions
and maybe even some atheists about individual self reliance/Overman and
thought but this is something I'd rather do. Anyhow, I'm not saying I'm
against them using their legal rights to preach but they support the
surpression of Christains to preach via their ties with PFAW and ACLU.
In essence, they are lobbying for their non profit org. and
corporations. I'm just exposing that this is what they *do*. Not to
imply the preach is an ill but to expose that is what they do even
though they say they don't. every protest they run is no different than
the Korean with the bullhorn on my street with a balsawood cross. UU is
our state religion. There is no separation between their church and our
state. Our state favors their ideology.
> >IOW, organized liberalism and socialism as a global effort
>
> As above, I don't see the evidence for "organised" or "global",
> nothing more than the equivalent of the capitalist or the conservative
> "old boy's network" - and similarly based on shared colleges, and
> informal social networks.
Well, it has it's churches, it's orgs and it's lobbying group and it's
body of little cults all sworn in fealty/loyalty/filiality/piety.??
> >and anything
> >to bring down white, rich, Christian Americans
>
> Or maybe they've just latched on to a profitable group to "guilt trip"
> into handing them some advantage?
Could be.
> Then there's the "politics of envy" - *but* typically this only works
> where those at who the "finger is being pointed" are *already* seen as
> abusive and undeserving - So the question is, what have white, rich
> and (nominally at least) Christian Americans been up to?
Yes. "seen as" not necessarily so. There are paranoid assumptions being
made about the so called RRR conspiracy group or "vast right wing
conspiracy" (yes, I go to meetings every night now ;-> ) So "seen" yes.
as in stereotypes. Actuality? No. It's just racism to justify their
actions.
> It's no *intrinsic* mark of virtue to be white, rich and (nominally)
> Christian - think the "Robber Barons" of the railroads, or of Tammany
> Hall.
Of course. ie: think of Eminem. Yes, there are many nominally
Christian. It is true that modern Christians may be nothing like actual
ones. They seldom turn the other cheek per se. They seldom do a lot of
things. Lip service sermons...but then, the criticizers are no better,
even when they adopt it. Politically, they certainly never turn the
other cheek or apologize or do other basic tenets either. In fact, they
are too self righteously more Christian at that point than the
perceived hypocrites and that is, anyone who owns something. Meanwhile,
elite sides have much wealth but they are never harped on because they
are politically correct in what they say against the right factions and
ideologies.
> There's the "Ignore the employee's and their pensions as long as I get
> my annual bonus" of Enron of course - How pervasive is this sort of
> attitude? To what extent do WRCAs contribute to the progress,
> development and long term security of companies, compared to "take the
> money & run" / "cash cows"?
Well, there are good and bad WRCAs. You've touched on the extreme bad
example. In critical thinking argumentations, this is called......
Well, in any case, there are good people who are rich. Obviously, there
are even leftists who are just this but the last two letters. I
personally think skin, race should be a non issue in a good society.
Skin can have a plethora of tones. Often, attributed race is given to
skin or culture, not genes. Race is an illusion because we are all by
now a little bit of everything somewhere in our genes anyway. I'd say
the culture is everything. Religion and nationality culture. It's Red
Team and Blue Team but they use economic status and skin when it suits
them.
> There certainly often seems to be an emphasis on advertising and sales
> versus R&D (same is true in the UK).
>
> And how are they acting in politics - for the wider public good, or in
> their own narrow interests?
Well, with those possibly 5% African American, 15% Amerindian, 50%
French, 20% Irish, 1% Welch, 1% Eskimo economically in the high high
brackets who are nominally Christian and happen to be American
citizens, the Enron CEOs are examples who those who plunder savings and
skimp on quality for their personal gain. Of course, I hear such can
lead to heart attacks.
>
> Basically is this a "self-inflicted injury"?
When whistles blow, if the finger is in the dryer socket, it would hurt
time when the power comes on.
> >From utilitarian standpoints, it doesn't do too much harm IMHO. People
> >like those living in Provo, the most conservative city in the US, have
> >the longest life spans, lowest divorce rates, reported higher levels of
> >happiness.
