Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[elthrasher]

This FP article provides the evidence which is more concerning looking forward: blatant deception & lying by foreign Islamic governments who are supposed to be allied in helping to stamp out terror.

What is an "Islamic government" to you? Pakistan's government is a parliamentary system. In 2008 the secular Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians won a majority of seats. They don't have an ayatollah like Iran. Does the USA have a "Christian government"? No, but we mostly elect Christians because we mostly are Christians. In Pakistan they mostly elect Muslims because they mostly are Muslims.

That being said, I'm not sure who is really surprised that the Pakistani government was at the very least looking the other way when it came to al-Qaeda. That may simply be the cost of doing business there. Perhaps they are corrupt and have been bribed. Perhaps they fear retaliation. It has been speculated that they offer some support to terrorist groups as a foil for India. I think it's clear that Obama was aware of the situation there since he didn't give government officials a heads-up that the mission was underway.

[Zso_Zso]

A sad day for Canadians and complete proof of our broken political system:
the Conservatives have achieved a "majority" government by getting less than 40% of the votes!

If that isn't broken , I don't know what is

Let me rephrase it to clarify: OVER 60% of Canadian do NOT want this party to govern -- majority of us voted for someone else! Yet, they get the majority of seats in parliament

Can I get a hybernation chamber and be frozen for the next 100 years, please ?
By that time I'm sure this civilization will kill itself, and I might have a chance to participate building a better one...

[elthrasher]

A sad day for Canadians and complete proof of our broken political system:
the Conservatives have achieved a "majority" government by getting less than 40% of the votes!

I've been following that a bit. Wasn't this election called due to a no confidence vote on the Conservative party?

The article I read blamed the liberals for not forming a coalition with the NDP or something like that.

Our two-party system doesn't even always give us a majority decision.

2000: George W. Bush won with 47.87% of the popular vote (Gore had 48.38%)
1996: Bill Clinton won with 49.23% of the popular vote (3rd party Perot took 8.4%)
1992: Bill Clinton won with 43.01% of the popular vote (3rd party Perot took 18.91%)
1968: Richard Nixon won with 43.42% of the popular vote (3rd party Wallace took 13.53%)
...
1860: Abraham Lincoln won with 39.65% of the popular vote in a 4-way race. Sometimes a flawed system gives you a good result anyway.

[Zso_Zso]

I have no problem with the fact that having 4-5 parties in the system means that the winner will often has less than 50%. That's fine, but if the winner has 40%, they should not get 55% of the seats.

Just compare the Conservatives and the Green party: the Conservatives got 40% of the votes and 165 seats, while the Greens got 4% and 1 seat! So the vote ratio is 10:1 but the result is 165:1 in the obtained seats.

[elthrasher]

I have no problem with the fact that having 4-5 parties in the system means that the winner will often has less than 50%. That's fine, but if the winner has 40%, they should not get 55% of the seats.

Just compare the Conservatives and the Green party: the Conservatives got 40% of the votes and 165 seats, while the Greens got 4% and 1 seat! So the vote ratio is 10:1 but the result is 165:1 in the obtained seats.

Is the system designed to turn a plurality into a majority to avoid a divided government? I know that other parliamentary systems have found themselves hopelessly deadlocked when no party achieves a majority and coalitions fail. I admit I probably know less about the Canadian government than most people of the world know of the US government, other than you passed that stupid law that treats bandwidth as though it's some kind of limited resource that needs to be rationed.

[Pedal2Metal]

Only an idiot or a neocon wouldn't say that the Iraq war was a horrific response to 9/11. The fact that we F'd up so badly in the wake of that tragedy doesn't undercut the reality that bin Laden's defeat is worth celebrating. In many ways it is cathartic to finally see our soldiers go after the actual bad guy and actually take him down. This is the mission we should have undertaken 10 years ago. Finally getting it right allows us to hope that we've turned a new page in adventurism and that maybe we won't have another stupid war in which 100,000 civilians are killed for basically no reason. That too would be an outcome worth celebrating, but only because of the ridiculously low bar that has been set for American foreign policy.

When someone close to home is murdered in an act of terror, it is more shocking because it could have been us. We should be protected. It shouldn't happen here. Etc. That doesn't mean the value of human life has something to do with proximity. Americans have always donated generously to disaster victims around the world. We have demonstrated to stop Rwandan genocide. And many of us looked on in shame as the Iraq war dragged on and the bodies piled up.

