The White House has hit on an ingenious way to win the war in Iraq. It is all laid out in a White House policy paper, “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” The strategy was conceived and written not by the nation’s top military strategists but rather by Peter Feaver, an associate professor at Duke University whose field is public… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (210)Point of information, Jay---I did not say that all hunter-gatherer tribes are anarchist, I said all anarchist tribes (seven count, last time I looked into it) are hunter/gatherers. Agriculture requires a lot of organization and planning.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 29, 2005 at 8:06 PM LB,
You just indicated your own prejudice. When I said anyone (clown is your namecalling again) could find a religious verse to suit his interpretation of justice (or any topic for that matter), note the word “anyone.” This includes any and all religions as well as any person.
It is not the “wise person” we need to worry about.
If you can’t think of any examples to fit the above, work on your own ignorance.
Looks like a case of the pot and kettle from here. But then, I guess you can find a chapter and verse to suit your interpretation if you try.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 30, 2005 at 7:20 AM WTH;
Yes, I admit to my own ignorance and prejudice.
No, I am not calling you or anyone specifically a clown.
And yes I can find chapter and verse to fit my interpretation.
It is the fundamental premise of my argument, which for your illumination, I will repeat again:“The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole men are more good than bad; that, however, isn’t the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. There can be no true goodness, nor true love, without the utmost clear-sightedness.”
It is always helpful to encourage the fool to become wise.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 30, 2005 at 8:08 AM If you still don’t get it, the difference is, this pot knows it is black.
What does the kettle know?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 30, 2005 at 8:22 AM whattheheck,
Remember, lb, by virtue of his self-appointed authority, is the final arbiter of who is a fool and who is wise.
If you disagree with him, you are a fool, and as that is his gospel, it is neither name-calling or disingenuous.
He is merely trying to make you a better person in his own image.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 30, 2005 at 9:34 AM wiley,
Apologies.
Posner referenced Robert Trivers’ work, and the work of other evolutionary psychologists of humans, in prehistoric times. I am not sure, but I don’t think there were only seven H-G tribes then. And I’m guessing that is not to which you are referring.
I agree completely that agriculture requires more formal organization and institutions than H-G societies, and that requirement has led to what we now refer to complex civilizations. But not having formal institutions to maintain order does not necessarily mean an anarchist society. A family does not have a formal organization, yet it is not an anarchist social unit. There is structure and order, albiet informal and implied.
I’m honestly curious who those seven tribes are, and who has classified them as anarchistic. I presume you are referring to modern day H-G tribes?
As an aside, I also admittedly know little about ‘evolutionary psychologists’; the term is new to me as well.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 30, 2005 at 9:34 AM Jay-Jay;
The wise recognize the wise, the fool only recognizes his own opinion.
You are a flaming idiot. Yes it is name-calling. Nothing disingenuous about it. It is an eponym thoroughly deserved.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 30, 2005 at 11:12 AM lb,
I think you have forgotten your Socrates.
You must remember it, you know, the one about what true wisdom recognizes? and the ‘wisdom’ of notable Athenians?
No?
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 30, 2005 at 11:51 AM Jay-Jay,
Not at all.
In true Socratic tradition, I am simply trying to provoke some intelligent thought and self-reflection from such an obvious group of trolls, as hopeless as that may be. You should not get so defensive about a little constructive criticism.
lb
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 30, 2005 at 12:09 PM Jay-Jay;
I see only one hopeless troll here. Is that the Multiple Personality Syndrome kicking in?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 30, 2005 at 12:31 PM To be fair Jay-Jay, the limit of my knowledge is my awareness that the beginning of wisdom is the recognition of my ignorance. I must confess that I am continually stuck at the beginning since every new thing I learn just increases the awesome and mysterious expanse of what I don’t know. You have my sincere willing permission to speed on past me and assault the mountain top. I’ll even hold the gate open for you.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 30, 2005 at 12:41 PM good, good. We are making progress.
That was actually more funny than sour.
