Full Version: in defense of open society--part two
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > First Amendment and Free Speech Issues
hi, globalchinese,
Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your posts. Why are these items relevant to the discussion we are having here?
Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your posts. Why are these items relevant to the discussion we are having here?
I'm reading Nietzshe right now--partly because we are talking about him in class, partly because I never have read much of him up until now. He see Socrates (in Twilight of the Idols as a decadent, as a sophist; and suggests that good people don't show their reasons--only people who hope to get away with something. The strong act on instinct; the weak get frevenge on the strong by demanding the strong justify themselves. In the geneology of morals, Nietzcshe calls this replacing the distinction the aristocrtas make between good and bad with the one the weak make between good and evil, as a revenge against life. This is the point I was indirectly getting at earlier. Life consists of deciding and acting, not thinking. Nietzsche thought it was the characteristic of the strong that they did not take their opponents seriously, nor their misdeeds. This sounds an awful lot like Bush and his people. So englishman and rla and the rest of you--what do you think of Nietsche's case against us--that we intellectuals try to mummify everything because we are uncomfortable with process, with change, with pain?
QUOTE(rogerv @ Apr 13 2005, 02:50 PM)
I'm reading Nietzshe right now--partly because we are talking about him in class, partly because I never have read much of him up until now. He see Socrates (in Twilight of the Idols as a decadent, as a sophist; and suggests that good people don't show their reasons--only people who hope to get away with something. The strong act on instinct; the weak get frevenge on the strong by demanding the strong justify themselves. In the geneology of morals, Nietzcshe calls this replacing the distinction the aristocrtas make between good and bad with the one the weak make between good and evil, as a revenge against life. This is the point I was indirectly getting at earlier. Life consists of deciding and acting, not thinking. Nietzsche thought it was the characteristic of the strong that they did not take their opponents seriously, nor their misdeeds. This sounds an awful lot like Bush and his people. So englishman and rla and the rest of you--what do you think of Nietsche's case against us--that we intellectuals try to mummify everything because we are uncomfortable with process, with change, with pain?
In the aftermath of 9/11, Giuliani rallied the city, and then Bush rallied troops.
Half-my-lifetime ago I saw a film by Liliana Cavani, Beyond Evil, a very unacademic way to approach Nietzsche.
One has to imagine finding oneself suddenly blind, realising one's senses weren't adequate. (And I don't think the Bushes are supermen; but blind men - blind of a different kind to Giuliani. It's being a prisoner: they're trying to break out.)
Film-makers have a fluent freedom denied to writers. They can take away the concoctions of the blind club. (Whether I would want to be an artist or an academic if I had my time over again, remains beyond me. But I can see that the politicians don't want anyone stealing their limelight. One must know enough of everything.)
QUOTE(Englishman @ Apr 9 2005, 07:12 AM)
Two kinds of openness
In one we have "freedom of conscience" defended by a philosopher in a communist satellite. He speaks up for life by pursuing Christian reasoning with a terrifying vigour.
The other hardly seems like openness at all. It happens here, where we have an unelected first family. It might seem like the Divine Right of Kings returning, reinvigorated, in colour images.
Perhaps both are unfriendly if you're outside of them: if you're not a Catholic or are unprepared to join in with English hypocrisy.
Is freedom of speech something we want to have, or merely be told we have? I don't believe the English are any more exclusive than the Catholics. Perhaps there's a message here, just as the Catholic Church claims to be custodian of. Accept the culture of tolerance, and communication, and you are already halfway here.
Going back several centuries, I don't agree with Henry VIII disposing of most of his wives, by one means or another; but perhaps realism is something which had to come. If Britain had carried on being under Rome, would we have had much of the flexibility both our countries now have?
So, yes, I admire the late Pope's dedication, but I prefer the pragmatism of our royal family. It's possible to be freer under it. It seems one should opt for a written constitution... but in the end matters come down to whether enforcers choose to employ it or just leave it on the shelf, just to be discussed by academics (or on websites).
In one we have "freedom of conscience" defended by a philosopher in a communist satellite. He speaks up for life by pursuing Christian reasoning with a terrifying vigour.
The other hardly seems like openness at all. It happens here, where we have an unelected first family. It might seem like the Divine Right of Kings returning, reinvigorated, in colour images.
Perhaps both are unfriendly if you're outside of them: if you're not a Catholic or are unprepared to join in with English hypocrisy.
Is freedom of speech something we want to have, or merely be told we have? I don't believe the English are any more exclusive than the Catholics. Perhaps there's a message here, just as the Catholic Church claims to be custodian of. Accept the culture of tolerance, and communication, and you are already halfway here.
Going back several centuries, I don't agree with Henry VIII disposing of most of his wives, by one means or another; but perhaps realism is something which had to come. If Britain had carried on being under Rome, would we have had much of the flexibility both our countries now have?
So, yes, I admire the late Pope's dedication, but I prefer the pragmatism of our royal family. It's possible to be freer under it. It seems one should opt for a written constitution... but in the end matters come down to whether enforcers choose to employ it or just leave it on the shelf, just to be discussed by academics (or on websites).
