Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

Gennaro · 2004-11-24 06:26:47

Dickbill is absolutely right about probability in my opinion. There is a worldview called Monism that I find rather appealing, whose big name is Ernst Haeckel: "Die Welträtsel" (1899), very 19th century stuff. It deals with the basic sameness of the spiritual and material while denying neither. Given the factitude of enthropy, for life to arise, maybe there is some active, self-complicating principle at work within matter itself? Maybe the ongoing stellar generational enrichment and creation of heavy elements could be seen as an aspect of that vital principle at work? Why not?

Indeed, we don't have infinite time. Just take a look at this starsystem. It's been around for 4.68 billion years. That's a whole lot if the universe is only 13 billion years old and it's pretty fast for mere "coincidence and probability".

We are lavishly well supplied with metallicity if you compare with most starsystems around us. How come? A big factor seems to be age as translated in supernova metamorphosis of constituent elements. Not that many starsystem can have a higher or equal amount of heavy (read: complicated) elements than Sol and be considerably older (there are many exceptions of course. Alpha Centauri has both been around for longer and has slightly higher metallicity). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we are among the first generations of intelligent beings in the galaxy.

The universe is coming to life right now as a consequence of the inherent quality of being to complicate itself.
:;):

Dook, last paragraphs of your latest post were very good. You echo my thoughts and feelings when I'm out and contemplating nature. Though personally, I see no sentient "intention" in nature, neither do I suppose the existence of God.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-24 07:28:20

Excellent posts, Dickbill and Gennaro. Not just the content, which was entertaining and informative, but the way you guys express yourselves so well in a language which is not your own. Brilliant stuff! :up:

I have a copy of "The Fifth Miracle", by Dr. Paul Davies, which I think I've mentioned before. He deals with this type of discussion about complexity, entropy and information, and his treatment of these confirms, at least to me, how mystifying the rise of any life, let alone sentient life, really is.
I don't think I have anything intelligent or original to add to what's been said already, except to say it's almost like Dr. Davies is struggling at the borderline between science and religion in his book. He traces the development of our understanding - or otherwise - of how complex carbon molecules might organise themselves into self-replicating structures and appears to come to the conclusion that we're a very long way from anything remotely resembling a coherent hypothesis.
I understood most of the scientific concepts in the book but not all of them. However, there was no doubt that he believes we're missing something very important, something fundamental, in our efforts to explain life. He stops short of invoking God to help things along - he is a tenured scientist after all! - but he seems to be implying that there may be something about life which science might never be able to explain.

A great communicator, that Dr. Davies; he simplifies without 'dumbing down'.

BWhite · 2004-11-24 07:42:51

Dickbill is absolutely right about probability in my opinion. There is a worldview called Monism that I find rather appealing, whose big name is Ernst Haeckel: "Die Welträtsel" (1899), very 19th century stuff. It deals with the basic sameness of the spiritual and material while denying neither. Given the factitude of enthropy, for life to arise, maybe there is some active, self-complicating principle at work within matter itself? Maybe the ongoing stellar generational enrichment and creation of heavy elements could be seen as an aspect of that vital principle at work? Why not?
Indeed, we don't have infinite time. Just take a look at this starsystem. It's been around for 4.68 billion years. That's a whole lot if the universe is only 13 billion years old and it's pretty fast for mere "coincidence and probability".
We are lavishly well supplied with metallicity if you compare with most starsystems around us. How come? A big factor seems to be age as translated in supernova metamorphosis of constituent elements. Not that many starsystem can have a higher or equal amount of heavy (read: complicated) elements than Sol and be considerably older (there are many exceptions of course. Alpha Centauri has both been around for longer and has slightly higher metallicity). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we are among the first generations of intelligent beings in the galaxy.
The universe is coming to life right now as a consequence of the inherent quality of being to complicate itself.
:;):
Dook, last paragraphs of your latest post were very good. You echo my thoughts and feelings when I'm out and contemplating nature. Though personally, I see no sentient "intention" in nature, neither do I suppose the existence of God.