>
> "Correlation doesn't imply causation" :)
Yes, but if thre are no correlations elsewhere. The temporal
associations (time and place coincidences) and there is a control group
(everyone else), I think causation, the impossible to prove, has a good
case here. There is some reason. Some say it could be merely thin air
but then it doesn't account for other climates so "all else equal" (or
able to vary without side effect on results), it seems a duplicable
phenomenon. Same is holding true in places like Idaho. Has to be some
fire under that smoke. ;)
> Could be for example a relatively stable local economy, etc.. People
> tend to be more conservative when there's a lack of external pressures
> which might lead them to question the status quo.
When malcontents are not stirred up. When there is insulation by
religion against infiltration by the spoilers of economies and society,
economies and happiness (ie: Happy Valley) blossoms. I would say it is
debatable if it is merely the fact this is a now very large organized
religion or prudence in the teachings. Ken Jennings might be evidence
for the latter while BYU as an institution evidence for the former.
> How does Provo compare with (for example) similarly conservative but
> more deprived areas in the deep South? (Where the conservatism might
> be more "defensive").
The south has extremely different cultural values and norms than Provo.
Provo was once salt flat. Nothing would grow there. It's now lushly
tree'd valleys. BTW, the neighbors in Las Vegas have nearly opposite
statistics. They also, formed by mafia bosses (many of whom were
conservative Sicilians and anti-socialists), Economically, Vegas
prospers very well but happiness is very low. In the south, it is
entrenched with the old values of the democrat south and the "carpet
baggers". It is a place of hopelessness and "blues". The birth of a
depressing era of history. While pioneers had many struggles, they had
high hopes as opposed to hopelessness. They are a "beehive state"
sharing some value with Maoists in terms of believing in strong
industrialiazation strangely. they even had some collectivism in terms
of the United Order. Still, it had a lot of struggle with the
government, a government they fought for in Mexican war for example and
they turn around and set troops on the weary soldiers coming home
fearful they will snatch up too many extra wives. Ironic how marriage
laws are changing...Not that I really care for polygamy but it's
interesting the standard being used. Some areas of the south like
Florida (very conservative) are very prosperous. If you go to Orlando,
visit Disney land or South Miami Beach, it is a land of likewise
millionaries. That is the state of Jeb Bush. At the same time, they get
a lot of flack. Interesting too how there were rifles aimed at Elian
Gonzoles's father for his son's escaping Cuba but immigrants coming
here get no such treatment and if they did, we'd have a big protest.
> Then of course there's "ignorance is bliss" - people who don't
> question things, who believe that they *know* the answers would be
> expected to worry less than those who are less certain.
It may not be ignorance either after all. You never know. I don't know
for sure. There is truth to the fact that some "settling of all
questions" frees one to do other things in life and to be productive
and at the same time being good conservationists. The people are taught
to question everything and read everything. Education is high on the
list. This is why the church funds go to unversities like BYU, huge
legal centers. They learn evolution on campus there...not intelligent
design but they learn creation as well. They learn it _ALL_ and judge
for themselves. It is because of this that many often do leave and they
are not chased down like some cults would. ie: Satanic cults fully
sponsored by UU for example.
H
Terry Jones
>Because the world demands unquestioning obedience of the UN State and
>the Leader
"The World" demands? - Ha!
Countries support or question / oppose the UN as and when it suits
them. Many countries want "fair trade" (an end to subsidies and tariff
barriers) because it would benefit them, but quite a number of the
*same* countries start shouting about "sovereignty" and "interference"
when it comes to human rights issues.
One reason why Europe wants to work through the UN more than the US
does is quite simple - Intervention is *expensive*, and most of them
are pretty restricted militarily - If Europe tried to "do a US", then
their weakness would rapidly be exposed - Certain European countries
(or at least their leadership) have "Great Power" egos, but lack Great
Power resources.
(And even the US has overstretched to the point where it is trying to
get more (practical) international support for it's military actions).
I think that this impression of "world" demands is simply the
consequence of a "numbers game" - The "nations" who most *need* the UN
in order to achieve their aims are those which are too weak to "go it
alone" - and there's a *lot* of them, each with a voice and a vote.
But when you analyse things out, look at *what* they support and what
they oppose, I think you'll see that a lot of it is down to simple
self-interest (at least that of their governing elites).