Actually, I never cared much for the poop. He and Ronald Reagan always seemed a lot alike to me. One's has to give them credit for their ability to always keep on
smiling right through their reign of terrior. Even a written constitution isn't
sufficient protection when the leader is a good enough actor to convince everyone
that he represents God. Personally I think the Pope's ability to prevent the use of birth control directly caused as much suffering and death as any one person living
during the last hundred years.
QUOTE(rogerv @ Apr 13 2005, 07:50 AM)
I'm reading Nietzshe right now--partly because we are talking about him in class, partly because I never have read much of him up until now. He see Socrates (in Twilight of the Idols as a decadent, as a sophist; and suggests that good people don't show their reasons--only people who hope to get away with something. The strong act on instinct; the weak get frevenge on the strong by demanding the strong justify themselves. In the geneology of morals, Nietzcshe calls this replacing the distinction the aristocrtas make between good and bad with the one the weak make between good and evil, as a revenge against life. This is the point I was indirectly getting at earlier. Life consists of deciding and acting, not thinking. Nietzsche thought it was the characteristic of the strong that they did not take their opponents seriously, nor their misdeeds. This sounds an awful lot like Bush and his people. So englishman and rla and the rest of you--what do you think of Nietsche's case against us--that we intellectuals try to mummify everything because we are uncomfortable with process, with change, with pain?
"Life consists of deciding and acting,not thinking".... Rogerv, I don't know whether this is you or Nietzshe. I think Nietzshe was a brilliant thinker and ahead of his
time. He recognized how dualistic thinking was a problem but he didn't have the advantages of modern science and general symantics or systems theory. I would expand the above statement to Life is the integration of perceiving, conceptualizing, feeling, intending and acting. People who do this well appear
strong, centered, confident, engaged, gracefull and not given to justifying their
actions. Their effective and efficient contact with the total situation includes the
feelings and position of significant others and their awareness of what they doing.
how and why they are doing it and attending to outcomes.
Unfortunately, as a people, we don't pay much attention to what kind of culture we build so we don't grow up in cultures that facilitate healthy, happy development.
The few who do look like heros and will be tolerated by the masses only under certain conditions. Frequently, people with high abilities in some areas and with
lots of resources are able to act llike heros and this leads to disasterous results.
QUOTE(Englishman @ Apr 14 2005, 05:41 PM)
In the aftermath of 9/11, Giuliani rallied the city, and then Bush rallied troops.
Half-my-lifetime ago I saw a film by Liliana Cavani, Beyond Evil, a very unacademic way to approach Nietzsche.
One has to imagine finding oneself suddenly blind, realising one's senses weren't adequate. (And I don't think the Bushes are supermen; but blind men - blind of a different kind to Giuliani. It's being a prisoner: they're trying to break out.)
Film-makers have a fluent freedom denied to writers. They can take away the concoctions of the blind club. (Whether I would want to be an artist or an academic if I had my time over again, remains beyond me. But I can see that the politicians don't want anyone stealing their limelight. One must know enough of everything.)
Half-my-lifetime ago I saw a film by Liliana Cavani, Beyond Evil, a very unacademic way to approach Nietzsche.
One has to imagine finding oneself suddenly blind, realising one's senses weren't adequate. (And I don't think the Bushes are supermen; but blind men - blind of a different kind to Giuliani. It's being a prisoner: they're trying to break out.)
Film-makers have a fluent freedom denied to writers. They can take away the concoctions of the blind club. (Whether I would want to be an artist or an academic if I had my time over again, remains beyond me. But I can see that the politicians don't want anyone stealing their limelight. One must know enough of everything.)
I suppose I'm re-emphasising the danger of reason being pushed aside when there is a personal involvement. One man's openness then becomes another's laxity: freedom shall not extend to being the freedom to talk - it's more intended to just be the freedom to become any kind of "faith" believer.
Neither Osama bin Laden nor George W Bush want societies having openness. George wants to wave the banner of freedom above his enterprises because it's the old cold war flag which unified and placed the US at the forefront. It doesn't matter that a new gulag archipelago has been created and an unnecessarily violent response to Bin Laden engaged in.
On the other hand openness should no longer have included unexamined access to flying schools - or what amount to university courses in CBW - once certain malevolent interests were discerned.
Nietzsche probably has more relevance to us, now, than a society - we hope - is governed by laws and co-operation. It's healthier if we put our foot down and leave the Primitive Party looking shocked in our tracks.
On the other hand openness should no longer have included unexamined access to flying schools - or what amount to university courses in CBW - once certain malevolent interests were discerned.
Nietzsche probably has more relevance to us, now, than a society - we hope - is governed by laws and co-operation. It's healthier if we put our foot down and leave the Primitive Party looking shocked in our tracks.
Englishman.
Would it be safe to say that if the president of the US was a follower of Neichie's
philosophy he would be going about his business doing his job and by modeling
excellence influence those arround him to go about their business of doing their job
of attending to what is going on without hesitation rewarding excellence and
refusing to accept less so that basic services were improved, including security
services, and opportunities for growth and development set in place.........We
didn't have time to go start a war--not even a cultural war.