Professor Harood Bloom, a literary critic at Yale University, has written than in his opinion (after 60 years of close reading thousands of books) the "Blessing" promised by Yahweh to the people of Israel was the promise of life, ever growing spreading into time and space without bound.

That sounds like terraforming to me.

A great name IMHO for a Roman Catholic Mars city wouold be Promito Vitae, Latin for either "Life's Promise" or the "Promise of Life"

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-24 07:46:00

but he seems to be implying that there may be something about life which science might never be able to explain.

Indeed, something that scientists in certain fields may need to consider as a possibilty, despite the seeming "cop out" nature of it. It's possible that there is some factor in the formation of life that we have yet to identify, be it God or some mundane physical process and finding life elsewhere would seem to support this view. On the other hand, it may have started with a statistically improbable anomaly that once started took on a life of its own, so to speak. We may even find that the start of life was the most freakish fluke ever while still operating within well understood physical laws. We could be all alone in the universe without even a creator to blame it on.

BWhite · 2004-11-24 07:56:10

but he seems to be implying that there may be something about life which science might never be able to explain.
Indeed, something that scientists in certain fields may need to consider as a possibilty, despite the seeming "cop out" nature of it. It's possible that there is some factor in the formation of life that we have yet to identify, be it God or some mundane physical process and finding life elsewhere would seem to support this view. On the other hand, it may have started with a statistically improbable anomaly that once started took on a life of its own, so to speak. We may even find that the start of life was the most freakish fluke ever while still operating within well understood physical laws. We could be all alone in the universe without even a creator to blame it on.

The heart has reasons reason can never know.

Pascal

= = =

This variation of religion annoys me.

Tell me my mind is too small to handle the truth. Okay, I can accept that. :;): My mind is smaller than God's mind, who can deny that.

Tell me there are "special truths" that have been revealed to you (a mere fellow human) but I will not see those truths unless I take your word for it? I will hit you with a 2x4 (metaphoricaly speaking, of course).

In other words, how dare any 3rd person human assert to speak for God! By the way, ask a Catholic Pope whether he believes himself "saved" and the only appropriate answer is "I sure hope so."

dickbill · 2004-11-24 13:22:46

We are lavishly well supplied with metallicity if you compare with most starsystems around us. How come? A big factor seems to be age as translated in supernova metamorphosis of constituent elements. Not that many starsystem can have a higher or equal amount of heavy (read: complicated) elements than Sol and be considerably older (there are many exceptions of course. Alpha Centauri has both been around for longer and has slightly higher metallicity). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we are among the first generations of intelligent beings in the galaxy.

I read that too, that the sun has an unusually high metallicity. But such a coincidence might not be that rare.
Now you said that we might be the "first" generation of stars-sustaining life. However, because of the "faint' early sun, the early temperatures on earth might have greatly beneficiated from the presence of radioactive elements in the earth mantle, which decaying heating effect would compensate a little bit for the faint sun in this early time. This, plus a green house effect would have allowed liquid water to exist.
In the same conditions, if earth was forming now, and since most of the radioelements have decayed, the planet might not have enough internal energy to generate mantle convection movments and the surface temperature would be slightly lower than it was 4 billions ago. Maybe not high enough to have liquid water.
Anyway, this and other parameters, means that it is not obvious at all that there has been other generations of life-bearing stars. 4 billions years ago might have been the only good time, + or - a short window of opportunity, for life appearance.

Also, to come back to the complexity issue, we cannot deny that complexity arise and even increase in open systems when energy can flow in and out. The experience of Miller, starting with rather simple molecules H2O CH4 CO2 and NH3, ended up with amino acids, which are more complex molecules. In computer simulation of random networks of interconnected genes , complex patterns can arise spontaneously and stay stable, then giving rise to more complex patterns. So, complexity is not forbidden by the thermodynamic principle of decaying order, as long as more chaos/disorder is transfered out of the system. But despite that, to my knowledge, no living organisms has been created in vitro, even not autoreplicative molecules. This is strange : if you can generate amino acids and nucleosides (or analogues) in vitro, they should start to form more complex macromolecular patterns , some of them autoreplicative. I never heard about it, though. Nobody can confirm that ?