>there are huge issues with corruption
Ah, you mean like those Western companies who pay bribes to get
contracts, and who make large "campaign contributions" and "loans"
(and then coincidentally often seem to benefit, personally or
corporately - especially at the cost of the ordinary worker,
consumer, service user)?
>leadership ability and decision making
Like certain Western "leaders" I could name? :)
>that doesn't
>correspond diplomatically to a compromise with the "Western Nations"
>and possibly many non-Western nations (Taiwan?)
But is compromise / the "middle ground" always right? - For example, I
happen to think that the US & Europe (and Japan) are simply *wrong* on
subsidies and tariff barriers (and screwing their own consumers just
to favour a vocal minority too). But I also think that much aid is
simply going down a "black hole", and can even be counterproductive,
unless the nations in question "put their own house in order" in
various areas.
[Perhaps we ought to de-recognise a nation as "sovereign" if it can't
support it's own population?]
>> the African states ignore him when he wants to replace AU troops
>> by UN troops over there, pretty much *everyone* ignores him when it
>> comes to human rights issues - The UN is underfunded & underresourced.
>
>The leader and the system are corrupt. They have lost authority. That
>is why they are not taken seriously.
Whereas I think that the basic enterprise is fundamentally unworkable,
however honest the personnel may be or become. There are just too many
conflicts of interest.
>Completely get rid of it and start over with more objective purposes
>that don't over-reach state sovereignties.
Whereas I question the validity of "sovereignties" - The third world
"states" may be more blatant about it, but are "western" states that
much more representative of their citizens? Or genuinely acting in
their best interests? (As we've said here about some curebie parents,
they may "care" emotionally about their child, but not *enough* to
work through the detail, the pros & cons, before embarking on some
wonder cure. The same with too many western political elites.).
[And yes, I'd still rather live in a western type nation - but even
here the "margin of safety" is steadily eroding.]
What comprises a "legitimate" state?
>Those that subscribe could
>come to several kinds of treaties with other states. Treaties are, and
>will always be the basis of international law. There is no law besides
>that though. Treaties are breached/broken because nations are dynamic
>and it's impractical. There needs to be a way of managing that and
>accepting what comes.
There's a saying to the effect that - The countries you really *need*
an effective non-aggression treaty with can't be trusted to keep it,
and those that you *can* trust, you usually don't need to have such a
treaty with in the first place.
IOW for treaties to *work* you need some sort of enforcement mechanism
for when they don't.
> Perhaps the hugest other effort is maintaining
>states that are reaching into arms race territory. They don't do that
>very well either. If they were more effective, no one here would have
>stepped in and tried to play global cop.
Remember that Britain played that role for a long time. The US could
do worse than trying to learn from their successes, and particularly
from their mistakes and failures.
One criticism of the US as a "World Police Force" is that they're
*not* mostly targeting general threats - Piracy off the coast of
Somalia, fine - Afghanistan, maybe, they were providing shelter an
bases to an ambitious group of terrorists (*but* they [US] pulled back
without doing the job properly) - South America, this was / is
basically an attempt to "control" a *domestic* drug problem without
addressing the domestic issues (neither has the UK of course, but we
don't pretend that interfering in other countries is going to solve
it) - Iraq, no not a credible threat (post GW1) - Iran & North Korea,
essentially depending on diplomacy and world opinion just like
everybody else on the block.
Not so much a World Policeman, as private security who also
occasionally come across a criminal who's active in the rest of the
town too?
>> What sort of real power do you think he has?
>
>Enough that everyone begs for deferrment to it.
Who "everyone"?
[This seems to be the end of the UN / World Policeman section, so I'll
end here for the time being, and get back to the rest later.]
Terry
H
Terry Jones wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2006 13:08:48 -0700, "H" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Because the world demands unquestioning obedience of the UN State and
> >the Leader
>
> "The World" demands? - Ha!
>
> Countries support or question / oppose the UN as and when it suits
> them.
Perhaps as it should. The old treat system works better. The organized
corruption system doesn't seem to work well at all.
> Many countries want "fair trade" (an end to subsidies and tariff
> barriers) because it would benefit them, but quite a number of the
> *same* countries start shouting about "sovereignty" and "interference"
> when it comes to human rights issues.