Would it be safe to say that if the president of the US was a follower of Neichie's
philosophy he would be going about his business doing his job and by modeling
excellence influence those arround him to go about their business of doing their job
of attending to what is going on without hesitation rewarding excellence and
refusing to accept less so that basic services were improved, including security
services, and opportunities for growth and development set in place.........We
didn't have time to go start a war--not even a cultural war.
Would that it was so.
QUOTE(rla @ Apr 14 2005, 07:39 PM)
Life is the integration of perceiving, conceptualizing, feeling, intending and acting. People who do this well appear
strong, centered, confident, engaged, gracefull and not given to justifying their
actions. Their effective and efficient contact with the total situation includes the
feelings and position of significant others and their awareness of what they doing.
how and why they are doing it and attending to outcomes.
strong, centered, confident, engaged, gracefull and not given to justifying their
actions. Their effective and efficient contact with the total situation includes the
feelings and position of significant others and their awareness of what they doing.
how and why they are doing it and attending to outcomes.
I know this matter of integration is very important to you, rla. Could you expand on these remarks and explain?
QUOTE(Englishman @ Apr 15 2005, 03:22 AM)
I suppose I'm re-emphasising the danger of reason being pushed aside when there is a personal involvement. One man's openness then becomes another's laxity: freedom shall not extend to being the freedom to talk - it's more intended to just be the freedom to become any kind of "faith" believer.
It's like a bad remake of "El Norte": "Reasons? Reasons? We don't need no stinkin' reasons!" To be sure, there are questions that are unreasonable, and to answer those would be to join in the unreasonableness, and perhaps confer legitimacy on an obviously illegitimate enterprise. ("Why shouldn't I be a loan shark, anyway?") But as a philosopher, I try to answer even some of these, because basic assumptions are important to what philosophers examine, even if it is unreasonable to do so in daily life and conversation. ("Because it is wrong to use intimidation to extort money from people, even if you can get away with it.")
[quote=Englishman,Apr 17 2005, 10:
Time for a dialogue: A very personal video - John Kerry
[quote=rogerv,Apr 19 2005, 08:06 AM]
I know this matter of integration is very important to you, rla. Could you expand on these remarks and explain?
It's like a bad remake of "El Norte": "Reasons? Reasons? We don't need no stinkin' reasons!" To be sure, there are questions that are unreasonable, and to answer those would be to join in the unreasonableness, and perhaps confer legitimacy on an obviously illegitimate enterprise. ("Why shouldn't I be a loan shark, anyway?") But as a philosopher, I try to answer even some of these, because basic assumptions are important to what philosophers examine, even if it is unreasonable to do so in daily life and conversation. ("Because it is wrong to use intimidation to extort money from people, even if you can get away with it.")
[quote=Englishman,Apr 17 2005, 10:
[/quote]
Rogerv,
I think the reason integration is such a powerful concept is that it organizes a way of thinking that contrast sharply with the traditional linear, cause and
effect thinking that tends to dominate typical western culture thinking. This other
approach to understanding and problem solving is often called systems thinking
or the analysis of part-whole relationships. The standard of excellence for the
linear model is accuracy of prediction and emphasizes quantative methods whereas the systems model is more oriented to qualitative distinctions like
goodness-of-fit, balance, wholeness and performance to a criterion. The
achievement of the optimum interface among the working sub-systems of a
system is what integration means. When a Person integrates perception
with the other comparable sub-systems, the whole person sees, hears, touches,
tastes and smells everything that the person has concepts for, both in spite of and because of all the person's feeling about all those things relative to the person's
past, present and future intentions and what the person is actually doing and
the results of these actions. Maintaining an integrated flow of actions affects the
perceiving process, conceptualizing, feeling and intentions. The quality of each interacting process affects the quality of all the other processes because the person responds as a whole. A major determinant of the quality of each process is the quality of the interface with other processes--thus level of integration provides an index of the degree of fully functioning.
I know this matter of integration is very important to you, rla. Could you expand on these remarks and explain?
It's like a bad remake of "El Norte": "Reasons? Reasons? We don't need no stinkin' reasons!" To be sure, there are questions that are unreasonable, and to answer those would be to join in the unreasonableness, and perhaps confer legitimacy on an obviously illegitimate enterprise. ("Why shouldn't I be a loan shark, anyway?") But as a philosopher, I try to answer even some of these, because basic assumptions are important to what philosophers examine, even if it is unreasonable to do so in daily life and conversation. ("Because it is wrong to use intimidation to extort money from people, even if you can get away with it.")
[quote=Englishman,Apr 17 2005, 10:
[/quote]
Rogerv,
I think the reason integration is such a powerful concept is that it organizes a way of thinking that contrast sharply with the traditional linear, cause and
effect thinking that tends to dominate typical western culture thinking. This other
approach to understanding and problem solving is often called systems thinking
or the analysis of part-whole relationships. The standard of excellence for the
linear model is accuracy of prediction and emphasizes quantative methods whereas the systems model is more oriented to qualitative distinctions like
goodness-of-fit, balance, wholeness and performance to a criterion. The
achievement of the optimum interface among the working sub-systems of a
system is what integration means. When a Person integrates perception
with the other comparable sub-systems, the whole person sees, hears, touches,
tastes and smells everything that the person has concepts for, both in spite of and because of all the person's feeling about all those things relative to the person's
past, present and future intentions and what the person is actually doing and
the results of these actions. Maintaining an integrated flow of actions affects the
perceiving process, conceptualizing, feeling and intentions. The quality of each interacting process affects the quality of all the other processes because the person responds as a whole. A major determinant of the quality of each process is the quality of the interface with other processes--thus level of integration provides an index of the degree of fully functioning.