Posted by Jay Cline on Dec 30, 2005 at 1:35 PM Jay-Jay;
Progress is always there, ready for you to make, compadre.
Can you make out the path?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 30, 2005 at 2:02 PM Jay, it’s been longer than I want to admit probably since I read up on anarchist tribes. I think we’re crossing wires, here. I have no clue how many hunter/gatherer tribes there are.
I read an anthropoligal study of existing anarchist tribes about seven or eight years ago which counted 7---they were hunter/gatherers. If I remember correctly, an aborignal tribe in Australia was among them, and a group of Pygmies. There was one that lived on a the Pacific island, and a few others. They had no government, were completely self-reliant, were extraordinarily healthy, and had remarkably keen senses.
Unfortunately, development is ruining their habitats. In one African tribe, those who went to work in the cities were banished from the group. They considered wage work to be a form of servitude that was not compatible with their tribal identity.
I would love to know how they raise their children.
I’m always wary of the practice of attributing motives, and values to peoples that left no records. It’s too easy to project---like thinking your cat actually likes you, ya know. I once read an essay in an art historiography class that went on and on and on about a phallis worshipping culture. By the end of the paper, it was clear that the only remaining artifacts of this culture was a pile of uncarved vertical rocks.
Sociobiologists? Don’t even get me started on sociobiologists. It appears to me that we humans have a somewhat compulsive need to explain everything and are a bit too uncomfortable with unknowns for our own good.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 30, 2005 at 5:00 PM LB Says…
again & yet again (as if repetition makes it more believeable),
“The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole men are more good than bad; that, however, isn’t the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. There can be no true goodness, nor true love, without the utmost clear-sightedness.”Nonsense! This is just extreme over simplification and very naive. Evil does not ALWAYS come from ignorance. If that were true only the less knowledgeable would do evil things. Greed, lust, pick your poison — do not need ignorance to operate. A person can be totally self-absorbed, just not give a damn and still be very well informed and educated. He can just tell Camus to go to hell.
You may believe that if you like, but some pretty bright people are capable of very evil deeds. Do you disbelieve there can be people who clearly see and yet commit very unloving, vicious acts.
If you are ever confronted by an armed assailant, you’d better hope for one who is longing to be led to enlightenment by you and not one content to remain his ignorant, violent “more good than bad” self.
Coming up once again with your own chapter and verse proved my point. You and I can’t agree, yet because you perceive your interpretation to be “right,” you justify yourself. This is just what anyone can do by picking selected scripture, philosophy or digma to allow him to act in his own self interest.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 30, 2005 at 6:28 PM WTH---just want to make a couple of points--- intelligence and knowledge and understanding are all different things. A lack of knowledge does not mean a lack of intelligence, but precludes understanding.
Sociopaths can be very smart, and very knowledgable (sp?), so I agree with some of what you’re saying (albeit, I have not carefully read this thread). I think it could be fairly argued that sociopaths are ignorant of love and understanding (empathy), though that’s an understatement.
(My mother died today. Or was it yesterday? “The Stranger” --- Albert Camus)
Though I do have to agree that an ignorance which fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill is an incorrigble vice. So is a habit of using denial to quiet fear, instead of dealing with what is. Not making accusations here, don’t take any of this personally, I’m just considering this bit of Camus.
And I agree somewhat with there can be no true goodness, nor true love, without the utmost clear-sightedness. We can often skate by o.k. with our limited vision. However, when we are not at least trying to gain understanding and clear-sightedness, and are unwilling to examine and re-examine our beliefs and assumptions, then we hang in the breach.
Here I think is the achilles heel of the U.S.---being wrong (which all human beings are at one time or another (often more than once)) is considered to be such a weakness, and consistency is so overated (an industrial curse) that people are afraid to change when change is necessary for adaptation, and so we become maladapted and afraid. If we can’t change our minds without fear then what can we do without fear? It’s as if we only rent ourselves, and some invisible judge holds the titles.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 30, 2005 at 7:04 PM I have to repeat something three times before you recognize it and you still don’t understand the point of it.