Many of those who shout about sovereignty seem to so more than just
about human rights issues. Fair trade, economically helps all
theoretically and speeds corporate market dominance very quickly. Even
though economically it can help, the laws, crime and corruption in said
country could be another matter. Every country has a right to impose
what they want on trade typically and every country has a right to its
sovereignty as a defacto rule unless something better were to come
along. What there is now (UN) is not the better thing to come along.
Its goals are tainted. There is a bait and switch feel to it that most
seem misguided about. It's never about us people really.
> One reason why Europe wants to work through the UN more than the US
> does is quite simple - Intervention is *expensive*, and most of them
> are pretty restricted militarily - If Europe tried to "do a US", then
> their weakness would rapidly be exposed - Certain European countries
> (or at least their leadership) have "Great Power" egos, but lack Great
> Power resources.
I wish Europe would work through each country's own ideals and through
neither us or the UN depending on situation. Often times, if we need
help, it is understandable to say to us, "we can't". Switzerland did
it.
Countries can be put in a matrix that changes over time in relationship
to each other. with Us rows and Them columns. In each cell, over each
year, one could mark a relationship from the Us perspective of that
country. That matrix would be square and not triangular because
sometimes perceptions are different one way than to the other. I
suggest a scale of 6 values for each cell. Note that attack is not
"pre-emptive strike". Attack is the classic term. In essence, all wars
have a pre-emptive side/"who started it" side but it isn't always clear
just as it isn't clear with child's play.:
-3 - Would attack if could, would ally with enemies in
attacks/terrorist ops/supplies.
-2 - Would supply/support a defense to enemies of.
-1 - Neutral with ill sentiments.
1 - Neutral non-participant of war without ill sentiments/subversion
groups
2 - Would ally with in defense or would if could.
3 - Would ally with against threats in an attack.
(all wars have a "preemptive" side btw).
There is of course, "depends on politics". It would be interesting to
look at the red blue shade of the world in terms of an objective set of
values. The problem is in that declaring the set, one side wants to
associate ill things into the set they do not have. Therefore, the
values have to be seen as positives and freely admitted to and by a
majority or major representatives of that party. It has to be agreeable
to them. Not something that can be connived out of association or some
spoken reference.
The CIA here in the US has a world fact book that might help with some
of this data. I'm sure the UK has it's own sources but I've found that
there is typically little difference or disagreement. FTMP, it is
objective and used by peole of all political shades with exceptions of
extreme factions.
> (And even the US has overstretched to the point where it is trying to
> get more (practical) international support for it's military actions).
Many in the US are seeing these simultaneous actions world wide right
now as World War III in the making. It's true the US is overstretched.
What irks me too is how the youth are often mislead or given propganda
in schools that is unbalanced about national events. They depend on
idealistic and impressionable minds since they can't count on the older
people who are more libertarian and the middle aged who are more
conservative. And what does the fast food trend favor? And whose side
exactly is the corporate world on?
Papers like these:
http://www.augustreview.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&tid=4
are becoming very popular because they make sense to a lot of people.
The message seems to be to distrust everyone. Only when a person's
trust is broken can they start trusting a new "white knight". (even if
it's mostly sheep's clothing). The issue is that this comes from all
sides. This paper is alerting people about the highest echelons, not
their neighbors. As long as the focus is on "each other". (my bumper
sticker X sporting ucky neighbor), it's control. So you see why I focus
on a bigger picture? It looks weak but that's Sun Tzu strategy.
Grassroots is where the power is and it's supportive of the so-called
"NWO" as a way to break down the old system or a global cultural
revolution. We think it's tolerant now but it gets less tolerant as
time goes on.
> I think that this impression of "world" demands is simply the
> consequence of a "numbers game" - The "nations" who most *need* the UN
> in order to achieve their aims are those which are too weak to "go it
> alone" - and there's a *lot* of them, each with a voice and a vote.
It's pretty simple motive yes.
> But when you analyse things out, look at *what* they support and what
> they oppose, I think you'll see that a lot of it is down to simple
> self-interest (at least that of their governing elites).
It is. All countries are in the games playing Team A and Team B.