Roberta Baskin, the new executive director of Center for Public Integrity is on C-span 1 now. Or watch video at http://www.c-span.org
Industry of Influence Nets Almost $13 Billion
Shadowy lobbyists ignore rules and exploit connections
By Alex Knott
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/repor...aid=675&sid=200
WASHINGTON, April 7, 2005 — Special interests and the lobbyists they employ have reported spending, since 1998, a total of almost $13 billion to influence Congress, the White House and more than 200 federal agencies. They've hired a couple thousand former government officials to influence federal policy on everything from abortion and adoption to taxation and welfare. And they've filed—most of the time—thousands of pages of disclosure forms with the Senate Office of Public Records and the House Clerk's Office. .....
Special interests routinely spend far more on lobbying each election cycle than they do contributing to politicians and political parties. In the 2002 election cycle, the most recent for which complete data exists, the Federal Election Commission reported that $1.6 billion was raised. In that same time period, lobbyists received in payment $4 billion to press their case before the government. In 2000, the last presidential election for which complete data exist, those numbers were $2.3 billion for elections compared to $3.5 billion for lobbying.
Yet the resources devoted to tracking Washington's political mercenaries and the billions they are paid to influence the decisions of members of Congress and executive branch officials is minimal. The Senate Office of Public Records employs 11 people, and the equivalent House office employs fewer than 35. By contrast, the FEC, which has authority to enforce campaign finance laws, has 391 employees and an annual budget of $52 million.
That may explain why one in five of the companies lobbying the federal government have failed to file one or more disclosure forms required by law. In all, there are 14,000 missing lobbying documents that should have been filed with Congress since 1998, including documents disclosing the activities of 49 of the top 50 lobbying firms. ......
Industry of Influence Nets Almost $13 Billion
Shadowy lobbyists ignore rules and exploit connections
By Alex Knott
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/repor...aid=675&sid=200
WASHINGTON, April 7, 2005 — Special interests and the lobbyists they employ have reported spending, since 1998, a total of almost $13 billion to influence Congress, the White House and more than 200 federal agencies. They've hired a couple thousand former government officials to influence federal policy on everything from abortion and adoption to taxation and welfare. And they've filed—most of the time—thousands of pages of disclosure forms with the Senate Office of Public Records and the House Clerk's Office. .....
Special interests routinely spend far more on lobbying each election cycle than they do contributing to politicians and political parties. In the 2002 election cycle, the most recent for which complete data exists, the Federal Election Commission reported that $1.6 billion was raised. In that same time period, lobbyists received in payment $4 billion to press their case before the government. In 2000, the last presidential election for which complete data exist, those numbers were $2.3 billion for elections compared to $3.5 billion for lobbying.
Yet the resources devoted to tracking Washington's political mercenaries and the billions they are paid to influence the decisions of members of Congress and executive branch officials is minimal. The Senate Office of Public Records employs 11 people, and the equivalent House office employs fewer than 35. By contrast, the FEC, which has authority to enforce campaign finance laws, has 391 employees and an annual budget of $52 million.
That may explain why one in five of the companies lobbying the federal government have failed to file one or more disclosure forms required by law. In all, there are 14,000 missing lobbying documents that should have been filed with Congress since 1998, including documents disclosing the activities of 49 of the top 50 lobbying firms. ......
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/
Search the database
Influencing the IRS
Nearly 500 companies lobby the tax agency
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/repor...aid=683&sid=200
Breaking the Law
At least one in five companies lobbying fail to file required forms
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/report.aspx?aid=676
Your Tax Dollars at Work—on K Street
Cities, states and universities spend more than half a billion dollars lobbying
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/report.aspx?aid=677
More Than 2,000 Spin Through Revolving Door
Nearly 250 former members of Congress and agency heads register to lobby
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/report.aspx?aid=678
Search the database
Influencing the IRS
Nearly 500 companies lobby the tax agency
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/repor...aid=683&sid=200
Breaking the Law
At least one in five companies lobbying fail to file required forms
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/report.aspx?aid=676
Your Tax Dollars at Work—on K Street
Cities, states and universities spend more than half a billion dollars lobbying
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/report.aspx?aid=677
More Than 2,000 Spin Through Revolving Door
Nearly 250 former members of Congress and agency heads register to lobby
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/report.aspx?aid=678
Summary
Lobbyists Double Spending in Six Years
Center for Public Integrity reveals extent of lobbying influence
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/defau...spx?act=summary
....Out of that $13 billion, almost $600 million was tax and tuition dollars spent by states, local governments and universities. ....
Nearly 250 former members of Congress and agency heads are active lobbyists, and more than 2,000 lobbyists used to work in senior government positions. There is a large financial incentive for the move. .....