You consider yourself knowledgeable, informed, intelligent, yes? I don’t believe you are reading anything here with any intention of trying to understand a point of view different from your own. It is not necessary for you to agree. You have strong pre-conceived notions that preclude simple comprehension. A very virulent form of ignorance.Simple it may be, but you prove my point, with your unconsidered denial.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 9:40 AM Higher intelligence often means only the increased opportunity to make stupid mistakes. Usually mistakes of greater consequence. The ancients called it hubris.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 9:52 AM Wiley;
Having worked with ‘criminally insane’ inmates, it isn’t really true that sociopathic behavior denotes the complete and utter lack of empathy in an individual. Persons suffering from the organic condition of autism in its most extreme form truly lack empathy yet most autistic individuals are ‘good’ enough to realize they must learn to mimic empathic behaviors to get along in society. The problem with most sociopaths is their natural empathic feelings become inverted. They see themselves as the victims and those they victimize represent their often imaginary tormentors.
A lot like Jay-Jay and WTH. They can justify their own hatred, yet the understandable hatred of others is beyond their comprehension.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 10:15 AM And WTH;
Spare me your bromides about ‘violent confrontations’ until you’ve had the unenviable experience of talking down an individual who has already cut three people and is in the middle of a psychotic fugue.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 10:35 AM Especially when it’s not your job, you have no training for it, and there is no one around to back you up.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 10:52 AM LB, Wiley and Jay…
I realize as LB stated, “intelligence and knowledge and understanding are all different things. A lack of knowledge does not mean a lack of intelligence, but precludes understanding.”
I think our problem communication is one of perceived topic. I am still basically thinking in terms of the original article and the current war with the Muslim extremists. (Terrorists is too vague abroad a target for me.) The three of you are more into philosophy and a larger view—mankind and behavior in general.
Does it matter whether a fatwa IS legally binding as long as the one willing to do it perceives it as such? The saying, “All’s fair in love and war.” can be debated in theory, but not in the heat of battle. I like this from the old TV show, Banacek, staring George Peppard. “When the wolf is chasing your sleigh, throw him a cookie. But...don’t stop to bake him a cake.”
I am not qualified to determine whether Osama, Saddam or others are sociopathic or not, nor do I care. I am concerned with the prospect of another attack by whomever and for whatever their reasons might be. I am thinking in terms of the present situation and not the causes for Muslim unrest, dislikes, perceived slights to their religion or anything else.
My point is they may feel totally justified by their interpretation of the Koran (Quran?) I frankly don’t give a damn how the feel if they attack.
I don’t know if Hitler, Tojo and El Duce were totally bananas — I was overjoyed to see them gotten rid of. There were numerous actions leading up to WW2 which a number of countries took that contributed to the final choice to go to war. No one is ever totally fault-free whether by misjudgment or design. (also irrelevant when the shooting starts)
As for the hypothetical: You can call it ignorance if you like, (to me ignorance relates more to knowledge than to wisdom), but IMO there will always be people willing to think only of themselves. They may think they “know it all” or just not care — the result is we must deal with them and the situation regardless.
I believe there is a basic difference of opinion about the war which needs to be settled. Are we indeed faced with the most dangerous physical threat to this country ever? Are we faced with our national survival or not?
This administration has attempted to fight against a very real threat (I truly believe this.) without allowing the public to feel threatened. They have used idiotic, half measures: giving the appearance of increasing security with color coded alert levels, searching air passengers at random to avoid “profiling” and insisted we should go about our business as usual.
The Result: Many people have come to think 9/11 and all the many prior terrorist attacks were unorchestrated and unrelated — that the threat is less serious and a ploy by our government to control the masses. They have treated the American public like children. A parent must realize that at a certain age simply saying, “Because I said so,” is inadequate and an explanation of the danger in crossing the street is called for.
If you want chapter and verse, how about, “The truth will set you free.”?