Dook · 2004-11-24 13:35:53

Though personally, I see no sentient "intention" in nature, neither do I suppose the existence of God.

What do you feel more connected to? Your vehicle? Your couch and televison set? Or a vegetable garden? The first three things cannot end your hunger and are not really necessary at all (well, the vehicle wouldn't be if our system was set up differently) while food is absolutely necessary. Does the average person even know HOW to grow vegetables anymore? When to plant them? How to cultivate the soil? The natives believe that we are connected to Mother Earth and should respect nature, instead we choose to worship bright red sports cars, SUV's, and surround sound. Technology is great but we abuse it, we use it as a distraction so we don't have to be alone with our own thoughts. We complain about stress but we are the ones most to blame for it. It doesn't have to be like that.

In Germany I once stood at a platform waiting for the train. All around me were two story houses, each one with a garden. It was terribly quiet, I could have closed my eyes and imagined that I was in the country. Someone moved and I turned to see the train coming but it made almost no sound. There were no car stereo's blaring.

Think of the suburbs but with more land between the homes, each one with a garden and a few fruit trees, parks and playgrounds all around. Most people work four to five hours a day and never leave home. Parents always walk their children to school and home again, sometimes even having lunch with them. That's the way things should be.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-24 14:01:03

Think of the suburbs but with more land between the homes, each one with a garden and a few fruit trees, parks and playgrounds all around. Most people work four to five hours a day and never leave home. Parents always walk their children to school and home again, sometimes even having lunch with them. That's the way things should be.

Yeah, those Hobbits were on to something.

Dook · 2004-11-24 14:15:55

This variation of religion annoys me.

Variation?

When I visit foreign countries with other Americans they always point out the differences. The different foods, language, games, drinks, but to me it's all the same. They eat food because they are hungry, like me. The talk to communicate, like me. They play games for fun. They drink because they are thirsty.

In Mexico they call it 'agua', in Germany it's 'wasser', we know it as water but regardless of the name it's still the same thing. Brahma, Allah, Jehovah, God, different names but still the same. What else is the same?

The bible, torah, and koran are all very similar. They tell the same story. Buddha taught people how to cope with suffering, he said he was just a messenger. The hindu religion has three aspects of God, kind of like the father, son, and holy ghost. You can find variation but the basic premise is to choose good and have faith. I don't think it was ever intended that people devote their lives to religion. It's just a guide.

BWhite · 2004-11-24 16:06:13

This http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/stor … y]Pentagon report is consistent with what I have been saying about the War on Terror for years.

Sigh. . .

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/24/ … ]Alternate link:

WASHINGTON A harshly critical report by a Pentagon advisory panel says the United States is failing in its efforts to explain the nation's diplomatic and military actions to the Muslim world, but it warns that no public relations plan or information operation can defend America from flawed policies.
* * *
The report also says: "The critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim world is not one of 'dissemination of information' or even one of crafting and delivering the 'right' message. Rather it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none - the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam."
* * *
In stark contrast to the cold war, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western modernity - an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism,"' the report states.
"Today we reflexively compare Muslim 'masses' to those oppressed under Soviet rule," the report adds. "This is a strategic mistake. "There is no yearning-to-be-liberated-by-the-U.S. groundswell among Muslim societies - except to be liberated perhaps from what they see as apostate tyrannies that the U.S. so determinedly promotes and defends."
The report alluded to President George W. Bush's address to a joint meeting of Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, when described the motives of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups: "They hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
The report said, "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

This isn't a Howard Dean talking point, this is a PENTAGON report.

Gennaro · 2004-11-28 06:45:23

Why do I have this persistent feeling those in power will never let anything happen?

Gennaro · 2004-11-28 06:48:32

What do you feel more connected to? Your vehicle? Your couch and televison set? Or a vegetable garden?

A warm female?