Well-said. The Iraq War had nothing to do with finding Osama (which should have been & always was the primary mission imo) & why I was always against it. Now that we've gone in to Iraq, we've got to make it better otherwise it will have been worse than if we never went in & also irresponsible. Americans value life more than any other country on the planet as measured by simply dollars per head in disaster relief. America trumps every other country by far in terms of donations/giving & it has nothing to do with athiesm as ShowTek asserts. He should go read Alexis Tocqueville. Here's a sampling:

"Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.

There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country."

If he accepts Tocqueville's premise/point, then he can't assert that athiesm is the driving force for America's generosity. It's one choice to be an athiest but to deny the cultural history of America is simply incorrect. I'm not saying he did this, I'm being pre-emptive. There may be plenty of athiests who give but as we've discussed many times over, you can't live outside your time/place/culture so the influence of it on our attitudes & behaviors is inseparable. It would be like being an athiest in Saudi Arabia & claiming it's not a Muslim culture & that Islam has no influence over the cultural behavior & norms within that society. Equally absurd.

Here's the other side (to give ShowTek's perspective equal time):
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...lling-1.359698

I don't see how anyone can assert that negotiating with such zealots is even a possibility for Israel. If one will not accept one's right to exist, how can we even talk, much less negotiate? It makes having seeking understanding virtually impossible, even when one desires to (as many Israelis do).

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

What is an "Islamic government" to you? Pakistan's government is a parliamentary system. In 2008 the secular Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians won a majority of seats. They don't have an ayatollah like Iran. Does the USA have a "Christian government"? No, but we mostly elect Christians because we mostly are Christians. In Pakistan they mostly elect Muslims because they mostly are Muslims.

That being said, I'm not sure who is really surprised that the Pakistani government was at the very least looking the other way when it came to al-Qaeda. That may simply be the cost of doing business there. Perhaps they are corrupt and have been bribed. Perhaps they fear retaliation. It has been speculated that they offer some support to terrorist groups as a foil for India. I think it's clear that Obama was aware of the situation there since he didn't give government officials a heads-up that the mission was underway.

Yeah, that is true. It's not a theocracy, true, but you can't divorce the culture from the representatives as you point out. So that's generally the point as to do so would constitute an incomplete & incorrect model of reality.

It's a tough place for Pakistan. I think they have to play both sides of the fence & carefully. I think the benefit of the raid & information is that now we have some leverage w/Pakistan. If we don't overplay our hand, I think that can provide some positive results over the coming years in terms of greater cooperation & better transparency on mutual actions. I definitely think this is one situation where playing it out in the press is probably not the best course of action. The embarrassment for Pakistan is obvious & goes without saying. Now I think it's up to goverment officials to diplomatically work the process in private, not in a public forum. If we overplay our hand, we really stand to put them in too defensive a posture which is usually counter-productive in the long-term. I've had to deal with this type of situation with medical professionals/institutions with dealing with my daughter & while it was infuriating (wrong diagnosis, serious allegations, investigations, etc....), I chose the path of direct discussion in private with the doctors & therapists in question with real data with a targeted goal of reconciliation & forward-progress towards focusing on getting my daughter healthy again. It was well-received & things eventually worked out. I still had to endure the mindless investigations, etc... until it all came to naught, but in the end my approach was vindicated as my daughter began the road to recovery by receiving better medical care & making sure everyone was focused on the correct goals. Today it's all water under the bridge & everything is good.

We need to do something similar here. While this is embarrassing for Pakistan, that should NOT be the long-term focus. The long-term focus should be on how do we improve the situation both there & abroad with respect to tracking, capturing, killing terrorists as well as continue long-term strategic efforts as appropriate. If we can manage to improve that scenario by using this latest discovery w/Bin Laden's killing, I think that would be a solid foreign policy result. This will require some maturity on the part of US government officials as well as the media & people.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

well, THIS is somewhat embarrassing. i took a look at the celebrations in america for the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kI8EUqbWdM

looks to me like a bunch of fools blindly celebrating their primitive instincts of revenge and superiority. i imagine the expression of relief differently. on the other hand, i don't know what else i should've expected.