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 31, 2005 at 11:33 AM LB,
As for violent confrontations… How do you know whether I have such experience or not — a bit of conclusion hopping on your part?
My entire family may be psychotic, right? Could be my daily homelife experience.
Even with your experience example, my guess is you have applied that in a war situation or we would not be discussing this.
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 31, 2005 at 11:39 AM I have no idea what your experience is. You are the one who made the presumption about my experience.
“If you are ever confronted by an armed assailant, you’d better hope for one who is longing to be led to enlightenment by you and not one content to remain his ignorant, violent ‘more good than bad’ self”
I do understand your point of view. It nothing more or less than if you get kicked, kick back. It is nothing more or less than the law of the jungle, writ large in the context of international affairs. It is the poster boy version of simplistic and naive.
It seems only reasonable to me that if one is really concerned about ending terroristic attacks, one would use one’s intelligence to try and make an objective effort to determine what is causing people to do such things. People do become resentful when you put your boot on their neck. The US is no helpless fragile victim. The US corporate state has had a big, big hand in creating these conditions. Pretending it doesn’t matter is not helpful at all.
I have never been in the middle of the shit, if you except the occasional stray chunk of lead whistling through the trees. I have seen enough of its consequence to know it is a situation in which no sane person would ever want to put themselves. Enough to know in that situation all one can do is keep one’s head down, do what you have to do, and get out as fast as you can. It’s not a situation where deep thought is of much use.
This is not the situation you or I are presently experiencing. It is unrealistic dissembling to pretend that it is pertinent.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 12:35 PM LB,
You continually express your dissatisfaction with the U.S. (as well as nearly everything said on this website) It seems to me you are looking for perfection. Do you have some place better than the U.S. in mind as a model for us to look up to?
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 31, 2005 at 1:05 PM I realize as LB stated, “intelligence and knowledge and understanding are all different things. A lack of knowledge does not mean a lack of intelligence, but precludes understanding.”
That was me---Wiley. Not to be pedantic, but in the category of pathologies, what----in your mind---distinguishes loading a jet with radioactive missiles and firing on cities, and then loading the jet again, and again, and firing more missiles for weeks on end (with a group of pilots on a rotating schedule (with millions of dollars worth of equipment)) from highjacking and flying plains into buildings?
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 31, 2005 at 1:58 PM WTH’
I’m not as dissatisfied with the whole of the US as you might think. I do think ignoring one’s imperfections and allowing them to fester in ignorance is just asking for trouble. I do consider myself progressive in that while perfection may well be an unrealizable ideal, we are always capable of being better than we are. You seem to think that no one or nothing is ever going to change. It is curious that you think it unseemly of me to disagree.
The model I look up to is the one intimated by those rare persons who exhibit the features of non-ordinary wisdom and compassion. You don’t have to agree with me, but understand, these are my core values as imperfectly as I may express them. You haven’t come near presenting anything worthy to replace them.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 2:05 PM I’ll bite---Sweden and Canada.
Thanks for the nod to Canada, Wiley :)
Happy Hogmanay
See you next year.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 31, 2005 at 2:19 PM How do you get in there, David?
It’s good to see ya. Next year. There is something inherently silly about language and titles, hey. Am off to check out Hogmanay. Tschuss (sp?), nay.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 31, 2005 at 2:47 PM Auld Lang Syne
Robert Burns 1788
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne!
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne.
We’ll tak a cup o’ kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
And surely ye’ll be your pint stowp!
And surely I’ll be mine!
And we’ll tak a cup o’kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.For auld, &c;.
We twa hae run about the braes,
And pou’d the gowans fine;
But we’ve wander’d mony a weary fit,
Sin’ auld lang syne.
For auld, &c;.
We twa hae paidl’d in the burn,
Frae morning sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roar’d
Sin’ auld lang syne.
For auld, &c;.
And there’s a hand, my trusty fere!
And gie’s a hand o’ thine!
And we’ll tak a right gude-willie waught,
For auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne.