> >there are huge issues with corruption
>
> Ah, you mean like those Western companies who pay bribes to get
> contracts, and who make large "campaign contributions" and "loans"
> (and then coincidentally often seem to benefit, personally or
> corporately - especially at the cost of the ordinary worker,
> consumer, service user)?
Puhleez. That's not all but yes, that's part of one issue. We are run
by the campaign contributers and not the people.
We are taxed by businesses by their bait and switch.
We are taxed by our congress
We are fined by our executive branch
We are then given judgements in court.
This happens because people want to pass very strict controls into law.
We keep creating unenforceable laws. This means we now have a Gestapo
system where laws can be selectively enforced by the most easily paid
judge and court clerk (to direct to said judge). It's ruthless out
there. At any time, someone can be an enemy of a corporation or of some
group.
> >leadership ability and decision making
>
> Like certain Western "leaders" I could name? :)
You've cut the context but why restrict it to Western leaders? I have
already indicated the leadership of the world and we probably are on
the wild goose chase focusing on one figurehead. I'm convinced he's a
figurehead at this point. He's already been made into one. Enjoy it
now. Bush is already "over". IOW, it's already game over for him. The
future is the problem not the old game last week. Zidane lost. ;)
> >that doesn't
> >correspond diplomatically to a compromise with the "Western Nations"
> >and possibly many non-Western nations (Taiwan?)
>
> But is compromise / the "middle ground" always right? - For example, I
> happen to think that the US & Europe (and Japan) are simply *wrong* on
> subsidies and tariff barriers (and screwing their own consumers just
> to favour a vocal minority too).
Middle ground isn't always right but sometimes, it's the only way to
move forward. The alternative being..... What happens is that sides
will try to bring back up what they had to cede temporarily and
renegotiate from time to time on some things. Hard to refer to vaguely.
Tariffs are money paid when other countries import goods to a country
no? Doesn't the country have a right to do what it wants trade wise?
Free trade is nice but it's a treaty and not something that is
auto-default. Having some level of tariff protects the country from
abuse by foreign power. Other countries may do so to us and they do.
China and India do IIRC but they are currently set low. We have no free
trade bidirectionally except as per NAFTA. World Trade Organizations
and ITC are interesting.
BTW, did you know that a recent Trade official just shot himself and
his autistic son here in the U.S.?
> But I also think that much aid is
> simply going down a "black hole", and can even be counterproductive,
> unless the nations in question "put their own house in order" in
> various areas.
That's what a lot of people say here with regards to aiding Africa.
Some people have noted that AIDS in Africa is very different than here.
There is a conspiracy video out:
Is HIV => AIDS fake or real?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6814491427846073388&q=aids
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
http://www.thebody.com/tpan/novdec_01/survivor.html
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/fmmbeki.htm
Poppers or "videohead cleaner" is amyl nitrate. It causes the same
hypertension that viagra does. It can cause a headrush and a headrush
or glans engorgement. (nice echolalic word for ya, say engorgement a
few million times). Nitrates are the carcinogens that lab folk used to
induce cancer in rats. You take a paintbrush with benzenes or nitrates,
brush on shaved rat, whamo! cancer. It comes from smoke stacks,
cigarettes, and in trace amounts as a preservative of bacon, spam etc.
Lovely stuff it is. But this stuff, like nail polish remover for
videotapes is to this day considered "safe" as a recreational drug. Who
started the trend in the GLBT community??!
> [Perhaps we ought to de-recognise a nation as "sovereign" if it can't
> support it's own population?]
I don't know. Sometimes it makes sense. I'd suggest that if that were
true, Africa and SE Asia/Middle East and more impoverished S. America
would get swept up as "Internationalopia"? What then? Would the
bureacracy be able to manage they it is needed to on local levels? I
suggest supporting good "managements" however they are recognized by
flag. Sometimes, cultures are incompatible with foreign influences and
incompatible with their own culture and self-sufficiency. Perhaps their
standards are acceptably lower and survivable. It could be better for
them but at what cost to some other aspects of their life and culture?
Which is more important? Is culture important? What about this
diversity we keep hearing about?
> >> the African states ignore him when he wants to replace AU troops
> >> by UN troops over there, pretty much *everyone* ignores him when it
> >> comes to human rights issues - The UN is underfunded & underresourced.