BWhite · 2004-12-06 10:14:52

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNe … 77733]Nice touch, Rummy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-06 19:11:45

The recent talk here about the situation with Islam in Europe has been very worrying. It looks as though the vigilantism I predicted many months ago (not an especially prescient performance on my part, of course, because it wasn't that hard to see it coming) has already erupted in places like Holland - with the burning of Islamic schools etc.
I found the following article yesterday in The Australian newspaper and thought it painted a comprehensive and very disturbing picture of the current European thinking on the subject:-

Backlash against tolerance
Charles Bremner
06dec04
DAYS before she was due to be married, Ghofrane Haddaoui, 23, refused the advances of a teenage boy and paid with her life. Lured to waste ground near her home in Marseilles, the Tunisian-born Frenchwoman was stoned to death, her skull smashed by rocks hurled by at least two young men, according to police.
Although the circumstances of the murder are not clear, the horrific lapidation of the young Muslim stoked a French belief that the country can no longer tolerate the excesses of an alien culture in its midst.
Last week, pop stars and other celebrities joined 2000 people in a march through Marseilles denouncing violence against women, particularly in the immigrant-dominated housing estates.
The protest against Islamic obscurantism and the "fundamentalism that imprisons women" was led by a group of Muslim women who call themselves Ni Putes ni Soumises (Neither Whores nor Submissive).
The movement, which emerged three years ago to defend Muslim women, is spawning similar groups across Europe, supported by a mainstream opinion that has recently abandoned political correctness and wants to halt the inroads of Islam.
From Norway to Sicily, governments, politicians and the media are laying aside their doctrines of diversity and insisting that Islamism, as the French call the fundamentalist form that pervades the housing estates, is incompatible with Europe's liberal values.
The shift is not just a reaction to exceptional violence such as the Madrid train bombings, or the murder of Theo van Gogh, the anti-Islamic Dutch film-maker, by a Dutch-Moroccan. It stems from a belief that more muscular methods are needed to integrate Europe's 13 million-strong Muslim community and to combat creeds that breed extremists and, ultimately, terrorism.
With mixed results, governments are trying to quell the scourge by co-opting Muslim leaders to promote a moderate European Islam.
In Germany, with its 3 million - mainly Turkish - Muslims, and France, with its 5million of mainly North African descent, television viewers were shocked when local young Muslims approved of van Gogh's murder. "If you insult Islam, you have to pay," was a typical response.
"The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart," said Angela Merkel, leader of Germany's Christian Democrat opposition. "Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots."
Italy's traditional tolerance towards immigrants has been eroded by fear of Islamism. An Ipsos poll in September showed that 48 per cent of Italians believed that a "clash of civilisations" between Islam and the West was under way and that Islam was "a religion more fanatical than any other".
Similar views can be heard across traditionally tolerant Scandinavia - and no longer just from populist right-wing parties such as Pia Kjaersgaard's People's Party in Denmark.
The Centre-Right Government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen has equipped Denmark with Europe's toughest curbs on immigration, largely aimed at people from Muslim countries.
In Sweden, where anti-Muslim feeling is running high and mosques have been burnt, schools have been authorised to ban pupils who wear full Islamic head-cover, although the measure comes nowhere near France's new ban on the hijab in all state schools.
In Spain, with a rapidly rising population of nearly a million Muslims, the backlash has been less visible, despite the bombings, but thousands demonstrated in Seville last week against plans to build a mosque in the city centre. The Government has also won approval by sending 500 extra police to monitor preachers and Muslim associations.
Police across the European Union are closely watching prayer meetings in makeshift mosques in cities and housing estates, and media accounts of the jihadist, anti-Western and anti-Semitic doctrines of the imams are fuelling public anger.
In Germany, pressure is growing for sermons to be preached in German rather than Turkish or Arabic. Hidden TV cameras recently broadcast an imam in a Berlin mosque telling worshippers that "Germans can only expect to rot in the fires of hell because they are non-believers".
The debate over the limits to free speech is loudest in France, which now acknowledges the failure of its "republican" approach to integration whereby immigrants were supposed to blend harmoniously into society and not exist in separate communities.
Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin is deporting foreign imams who support wife-beating and other uncivilised practices. Last week, the Government moved to ban a Lebanon-based television channel for anti-Semitic broadcasting.
The left wing, which long shunned criticism of Islam as the stock-in-trade of far-Right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, now denounces the "totalitarian", anti-feminist, anti-Semitic doctrines of the fundamentalists.
Jacques Julliard, a leading left-wing commentator, said the Left's longstanding tolerance had been used as "an agent for the penetration of Islamic intolerance".
Some on the Left have also taken strong exception to the concept of "Islamophobia", a supposed sin defined by EU anti-racism watchdogs as akin to anti-Semitism.
The French consensus was symbolised by the 80 per cent public support for the head-scarf ban, which started with little trouble in September. While many Muslims felt stigmatised, the Government took comfort from the approval of the ban by a substantial minority of the 10 per cent of the population that is of immigrant origin.
Among them is Fadela Amara, a Muslim town councillor from Clermond Ferrand, who heads the Ni Putes ni Soumises movement.
"The veil is an instrument of oppression that is imposed by the green fascists," she said.
Amara, who led the Marseilles march, advocates an "open Islam, an Islam of French culture a bit Gallic around the edges".
This is also the aim of the state, which two years ago created a national Muslim Council to promote moderate mainstream Islam. The council was set up by Nicolas Sarkozy, the then interior minister, who now heads the UMP, President Jacques Chirac's Centre-Right party.
Sarkozy has just caused a stir by going a stage further, proposing that France's rigorously secular state fund the building of mosques.
Reluctantly, some intellectuals have lately concluded that the model for Europe should be the US. On Tuesday, a writer for French left-wing daily Liberation noted that immigrants in the US threw themselves into "the American dream" and prospered.
"There is no French, Dutch or other European dream," she noted. "You emigrate here to escape poverty and nothing more."
The Times. Copyright The Australian.