Nearly 14,000 documents that should have been filed are missing; nearly 300 individuals, companies or associations lobbied without first registering; more than 2,000 initial registrations were filed after the allowable time frame; 210 out of 250 top lobbying firms failed to file one or more required document; and in more than 2,000 instances, lobbyists never filed the required termination documents at all.
Even those who did file were often late in doing so. Almost 20 percent—36,000 out of 183,000—of lobbying forms were filed late. ....
[Maybe this is why Tom Delay didn't know his trips were paid by lobbyists... the House records on lobbyists are shoddy!!!]
"In 2004 the press wrote ten times as many stories about campaign finance than they did about lobbying," said Baskin. "Such inattention by the public and the press has made it possible for lobbyists to run stealth campaigns that impact America's democracy out of the spotlight." .....
[What liberal media????]
Lobbyists Double Spending in Six Years
Center for Public Integrity reveals extent of lobbying influence
http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/defau...spx?act=summary
....Out of that $13 billion, almost $600 million was tax and tuition dollars spent by states, local governments and universities. ....
Nearly 250 former members of Congress and agency heads are active lobbyists, and more than 2,000 lobbyists used to work in senior government positions. There is a large financial incentive for the move. .....
Nearly 14,000 documents that should have been filed are missing; nearly 300 individuals, companies or associations lobbied without first registering; more than 2,000 initial registrations were filed after the allowable time frame; 210 out of 250 top lobbying firms failed to file one or more required document; and in more than 2,000 instances, lobbyists never filed the required termination documents at all.
Even those who did file were often late in doing so. Almost 20 percent—36,000 out of 183,000—of lobbying forms were filed late. ....
[Maybe this is why Tom Delay didn't know his trips were paid by lobbyists... the House records on lobbyists are shoddy!!!]
"In 2004 the press wrote ten times as many stories about campaign finance than they did about lobbying," said Baskin. "Such inattention by the public and the press has made it possible for lobbyists to run stealth campaigns that impact America's democracy out of the spotlight." .....
[What liberal media????]
Lobbyists Bankrolling Politics
Bush gets nearly four times as much as Kerry
By Alex Knott
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/rep...aid=273&sid=200
WASHINGTON, May 6, 2004 — More than 1,300 registered lobbyists have given slightly more than $1.8 million to President George W. Bush over the last six years, according to a Center for Public Integrity study comparing the donations of all registered lobbyists from 1998 through March 2004. Sen. John Kerry received $520,000 from 442 lobbyists during the same period.....
Bush gets nearly four times as much as Kerry
By Alex Knott
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/rep...aid=273&sid=200
WASHINGTON, May 6, 2004 — More than 1,300 registered lobbyists have given slightly more than $1.8 million to President George W. Bush over the last six years, according to a Center for Public Integrity study comparing the donations of all registered lobbyists from 1998 through March 2004. Sen. John Kerry received $520,000 from 442 lobbyists during the same period.....
Bush Has a New Top Career Patron
MBNA surpasses Enron as the president's top lifetime contributor
By Alex Knott
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=220
WASHINGTON, March 11, 2004 — A small number of donations by employees of the credit card giant MBNA Corp. last month was enough to unseat Enron as President George W. Bush's top career donor.
The Delaware-based company has given Bush $605,041 over his career, while Enron ($602,625) slipped to second, according to a recent supplement to "The Buying of the President 2004," a book by the Center for Public Integrity detailing the financial interests behind each presidential candidate. .....
[Do you think that republicans pushed through an anti-consumer and pro credit card company bankruptcy bill because Bush's biggest supporter is MBNA?]
MBNA surpasses Enron as the president's top lifetime contributor
By Alex Knott
http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=220
WASHINGTON, March 11, 2004 — A small number of donations by employees of the credit card giant MBNA Corp. last month was enough to unseat Enron as President George W. Bush's top career donor.
The Delaware-based company has given Bush $605,041 over his career, while Enron ($602,625) slipped to second, according to a recent supplement to "The Buying of the President 2004," a book by the Center for Public Integrity detailing the financial interests behind each presidential candidate. .....
[Do you think that republicans pushed through an anti-consumer and pro credit card company bankruptcy bill because Bush's biggest supporter is MBNA?]
Outsourcing the Pentagon
Who benefits from the Politics and Economics of National Security?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx?aid=385
Who benefits from the Politics and Economics of National Security?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx?aid=385
John Kerry's political influence making mark in LA mayor's race San Francisco Chronicle
QUOTE(rla @ Apr 15 2005, 12:39 AM)
"Life consists of deciding and acting,not thinking".... Rogerv, I don't know whether this is you or Nietzshe. I think Nietzshe was a brilliant thinker and ahead of his
time. He recognized how dualistic thinking was a problem but he didn't have the advantages of modern science and general symantics or systems theory. I would expand the above statement to Life is the integration of perceiving, conceptualizing, feeling, intending and acting. People who do this well appear
strong, centered, confident, engaged, gracefull and not given to justifying their
actions. Their effective and efficient contact with the total situation includes the
feelings and position of significant others and their awareness of what they doing.
how and why they are doing it and attending to outcomes.