We’ll tak a cup o’ kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.Salud! Zum Heil! To Your Health! May the Roses In Your Path Be Free Of Thorns!
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 3:00 PM Lumens, I see your point about sociopathy.....kinda. I was a nanny to a child with (I don’t like these titles, but it is the best we can do, sometimes) Reactive Attachment Disorder. She would scream like she was being murdered after hearing the word “no”. I know the reactive victim mode all too well.
After the war, many soldiers will leave their lizard brain, return to their frontal cortex, and then hurt like hell for the rest of their (short) lives. Many people will point to the unaffected psychopaths as a model of how well adjusted the veterans of Gulf II ought to be.
Many Iraqi and Aghani infants will grow up to be sociopaths because their infancy was dominated by violence and fear and so they did not learn security, and care, and love. They will be at home in chaos. Many people will point to people unaffected by war as a model of how well adjusted these people ought to be.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 31, 2005 at 3:13 PM ... und tschuss, ja.
Gather the rosebuds while you may, the thorns come soon enough.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 31, 2005 at 3:47 PM Wiley,
I might add those psychological problems are exponentially exacerbated by physical organic factors like debilitating injury, poor nutrition and untreated disease.
They are then easily dismissed by the jealously privileged ones who clog the halls of power as filthy, ignorant and uncivilized savages who only understand force.
And the circle goes ‘round and ‘round.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 31, 2005 at 5:01 PM I agree, and I am being a little pedantic, but I think it is important to refer to sociopathy as a developmental problem. psychological problems can be healed with psychological solutions---not so sociopathy.
The jury is still out on whether or not someone can develop a conscience (a neural network of deep connectedness in the brain/mind) after puberty. And it is arguable whether or not a person can develop a conscience after infancy.
But, yes, the circle goes round and round. Newborn people should not be slaves to fashion, or judged and labeled by circumstances that they clearly had no control over.
A sociopath isn’t doomed to be a psychopath. It’s best not to stir rage in predatory people.
That “all they understand is force” is the language of an abuser.
Kurt Vonnegut said that the human race is too hilariously stupid to survive. Not wanting to be a victim of wishful thinking, I have to consider the possibility that we’re all assholes.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 31, 2005 at 5:57 PM I don’t celebrate New Year’s Eve and it’s been raining for days.
Here’s a qoute form Gabriel Kolko(some guy I never heard of before) about intelligence and policy:
“The state’s intelligence mechanisms are constrained by a larger structural and ideological environment and by the inherent irrationality of a foreign policy which foredooms any effort to base action on informed insight to a chimera. Even when the insight is exact, and knowledge is far greater than ignorance, political and social boundaries usually place decisive limits on the application of ‘rationality’ to actions. The political and ideological imperatives and interests define the nature of ‘relevant’ truths. Intelligence’s pretension to being objective is a hoax because those parts of it that do not reconfirm the power structure’s interests and predetermined policies are ignored and discarded. There are innumerable reasons we must conclude this. Even more important is the entire experience with Iraq and the U.S.’ failed confrontation with the Islamic world for over half a century. To expect the U.S. to behave other than as it has is to cultivate serious illusions and delude oneself.
“The system, in a word, is irrational. We saw it in Vietnam and we are seeing it today in Iraq.”
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 31, 2005 at 6:03 PM LB & Wiley,
I do not think there is any reason to think mankind in general is ever going to change. Individuals — possibly. But working with each new generation and each individual, one at a time will never accomplish a major shift in national, let alone global behavior.
I think the models you both look up to and your personal ideals are laudable.
LB said, “You don’t have to agree with me, but understand, these are my core values as imperfectly as I may express them. You haven’t come near presenting anything worthy to replace them.”
That’s OK. You, Jay and Wiley are all concerning yourselves with the big picture. I’m still thinking in immediate war terms. Not the causes — the defense and immediacy of it. If you people do not believe we are dealing with our national survival, then we are on separate pages here. Most of my previous comments have been directed at what I perceive to be such a threat.