It's possible September 11, Bali, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. may be just the beginning, the prelude. The opening scenes in the main performance might be happening now in ordinary suburbs in ordinary towns and cities of the West, where Islamic influence is gradually infiltrating.
As the article says, there's a system in our midst (I say 'our midst' because we're all in this together - Europe, Australia, the U.S.) whose tenets are frequently at odds with the secular freedom and gender equality we cherish. Yet, it's our very tolerance which is allowing this system to spread its influence.

It looks like Europe is just beginning to wake up to the potential threat and remember that 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance'. Whether or not an attack on freedom is overt, like Hitler's expansionism in the 1930s and 40s, or a much more subtle and gradual internal subversion, the same vigilance is necessary.
When a film maker can be shot and have his throat cut in a public street in Holland, because he dared to ask questions about the treatment of a certain group of women, things have gone badly wrong with multiculturalism and assimilation.

Being open and accepting of different people from different backgrounds is the basis of Western liberal democracy. But if that openess and acceptance draws a trojan horse inside the gates, which threatens the very basis of our liberal system .. what then?
???

Palomar · 2004-12-06 19:48:13

*What's going on with the http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … man_dc]Pat Tillman case? First they said he was killed by Al-Qaeda, now the gov't is 'fessing up to it having been a "friendly fire" incident...which turns out to perhaps (LIKELY) have been the result of over-zealous and careless ("undisciplined firing by") soldiers.

ABC Nightly News showed a press clip from May; some military staffer then commenting on the possibility of a "friendly fire" incident but flatly stating he wouldn't be answering any questions. (I don't remember this from the time...)

What a heartache. I feel so badly for his family, and especially for HIM.

--Cindy

::edit::

From Shaun's post: Reluctantly, some intellectuals have lately concluded that the model for Europe should be the US. On Tuesday, a writer for French left-wing daily Liberation noted that immigrants in the US threw themselves into "the American dream" and prospered.

*Yep, I agree.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 06:36:14

Reluctantly, some intellectuals have lately concluded that the model for Europe should be the US. On Tuesday, a writer for French left-wing daily Liberation noted that immigrants in the US threw themselves into "the American dream" and prospered.

Our intellectuals think we should be more like them, their intellectuals think they should be more like us...

Meanwhile listening to the chattering class has in no small part contributed to the present problem.