Unfortunately, as a people, we don't pay much attention to what kind of culture we build so we don't grow up in cultures that facilitate healthy, happy development.
The few who do look like heros and will be tolerated by the masses only under certain conditions. Frequently, people with high abilities in some areas and with
lots of resources are able to act llike heros and this leads to disasterous results.
time. He recognized how dualistic thinking was a problem but he didn't have the advantages of modern science and general symantics or systems theory. I would expand the above statement to Life is the integration of perceiving, conceptualizing, feeling, intending and acting. People who do this well appear
strong, centered, confident, engaged, gracefull and not given to justifying their
actions. Their effective and efficient contact with the total situation includes the
feelings and position of significant others and their awareness of what they doing.
how and why they are doing it and attending to outcomes.
Unfortunately, as a people, we don't pay much attention to what kind of culture we build so we don't grow up in cultures that facilitate healthy, happy development.
The few who do look like heros and will be tolerated by the masses only under certain conditions. Frequently, people with high abilities in some areas and with
lots of resources are able to act llike heros and this leads to disasterous results.
I have a vague idea what you mean, rla. I fear that ancient groupings would rather continue to slug it out by only selectively enlightening their supporters - but not too much. (They don't want them giving up the good fight.)
A motive for continuing large-scale immigration which might be neither economic nor humanitarian is that most (by no means all) will be susceptible to a more right wing interpretation of the world.
There are those who would rather not leave cultures and populations settled (but helped). They'd rather have destabilisation, migration and regime change.
Are the Europeans who stayed in Europe still more likely to want to find out how to live together than Americans, who, essentially, began their new family histories by believing in moving on?
GOP Stressing Constitution in Judge Battle San Francisco Chronicle
Ministers braced to defend action if legal advice is leaked Guardian Unlimited
QUOTE(Englishman @ Apr 25 2005, 12:43 AM)
I have a vague idea what you mean, rla. I fear that ancient groupings would rather continue to slug it out by only selectively enlightening their supporters - but not too much. (They don't want them giving up the good fight.)
A motive for continuing large-scale immigration which might be neither economic nor humanitarian is that most (by no means all) will be susceptible to a more right wing interpretation of the world.
There are those who would rather not leave cultures and populations settled (but helped). They'd rather have destabilisation, migration and regime change.
Are the Europeans who stayed in Europe still more likely to want to find out how to live together than Americans, who, essentially, began their new family histories by believing in moving on?
A motive for continuing large-scale immigration which might be neither economic nor humanitarian is that most (by no means all) will be susceptible to a more right wing interpretation of the world.
There are those who would rather not leave cultures and populations settled (but helped). They'd rather have destabilisation, migration and regime change.
Are the Europeans who stayed in Europe still more likely to want to find out how to live together than Americans, who, essentially, began their new family histories by believing in moving on?
I don't know, Englishman, you're closer to the European mind than I. The Zen Master says you can't take two steps in the same river. I understand that Europe
is getting more immigrants coming in than you're sending out so I imagine real
community is still illussive. Also, I have a young English horse woman for a
neighbor who keeps extending her visa. We may have to learn to love every body or nobody.
QUOTE(rla @ Apr 28 2005, 01:00 PM)
The Zen Master says you can't take two steps in the same river.
Actually, that was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus that said that.
Lesotho Elects Local Authorities for First Time Voice of America
Is the mistake of our time to equate what survives with what's best?
Do we close off consideration of an alternative because it contains risk - preferring a certainty of regimentation?
Aren't we sleepwalking into a tyranny of the timid: facilitated by visionless politicians and just enough of the electorate?
Do we close off consideration of an alternative because it contains risk - preferring a certainty of regimentation?
Aren't we sleepwalking into a tyranny of the timid: facilitated by visionless politicians and just enough of the electorate?
QUOTE(Englishman @ May 2 2005, 05:51 AM)
Is the mistake of our time to equate what survives with what's best?
Do we close off consideration of an alternative because it contains risk - preferring a certainty of regimentation?
Aren't we sleepwalking into a tyranny of the timid: facilitated by visionless politicians and just enough of the electorate?
Do we close off consideration of an alternative because it contains risk - preferring a certainty of regimentation?
Aren't we sleepwalking into a tyranny of the timid: facilitated by visionless politicians and just enough of the electorate?
Yea, we don't seem to be able to distinguish the golden middle from the rotten core. This shows up in our organizations when they get tired and ineffective
they seem to see every challenge as a threat to survival. Once we go into a survival mode we stop growing and start dying. The US is certainly emersed
in a survival mode. Perhaps its time for a new group of Beatles?
worldchanging - another world is here Community Networking in the 21st Century:
Triumph of the Wills?
The great fortune (for us) is that they spend their time giving demonstrations of their will. Some catalyst (not consumed) has set them off. They won't bury Nature, their own nature buries them.
The great fortune (for us) is that they spend their time giving demonstrations of their will. Some catalyst (not consumed) has set them off. They won't bury Nature, their own nature buries them.