With that in mind, Wiley, I don’t think anything short of killing or being killed is an option. Bombing, shooting spying or whatever it takes is what will happen when people revert to that end of the needs pyramid. War is basically what results when at least one faction is not rational.
Wiley, as far as the methods employed — I’m sure there is little difference to those who are targeted.
At my age I’m hearing very regularly of friends and relatives with serious and terminal health problems. Discussions such as ours quickly lose their importance similar to your attitude (Wiley) a short time back when you sent me the story of the Kurds.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 2, 2006 at 10:45 AM LB,
I have been on the scene at two armed robberies and shot once. I was not an intended target and the bullet bounced off. Not that I am Superman — it was just nearly spent (It ricocheted off three walls first.) and I was wearing heavy winter clothing. :-)
When the part of town where I had worked for over 25 years began to get increasingly violent I had the luxury of moving home to work in a more peaceful neighborhood.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 2, 2006 at 10:57 AM LB & Wiley,
Sweden and Canada would both be acceptable to me in many ways. My wife still has Swedish relatives with whom we are in touch. Her father came here in 1920. My Swedish connections are too many generations removed to know where to start looking.
Both countries have their own problems and if it were not for the U.S. hogging the international headlines, they would likely get a bigger share of criticism.
Sweden is currently over their heads with imigrants — too many people showed up for the “free lunch” program. I have met a couple of Canadians at our hospitals due to too long a wait for their gov. health care. (Same with a friend in London.)
I am uncomfortable with the degree of government involvement in the lives of their citizens. I feel the same about the increasing of it here. Nobody owes me anything in life. No matter how good the intensions, I think every government program I have ever seen in operation has been a disaster. It is better to know there are no life preservers on board than to count on them and discover they are filled with lead when you grab for it.
Maybe if we could merge the best of each system we’d all be better off.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 2, 2006 at 11:01 AM We all got problems, WTH.
That’s the human condition. Another aspect of the human condition is that it is continually changing. As you have intimated, as one gets older one is constantly reminded of one’s own impermanence. The older I get the more urgent it seems to me to use whatever time I may have to try and leave the planet a little better than I found it. It isn’t really so important I am successful, but that I make the effort. More important still to encourage others to make the effort. The greater society is, after all, the sum of our individual efforts. I have no sense that society owes me anything, rather, I bear responsibility for the society in which I live. I am much more concerned for the lack of involvement of citizens in their government.
You are wrong to believe that I am not concerned with our nation’s survival, but I ultimately see it as integral to the survival of the whole planet. By setting ourselves apart from the rest of the world and insisting that our interests are paramount and trump anyone else’s interests, sucking up the lion’s share of the world’s resources and leaving the bulk of the world’s population to fester in poverty, we are creating terrorists. There is little likelihood that invading and occupying other countries under the thinly disguised pretext of controlling their resources will ever do anything but increase the danger. This is only reasonable, given human nature, as it is.
You want to defeat our enemies, first conquer the enemy in your own heart. That impulse that reacts to injury and the threat of injury with fear and anger, hatred and revenge. As long as one is only intent on inflicting punishment on affectively and abstractly conceived ‘evil-doers’, one is not thinking clearly. Not thinking clearly is a liability in a fight.
I cannot say for certain whether human nature will ever be better than it is. There certainly seems to be some kind of general though not absolutely determinant evolutionary arc in both social and individual development. We know things can always go wrong. I do know it is less likely to happen and more likely to go bad unless we at least embrace the possibility of it getting better.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 2, 2006 at 12:40 PM LB,
Call it what you will, but I have a hierarchy of concern where people are concerned. My family, my friends, my country in descending order wiill always be my priority.
This doesn’t mean I disagree with your broader theory on making the world a better place than before we got here, but I have no illusions that I can make much of a difference outside of a very small circle of personal contacts.
Any monetary or volunteer contributions I have made or can in the future, will have little actual effect on the world. Probably the best thing I can do is try to avoid hurting people by my tendency to speak too quickly and too bluntly.