But if that openess and acceptance draws a trojan horse inside the gates, which threatens the very basis of our liberal system .. what then?

I would argue that a society can be tolerant and open yet still be proud of its heritage and culture. Tolerance of those who are different doesn't mean that we have to change, tolerance goes both ways and for a free and open society to remain requires its population to accept the basic principles on which it is built. If a segment of society, in this case an unassimilable immigrant population, can't or won't accept that then they have to be moved elsewhere.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-07 08:12:50

CC:-

Tolerance of those who are different doesn't mean that we have to change, tolerance goes both ways and for a free and open society to remain requires its population to accept the basic principles on which it is built. If a segment of society, in this case an unassimilable immigrant population, can't or won't accept that then they have to be moved elsewhere.

Sounds O.K. in principle but there are nearly a million Muslims in Spain, 3 million in Germany, and about 13 million overall in Europe.
If say 10% of them are 'radical' and refuse to fit in, and you attempt to deport them, that's 1.3 million who'll need to be rounded up. Even if you could be sure you've got the right 1.3 million, the rest will probably 'radicalise' in response to your efforts. All brothers in Islam, and all that.
So now you've got all 13 million to deport. But what if their former countries don't want them back?
And what of the chattering classes and other naive and soft-hearted people who may not know an insidious threat when they see one? How long will it take them to draw the inevitable comparisons between your program and Hitler's 'relocation' of European Jews 60 years ago? You'd probably end up fighting off a sizeable army of indigenous Europeans, too, who'll take up arms to put a stop to your 'New Nazism'!

I suppose you could let it ride and just sit and take it, soaking up one Extremist Islamic act of violence after another until ultimately they outbreed you and, in the last democratic elections Europe will see in a long time, vote in mullahs to run the place along Islamic lines.
(Fiji is now run by Indians who were brought in originally as cheap labour by the British colonialists, outbred the local populace, and voted themselves into authority over the original owners. There's already been one violent coup, that I know of, by disgruntled Native Fijians. And that's without the new rulers imposing draconian religious laws, as Muslim authorities in Europe would no doubt do.)

Either way, I'm very concerned that eventually the whole thing could easily descend into large-scale violence. ???
I very much hope some kind of accommodation can be reached before it gets to that stage.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 08:58:51

And what of the chattering classes and other naive and soft-hearted people who may not know an insidious threat when they see one? How long will it take them to draw the inevitable comparisons between your program and Hitler's 'relocation' of European Jews 60 years ago? You'd probably end up fighting off a sizeable army of indigenous Europeans, too, who'll take up arms to put a stop to your 'New Nazism'!

Quite true, and my armchair dictator response is "see, you shouldn't have let them all in." But we're beyond that now, so what can be done.

Standard disclaimer applies...

1. We can just put up with it until they outnumber natives (in the case of Europe) or people of European descent (in the case of Australia and America). Let Western civilization bow out of the picture with a pitiful whimper. I find this unacceptable, not an option.

2. We can attempt to assimilate the vast majority of the Muslim immigrant population. This requires a tolerance of their culture while at the same time not conforming to it. It must be made clear in every subtle way possible that they are free and have opportunities far greater than in their homelands, while at the same time demonstrating the importance of fitting into the language, culture and values of the land in which they reside. It's a long-term process and would most likely require tight caps on immigration from certain regions while allowing it from others in an attempt to tilt the balance decisively toward a western mindset, along with deportation of all illegals from anywhere (to legitimize the policy) and vigorous criminal prosecutions when warranted. This would attract some criticism as "racist" no doubt, but primarily from quarters who level the charge for any perceived slight and therefore it carries little impact. Let the chattering class write angry editorials and denounce the Eurocentric fascist bigots making policy. Small price to pay.

There would still be incidents of course, and the perpetrators would have to dealt with severely. Current hatecrime laws in many Western nations could be redirected for this purpose, punishing Islamic (or other) immigrants for attacking members of the native population with their being part of that population as their prime motivator.