Iran insists it won't give up nuke program Chicago Sun-Times
Hitlers and other gangsters always seemed foolish to me - why would you want crowds of people either conned or terrified into saluting you - isn't it better to have the praise of a few people you respect?
Politicians differ, just like the rest of us, but should we (the electorate) go on allowing intoxicating power-moments like having one man declaring war... Doesn't this (drama) bring distortion to the selection of people we need?
Those who believe the exercise of raw power to be a virtue will not want us to be open about how futile their attempts can be. Ancient concepts of "victory" may no longer apply.
Politicians differ, just like the rest of us, but should we (the electorate) go on allowing intoxicating power-moments like having one man declaring war... Doesn't this (drama) bring distortion to the selection of people we need?
Those who believe the exercise of raw power to be a virtue will not want us to be open about how futile their attempts can be. Ancient concepts of "victory" may no longer apply.
Microsoft decides to back gay-rights bill Seattle Times
Not all have read standards Kansas City Star
Road work ahead Newsday
'Vision of the Virgin' vandalised BBC News
On Sunday morning my mother, father and I, buried Kitty. Nearly eighteen years is a long time to know even a cat.
My parents are around eighty and the only easy way was the way I've seen all our funerals done - to talk in a half-religious way.
There are a great many ways words have to be used - not just are used.
My parents are around eighty and the only easy way was the way I've seen all our funerals done - to talk in a half-religious way.
There are a great many ways words have to be used - not just are used.
Soong seeks common prosperity China Daily
If we just look through the review section of a weekend newspaper and see the sheer variety of approaches different writers are taking to life - we can wake up to the folly of those who would rather our societies became closed-thinking war machines.
Why should we prefer color and variety to various shades of military gray? Because wars are supposed to be temporary, not taking over our motives and minds - not becoming the end in themselves.
Repeating the word freedom endlessly is but one hopeless tune: the prelude to monochromatic, monotheistic empire.
Why should we prefer color and variety to various shades of military gray? Because wars are supposed to be temporary, not taking over our motives and minds - not becoming the end in themselves.
Repeating the word freedom endlessly is but one hopeless tune: the prelude to monochromatic, monotheistic empire.
englishman,
you are right--wars are supposed to be temporary. But have they in fact been? Since World War Two, the US has been in many many small scale wars. I'm not sure how many years we have had in the last fifty of so when we have not had military incidents, engagements, conflicts. And it makes sense--one does not have a standing military that is worth much unless one gives them practice at regular intervals. Now, we do have something we call military exercises. But my guess is that savvy commnaders know that the exercises are not the same thing--and that, if they do not actually encourage, welcome the chance to have more realistic practice. Now, i balance that consideration with the knowledge that nobody wants war (not even the commanders). What sort of compromise do we get out of that? Low-level engagements that work against an inferior enemy, keeps casualties low, but allows the troops to get a sense of battle without the hazzard of battle--things like Nicaraugua and Panama and Grenada. The upshot is less continual warfare, but something more like continual bullying. The danger is that we do not see that such behavior has consequences. WE think, because casualties are low that no one can get really upset. But think of the analogy. The mafia doesn't actually have to kill a lot of people to get effective intimidation. Arm twisted, threats, pictures of ones children playing in a playground--all get across the message 'we can get you whenever we want to.' That, I think, is the message we have been sending for sometime. I think it may be the message the 9/11 hijackers were trying to send back to us.
you are right--wars are supposed to be temporary. But have they in fact been? Since World War Two, the US has been in many many small scale wars. I'm not sure how many years we have had in the last fifty of so when we have not had military incidents, engagements, conflicts. And it makes sense--one does not have a standing military that is worth much unless one gives them practice at regular intervals. Now, we do have something we call military exercises. But my guess is that savvy commnaders know that the exercises are not the same thing--and that, if they do not actually encourage, welcome the chance to have more realistic practice. Now, i balance that consideration with the knowledge that nobody wants war (not even the commanders). What sort of compromise do we get out of that? Low-level engagements that work against an inferior enemy, keeps casualties low, but allows the troops to get a sense of battle without the hazzard of battle--things like Nicaraugua and Panama and Grenada. The upshot is less continual warfare, but something more like continual bullying. The danger is that we do not see that such behavior has consequences. WE think, because casualties are low that no one can get really upset. But think of the analogy. The mafia doesn't actually have to kill a lot of people to get effective intimidation. Arm twisted, threats, pictures of ones children playing in a playground--all get across the message 'we can get you whenever we want to.' That, I think, is the message we have been sending for sometime. I think it may be the message the 9/11 hijackers were trying to send back to us.
QUOTE(theglobalchinese @ May 10 2005, 03:53 PM)
Another defeat for openness in government. Insofar as the court continues to support secret policy procedings and secret detentions, it will support the forces that are blocking democracy. It is sad that the language of accountability is ubiquitous at just the time when ity is least apparent in actions--perhaps that is generally the case (i.e., the more people talk about virtue, the less they exemplify it in their actions. Talk usually iindicates absence, not presence.)