> >
> >The leader and the system are corrupt. They have lost authority. That
> >is why they are not taken seriously.
>
> Whereas I think that the basic enterprise is fundamentally unworkable,
> however honest the personnel may be or become. There are just too many
> conflicts of interest.
Yes.
> >Completely get rid of it and start over with more objective purposes
> >that don't over-reach state sovereignties.
>
> Whereas I question the validity of "sovereignties" - The third world
> "states" may be more blatant about it, but are "western" states that
> much more representative of their citizens?
I'd argue that states are not as representative as they used to be. The
power strugglers have built up on the corpses of old strugglers by way
of precedent. See my notes on how taxed we are. This tax is supposedly
to benefit people but there is "selective benefits" just as there are
selective enforcements of law based on political blacklists. We do have
a near Gestapo now and I don't think Bush is quite so friendly
domestically anymore or at least he's now just a figurehead thanks to
some other power that might be. Economically, we are supposedly in
another boom but oil-based inflation is fighting that trend. We have a
"dumb worker inflation" period right now and standard of living will
decrease and we'll be more like your situation of overpriced barbie
accessories in stores and no basics. I guess I can say thanks. I mean
to the world government orgs at large (and they are many). UN is
supposedly weak but it is backed on a strong beast. I look at it like a
little frail bird on the back of a rhinocerous. The bird is General Sun
Tzu and the rhino has some miracle gro somewhere ;). By Sun Tzu, I mean
"feign weakness where there is strength and strength where there is
weakness...".
> Or genuinely acting in
> their best interests? (As we've said here about some curebie parents,
> they may "care" emotionally about their child, but not *enough* to
> work through the detail, the pros & cons, before embarking on some
> wonder cure. The same with too many western political elites.).
I agree but I think the elites are more than Western if you ask me.
> [And yes, I'd still rather live in a western type nation - but even
> here the "margin of safety" is steadily eroding.]
Understood. Same here. I happen to feel comfortable in the techology
aspects of my culture and my "locale" (more than people).
> What comprises a "legitimate" state?
The criteria would be one that isn't at -3 with everyone. Yes, I'll
include my own. God forbid we go to war against much more than we do
now. Iran and S. Korea seem to be the limits of this so called multiple
theatre exercise we've got going on. Not realizing that with internal
dissention and sedition, we are in no shape to do so. We should bring
the troops home soon and get our domestic issues handled better. We
need to rely somewhat more on our strike ability I think. It's
sufficient to give warnings. Apparently, we've had a chance to exercise
the "peaceful" ways during Carter-Clinton. and less peaceful ways
during Reagan-Bushes. I'd rate in order of performance.
Reagan
Nixon
Clinton
Bush 1
Bush 2
Carter
Some might wonder why. Reagon got stuff done without "quagmire". Nixon
lied but gave us good diplomacy at a critical time and he had the
courage to admit failure. Clinton has no courage but good diplomacy.
Bush 1 seems an odd creature who I never felt I could trust. Bush 2
seems more and more like that. Carter seemed to promise world peace but
in all did a lot of shady dealings that he's still never accounted for.
He's has racist roots but loves lip service to the poor and started the
trend of misrepresentative minority rights, selective enforcement,
selective rewards. Clinton had a bit of that too, plus he and Janet
Reno forced Waco into a stand off with a pre-emptive strike on them
when other means of negotiation were plausible. This was really a war
against religious fundamentalism. He could have picked any number of
polygamists in the desert but he struck Texas. Clinton, Bushes and
Carter have all had a role in destroying our national security. The
Bushes have only moderately improved funding for their wartime
exercises but mostly reconstruction effort but it was not with much
infrastructural improvement in the military so now the military is
being "spent down". My cousins are in Iraq now. I get much of the truth
about what goes on there and it doesn't match the media. Sure, the army
has its propganda but they are pretty sharp and defensive about where
that propaganda is.
> >Those that subscribe could
> >come to several kinds of treaties with other states. Treaties are, and
> >will always be the basis of international law. There is no law besides
> >that though. Treaties are breached/broken because nations are dynamic
> >and it's impractical. There needs to be a way of managing that and
> >accepting what comes.