Please, no sermons. I’ve had enough to last two lifetimes.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 2, 2006 at 2:26 PM No sin in speaking quickly or bluntly if it prevents some greater harm.
Sorry if you don’t want to hear my sermonizing. How many lifetimes do you think it will take before you no longer are in need of sermons?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 2, 2006 at 2:55 PM If you were truly free from illusion there would be no barrier in your mind about the need to make the world a better place, regardless of your personal limitations.
If your desire to protect your own has precedence over your desire to hurt your ‘enemy’.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 2, 2006 at 3:10 PM I used to work several retired women who remembered the Great Depression. They were fascinating women who, each in their own way, had a sense of community.
One of them told me that when she felt the world was going to hell in a handbasket that she’d pull out a book about the history of civilizations. She showed me a recipe for small children. It was a recipe to cook small children.
I think of her often. I think that although we are more dangerous now, our ideals are still advancing.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 2, 2006 at 4:10 PM Ewww! Wiley.
Wonder if that might have inspired Damon Knight’s classic short story “To Serve Man”?
An appendix to Swift’s Modest Proposal maybe?
There is something to the faustian notion that great progress is born from great struggle. A reason why ‘may you live in interesting times’ is considered a curse.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 2, 2006 at 5:20 PM Recipe to cook small children…
“Only if they’re fried.”
W. C. Fields, when asked if he liked children.
(In case you are too young — he was a comedian and not serious.)
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 3, 2006 at 8:14 AM I want to throw in the Netherlands.
Off to read Swift.
Get outta here kid, you’re bothering me. ---W.C. Fields
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 3, 2006 at 4:08 PM Just for you WTH, Jay-Jay;
“There comes a time in the affairs of a man when he has to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.” ---W.C. Fields
“Why Mr. Fields, don’t you like children?”
“They are very good with mustard.”The Moon has very few social problems, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 3, 2006 at 4:45 PM Swift would make an excellent straight man. If he were alive.
Am wondering WTH, your concern is the immediate---that’s probably true for all of us.
You’re here for some reason---you express you concern about terrorism. How do you think the problem of terrorism should be addressed?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 3, 2006 at 7:37 PM Wiley,
I don’t see this as “either/or” — we should fight with all means possible.
If our concern is for the immediate, then we need both offensive and defensive approaches — military and diplomatic action.
First of all clarify who the enemy is and is not.
• We are in a war declared by bin Laden and a few other radicals.
• We should get a Congressional declaration of war — the Executive and Legislative branches must both buy into this with Judicial approval.
• It is not confined to a country or countries.• It is similar in some respects to other guerrilla wars, but has unique aspects. The best example I can think of is the Indian Wars of the 1870s to 1890s in the western U.S.. We could a lot from both the successes and the mistakes in the way that was handled. Why not ask their descendants about it?
• Locate and destroy terrorist training camps and weapons stores, and cut off financial funding.
• Seek more international cooperation (honey as opposed to vinegar) in identifying and removing them. (This is not just our problem and we can’t fix it alone.)• Go anywhere and everywhere necessary to accomplish the above.
• Secure our borders and increase immigration (both temporary and permanent) background checks. Sea ports and airports should go to a realistic inspection status. Scrap all the eyewash of nail clippers and random searches — learn to think like a terrorist.
• Prepare our population for various types of attacks. An organized program from the top down would: establish decontamination centers (car washes, health clubs, etc.) stocked with antidotes and manned by trained volunteers. (Retired military, teachers, nurses, Boy and Girl Scouts, Service Clubs — vast unused resources)
For the long-term:
(Where it sounded to me most of the conversation was centered.)• Seek out the causes and breeding grounds of terrorism.
• Enlist any religious leaders willing to encourage mutual acceptance and eliminate competition and division.• Stop the political blame game — learn from what hasn’t worked and mistakes which were made to do it better from here on.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 4, 2006 at 9:06 AM LB,
The moon is too dusty. My wife would never get done. (And she’d want me do pitch iin.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 4, 2006 at 9:09 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