QUOTE(rogerv @ May 14 2005, 04:51 PM)
englishman,
you are right--wars are supposed to be temporary. But have they in fact been? Since World War Two, the US has been in many many small scale wars. I'm not sure how many years we have had in the last fifty of so when we have not had military incidents, engagements, conflicts. And it makes sense--one does not have a standing military that is worth much unless one gives them practice at regular intervals. Now, we do have something we call military exercises. But my guess is that savvy commnaders know that the exercises are not the same thing--and that, if they do not actually encourage, welcome the chance to have more realistic practice. Now, i balance that consideration with the knowledge that nobody wants war (not even the commanders). What sort of compromise do we get out of that? Low-level engagements that work against an inferior enemy, keeps casualties low, but allows the troops to get a sense of battle without the hazzard of battle--things like Nicaraugua and Panama and Grenada. The upshot is less continual warfare, but something more like continual bullying. The danger is that we do not see that such behavior has consequences. WE think, because casualties are low that no one can get really upset. But think of the analogy. The mafia doesn't actually have to kill a lot of people to get effective intimidation. Arm twisted, threats, pictures of ones children playing in a playground--all get across the message 'we can get you whenever we want to.' That, I think, is the message we have been sending for sometime. I think it may be the message the 9/11 hijackers were trying to send back to us.
you are right--wars are supposed to be temporary. But have they in fact been? Since World War Two, the US has been in many many small scale wars. I'm not sure how many years we have had in the last fifty of so when we have not had military incidents, engagements, conflicts. And it makes sense--one does not have a standing military that is worth much unless one gives them practice at regular intervals. Now, we do have something we call military exercises. But my guess is that savvy commnaders know that the exercises are not the same thing--and that, if they do not actually encourage, welcome the chance to have more realistic practice. Now, i balance that consideration with the knowledge that nobody wants war (not even the commanders). What sort of compromise do we get out of that? Low-level engagements that work against an inferior enemy, keeps casualties low, but allows the troops to get a sense of battle without the hazzard of battle--things like Nicaraugua and Panama and Grenada. The upshot is less continual warfare, but something more like continual bullying. The danger is that we do not see that such behavior has consequences. WE think, because casualties are low that no one can get really upset. But think of the analogy. The mafia doesn't actually have to kill a lot of people to get effective intimidation. Arm twisted, threats, pictures of ones children playing in a playground--all get across the message 'we can get you whenever we want to.' That, I think, is the message we have been sending for sometime. I think it may be the message the 9/11 hijackers were trying to send back to us.
I'm tempted to think of politicians as growing up in the shadow of a yard full of earth-moving equipment. They swallow years of hearing how it mustn't be touched.
There then follows the time when they're no longer unelected, or in opposition - and for a while just having their opponents know they can do it, is enough. But, eventually, they want to get beyond a life of being a mere user of words.
This is where those airy-fairy things called ethics ought to kick in. But then if you're already geared up for battle you just talk of firmness and resolution instead.
QUOTE(Englishman @ May 14 2005, 04:09 PM)
I'm tempted to think of politicians as growing up in the shadow of a yard full of earth-moving equipment. They swallow years of hearing how it mustn't be touched.
There then follows the time when they're no longer unelected, or in opposition - and for a while just having their opponents know they can do it, is enough. But, eventually, they want to get beyond a life of being a mere user of words.
This is where those airy-fairy things called ethics ought to kick in. But then if you're already geared up for battle you just talk of firmness and resolution instead.
There then follows the time when they're no longer unelected, or in opposition - and for a while just having their opponents know they can do it, is enough. But, eventually, they want to get beyond a life of being a mere user of words.
This is where those airy-fairy things called ethics ought to kick in. But then if you're already geared up for battle you just talk of firmness and resolution instead.
I just finished a scary little book about Hitler. It was pretty much a myth-debunking book--no new scholarship in it, just a good sense of what has been established (with a pretty nice reference bibliography) and what is merely rumor. One thing that sticks out is that nobody caught on that Hitler really wanted war. Diplomacy was positioning. Hitler wanted the real deal. He claims to never have felt so alive as when World War One broke out. He was eager for World War Two. It was never a question 'if' for him, only 'when'.
I'm still puzzled as to why your government's taken the route it has. I know it's possible to say that politicians grab whatever opportunity for power presents itself - as irresistibly as the scorpion stinging the frog that's just saved it - and that therefore they're just fulfilling their nature; but I still believed there was more intelligence behind your system than to allow wreckers to take control. Then I read that some places are taking matters into their own hands and will do what they can to cut greenhouse gases.
It can't be a substitute for good government decisions: but might it lead into a better replacement for orders unwillingly followed - that is, a majority becoming so incensed that a far greater change in the target behaviour occurs? Bush as agent provocateur!
He has certainly made us think. (One wouldn't want this backwards-government forever. But perhaps history will look at the present as a necessary stage in our waking up.)
It can't be a substitute for good government decisions: but might it lead into a better replacement for orders unwillingly followed - that is, a majority becoming so incensed that a far greater change in the target behaviour occurs? Bush as agent provocateur!
He has certainly made us think. (One wouldn't want this backwards-government forever. But perhaps history will look at the present as a necessary stage in our waking up.)
US generals say Iraq outlook 'bleak' Christian Science Monitor
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.