>
> There's a saying to the effect that - The countries you really *need*
> an effective non-aggression treaty with can't be trusted to keep it,
> and those that you *can* trust, you usually don't need to have such a
> treaty with in the first place.
It's true of some. How would that apply to NATO though for example? ;)
Do Europeans not trust each other still?
> IOW for treaties to *work* you need some sort of enforcement mechanism
> for when they don't.
Usually, in a treaty, breaking them means both sides get to exercise
what the treaty prevented. Sometimes, a broken treaty is severe enough
for war. Is a middle entity necessary? It's a world cop scheme. All
countries do it to a degree now. The US may be more notable. The UN as
another entity does a lot using Canadians it seems mostly. Our mounties
are our world police I suppose.
> > Perhaps the hugest other effort is maintaining
> >states that are reaching into arms race territory. They don't do that
> >very well either. If they were more effective, no one here would have
> >stepped in and tried to play global cop.
>
> Remember that Britain played that role for a long time. The US could
> do worse than trying to learn from their successes, and particularly
> from their mistakes and failures.
I agree. I only recently watched Lagaan about some history in India
(for the third time with some Indian computer techs) . I know a bit
about imperialism of the past. I have studied it in high school as
well. In the board game popular here, Axis and Allies, Beige is a map
that shows all this territory in Australia, Canada etc "the
Commonwealth nations" etc etc where Britain and it's great navy was.
India now has a very superior navy of its own and a huge arsenal. It
too is trying to emulate your past ;) I also study some of China as you
know but it's a bit less to do with that except in the early
1900s/Ching and the opium / boxer eras.
>
> One criticism of the US as a "World Police Force" is that they're
> *not* mostly targeting general threats - Piracy off the coast of
> Somalia, fine - Afghanistan, maybe, they were providing shelter an
> bases to an ambitious group of terrorists (*but* they [US] pulled back
> without doing the job properly) - South America, this was / is
> basically an attempt to "control" a *domestic* drug problem without
> addressing the domestic issues (neither has the UK of course, but we
> don't pretend that interfering in other countries is going to solve
> it) - Iraq, no not a credible threat (post GW1) - Iran & North Korea,
> essentially depending on diplomacy and world opinion just like
> everybody else on the block.
There are legitimate complaints from the left and right about the US's
past involvements. Many on the right saw an unnecessary involvement
with Milosovich. It wasn't anything to do with us but Good wars are
termed "international peace efforts" euphemistically and not "OMG Oh
Noez Bloody F$#@'in War!" but sometimes, they are about the same in
scale. Both in terms of damages to life and property. Most of the time,
it's a political issue. International peace keeping efforts are those
which protect internationally powerful members like Muslims and the UN
has absolutely NOoooooOOOoooo problem with us defending them. The UN is
the same way. They don't care how many Christian churches burn because
they hate Christianity. Of course, you're going to say they earned that
hatred but how much more so than any other religion or Muslims? Why not
treat both equally? Most all wars that help capitalistic trade is often
allowed by the US and it's not just "unfortunate" (the ultimate lip
service phrase), it's wrong/evil and we should do more about some of
those. It's selective as well. I wish both the US and the UN would be
more equitable and also be better about issues but the world isn't
always going to agree with us and there will always be a little
politics involved in how the world thinks we should act and how we do.
It isn't always democratic as we think either. Again, I think we've
lost our representation to the corporations. I'd like to see the US
stop prioritizing them. (but not the point of killing them off). I'm
all about balance. Some want the world population reduced down to a few
hundred thousand humans/homo sapiens. When some talk about zero
population, I wonder if they include the buddies for the "few hundred
thousands". It seems pretty wrong to me to make that drastic an agenda.
I think environment should be considered of course etc. (rambled off
topic there). Ok.
> Not so much a World Policeman, as private security who also
> occasionally come across a criminal who's active in the rest of the
> town too?
I guess one could call this all "macrocorruption" just like
"macroeconomics". Let's make a dynamic matrix of this ;)
> [This seems to be the end of the UN / World Policeman section, so I'll
> end here for the time being, and get back to the rest later.]
Ok.
Thanks for addressing.
H