I'm leaning towards some variation of this option, but I have doubts about the leaders of my own nation (as well as many others) being willing to carry it out. I too expect that it will come to a great deal of violence before it's over.

3. With the disclaimer still in effect, if the leadership is unwilling or unable to take steps to peacefully diffuse the situation and it is then assumed that violence is inevitable, it comes down to a matter of when. Macchiavelli has a few things to say about a war deferred...

Again, just laying out options here, I've already made my endorsement.

4. To be really sneaky, a nation could just quietly sterilize the target population. Whip up a big disease scare, get 'em in for treatment/vaccination... at which point a quick chemical injection solves the outbreeding problem. Too many people would know about it to keep it quiet forever, but it could conceivably be done quickly enough that by the time word got out it would be too late to stop the program.

Watch the chattering class get a bite of that one! Most decidely not an American sort of response, however. Unless you talk to certain kooks who believe it's already being done.

Point being, we've gotten ourselves into a horrendous mess and getting out isn't going to be easy or entirely clean.

Either way, I'm very concerned that eventually the whole thing could easily descend into large-scale violence.
I very much hope some kind of accommodation can be reached before it gets to that stage.

I concur. Though I try to avoid words like "accomodation" in such matters. ???

BWhite · 2004-12-07 09:10:15

Remember the punishment thread? Severity versus certainty of punishment?

Being ruled by Jerry Falwell would certainly be better than being ruled by bin Laden however the threat of being ruled by Jerry Falwell is far more immediate and likely.

Therefore, WHY should I accept the rule of Falwell because you say you are afraid of Islam?

= = =

Step one for the West. We need to decide which shared values are critical to being "western" - - cannot fight a civil war and a global war at the same time.

Problem is, the RIGHT refuses to call a truce in the civil war.

= = =

As for Europe, Chirac is doing EXACTLY the right thing by banning the headscarves. Most of the French Muslims are okay with that.

Edited By BWhite on 1102432539

Palomar · 2004-12-07 09:17:29

Remember the punishment thread? Severity versus certainty of punishment?
Being ruled by Jerry Falwell would certainly be better than being ruled by bin Laden however the threat of being ruled by Jerry Falwell is far more immediate and likely.
Therefore, WHY should I accept the rule of Falwell because you say you are afraid of Islam?

*Due to laws within this nation, Jerry Falwell's powers are limited. He can't build dirty bombs or store up a cache of weapons without the Feds pouncing on him and tossing him in the slammer. (And I'm not implying I think Falwell WOULD do those sorts of things in the first place, but then I'm not eager to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to much).

Do we have that same sort of control over the rag-tag religious jihad nuts in the Middle East? They aren't beholden to our legal process.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-12-07 09:21:29

Remember the punishment thread? Severity versus certainty of punishment?
Being ruled by Jerry Falwell would certainly be better than being ruled by bin Laden however the threat of being ruled by Jerry Falwell is far more immediate and likely.
Therefore, WHY should I accept the rule of Falwell because you say you are afraid of Islam?
*Due to laws within this nation, Jerry Falwell's powers are limited. He can't build dirty bombs or store up a cache of weapons without the Feds pouncing on him and tossing him in the slammer. (And I'm not implying I think Falwell WOULD do those sorts of things in the first place, but then I'm not eager to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to much).
Do we have that same sort of control over the rag-tag religious jihad nuts in the Middle East? They aren't beholden to our legal process.
--Cindy

How about forcing my chidlren to learn that creationism is as equally valid as evolution? After all, both are just theories and neither theory is better than the other.

That "threat" is happening today.

= = =

You see, Cindy, the West vs Islam WILL morph into Christians versus Islam - - "My God is bigger than their God" - - is how it is being played out TODAY!

= = =

To villify Islam empowers the radical Christian right. Folks who won't look to kindly on non-believers, Cobra.

Edited By BWhite on 1102433121

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 09:24:52

Therefore, WHY should I accept the rule of Falwell because you say you are afraid of Islam?

Who's suggesting you should?

Step one for the West. We need to decide which shared values are critical to being "western" - - cannot fight a civil war and a global war at the same time.
Problem is, the RIGHT refuses to call a truce in the civil war.

Bill, you call for a united front and then in the next sentence fire a shot in the very civil war you argue against. If you want to view the Right as the constant aggressor and the Left as these poor, helpless but noble refugees being pounded on then go right ahead. It isn't true, but hey, we let people believe all sorts of screwy things here.

Palomar · 2004-12-07 09:26:08

Remember the punishment thread? Severity versus certainty of punishment?
Being ruled by Jerry Falwell would certainly be better than being ruled by bin Laden however the threat of being ruled by Jerry Falwell is far more immediate and likely.
Therefore, WHY should I accept the rule of Falwell because you say you are afraid of Islam?
*Due to laws within this nation, Jerry Falwell's powers are limited. He can't build dirty bombs or store up a cache of weapons without the Feds pouncing on him and tossing him in the slammer. (And I'm not implying I think Falwell WOULD do those sorts of things in the first place, but then I'm not eager to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to much).
Do we have that same sort of control over the rag-tag religious jihad nuts in the Middle East? They aren't beholden to our legal process.
--Cindy
How about forcing my chidlren to learn that creationism is as equally valid as evolution? After all, both are just theories and neither theory is better than the other.
That "threat" is happening today.
= = =
You see, Cindy, the West vs Islam WILL morph into Christians versus Islam - - "My God is bigger than their God" - - is how it is being played out TODAY!

*Oh, I know. Don't get me started...! :angry: :;): I'm the LAST person here who cares for religion.

But Falwell and folks in this nation are "muzzled" by laws, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Falwell can't order some of his goons to ransack my house and harrass me for not believing the way he does. That could, does and has happened in nations like Afghanistan and Iran, etc., etc.

--Cindy

::edit:: You added more as I was responding As for the last -- yes, I think that's likely. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing the threat (BOTH pose) independently. Particularly those folks who are outside the reach of our laws, our concepts of human rights and freedoms, etc. I fear them more, because they aren't "muzzled."

BWhite · 2004-12-07 09:26:10

Therefore, WHY should I accept the rule of Falwell because you say you are afraid of Islam?
Who's suggesting you should?
Step one for the West. We need to decide which shared values are critical to being "western" - - cannot fight a civil war and a global war at the same time.
Problem is, the RIGHT refuses to call a truce in the civil war.
Bill, you call for a united front and then in the next sentence fire a shot in the very civil war you argue against. If you want to view the Right as the constant aggressor and the Left as these poor, helpless but noble refugees being pounded on then go right ahead. It isn't true, but hey, we let people believe all sorts of screwy things here.

Because that is EXACTLY the strategy being employed by ROVE and BUSH. TODAY.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-07 09:30:06

Because that is EXACTLY the strategy being employed by ROVE and BUSH. TODAY.

There it is again. The divisions in this country are not a one-sided thing. You seem to be arguing that if the Right would just shut up and do what the Left wants we'd all be better off, so how is that any different than going the other way?

What have we come too when the friggin' Fascist is the calm one? :hm:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-11-24 06:26:47

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#152 2004-11-24 07:28:20

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#153 2004-11-24 07:42:51

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#154 2004-11-24 07:46:00

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#155 2004-11-24 07:56:10

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#156 2004-11-24 13:22:46

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#157 2004-11-24 13:35:53

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#158 2004-11-24 14:01:03

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#159 2004-11-24 14:15:55

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#160 2004-11-24 16:06:13

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#161 2004-11-28 06:45:23

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#162 2004-11-28 06:48:32

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#163 2004-12-06 10:14:52

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#164 2004-12-06 19:11:45

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#165 2004-12-06 19:48:13

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#166 2004-12-07 06:36:14

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#167 2004-12-07 08:12:50

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#168 2004-12-07 08:58:51

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#169 2004-12-07 09:10:15

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#170 2004-12-07 09:17:29

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#171 2004-12-07 09:21:29

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#172 2004-12-07 09:24:52

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#173 2004-12-07 09:26:08

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#174 2004-12-07 09:26:10

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#175 2004-12-07 09:30:06

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

Board footer