[Pedal2Metal]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...245610028.html

Change in topic. Ethanol is one example of political policy gone all wrong to address a real issue. We are paying for it now & will continue to do so as long as politicians are idiots & fail to assess the unintended consequences of just knee-jerk reactions to long-term issues such as climate change.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

When someone close to home is murdered in an act of terror, it is more shocking because it could have been us. We should be protected. It shouldn't happen here. Etc. That doesn't mean the value of human life has something to do with proximity.

i just don't get this part. some true element of it conflates with my logic and i can't figure out what it is. i think what you say here literally is "the value of human life has not something to do with proximity" but in reality you say, "the value of human life is equivalent to proximity". all the huge amount of empathy directed at the victims of 9/11 and the collective grief were a result of proximity? as opposed to the direct identification with and appreciation of your fellow countrymen? it seems to me this is somehow the underlying conclusion that you draw which is very interesting. it opens up the possibility of a very egoistic approach to the valuation of human life. i.e., "i only deeply care about the terrible misfortunes of other people when they are in geographical/cultural proximity to me because only then i feel threatened myself. i don't really care about atrocities in regions far away from me because that can't hurt me."

i'm sorry if that might sound a little confusing but i'm confused myself.

[Pedal2Metal]

well, THIS is somewhat embarrassing. i took a look at the celebrations in america for the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kI8EUqbWdM

looks to me like a bunch of fools blindly celebrating their primitive instincts of revenge and superiority. i imagine the expression of relief differently. on the other hand, i don't know what else i should've expected.

Perhaps. In any case, you seem to think that war is some type of "fair negotiation". It isn't. It's about victory & to the victor go the spoils. War is unfortunate but inevitable with mankind as history clearly demonstrates. The rejoicing over the death of a terrorist mastermind who perpetrated many deaths over decades of terrorism does seem more justified in my mind (although I did not particpate) than the rejoicing of 3000 people dieing (many Muslims btw) in a single terrorist act. You hold them identical in moral value although your rhetoric & evidence producing is noticably lopsided which of course indicts your own hypocrisy, so be it.

If you had wanted to make a more compelling case, you would have posted both videos (the 9/11 videos of Palestinians rejoicing along with the one above) & merely stated: I see these as the same. I'd still say that 3000 is > 5 & assuming life has a finite measurable value, then it's still not congruent but if one argues that a single life has immeasurable or infinite value (not sure where you stand on this), then it would at least have been a logically consistent argument. As it stands, you simply seem as prejudicial as those you attempt to indict.

Here's one CNN video (there's some from FOX, etc...). http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9934522322847#
I recall seeing other videos which were taken down & references to them on YouTube seem to have been removed. Interesting...

Lastly, before you go off onto one of your conspiracy theories, here's this link:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp

Now ask yourself this: Why do we have to be "sensitive" about Osama Bin Laden, a notorious murderer, rather than simply telling it like it is? Why couldn't we televise his death in great detail just as terrorists have televised the beheading of servicemen & journalists, etc...? In short, why do we have to be "extra sensitive" to Islam, period? Why does burning a Bible (literally dozens of videos here) incite no one to go out & kill 20 people but burning a Quran does? Is this not also a "double-standard" or is your criticism reserved only for the West? Because everything is "equivalent" as you propose? I think not. You don't even recognize the immense good-faith gesture this is on the part of the USA, who many I've spoken with disagree with. Many people I've spoken with think we shouldn't have given Osama any proper burial as none was afforded to his victims, why should he have received one? Do you honestly believe that if militant Muslims killed George Bush, they would have even attempted to give him a proper Christian burial? Do you think they would have been shy about showing his death, suffering, etc... on video? Why not? Because they don't care is why. By definition, the USA government is at least caring enough to try. So even if someone is imperfect, I give them credit for trying to offer a kind gesture in a difficult situation, especially when it would have been much easier to do the opposite. So you can diminish all you like, but the facts are clear: The USA has handled this assassination with professionalism, much more so than was afforded the victims of 9/11 (who were also professionally assassinated). If only such professionalism was afforded between all warring parties in all conflicts. I suspect that alone might help change the tenor of some violent conflicts. You are incapable of giving proper credit where it is due which indicates your own lack of even attempted objectivity.

Prejudice is rampant in your own thinking but you refuse to address it because it undermines your political elitism. Ultimately, there is plenty of prejudicial thinking to go around so all you can rely on is facts. It's a fact that 9-11-2001 killed ~3000 people. It's a fact that Bin Laden considered civilians & military alike the same & equally viable targets (by his own admission). Regardless of his reasons/idealogy, these are facts. So in my mind, we are justified in killing him & if people rejoice over that, so be it. I may not follow suit because of my own personal convictions but to hold him as morally equivalent to everyone else, that just seems to me to be indicative of your tendency to make moral reasoning on primarily idealism with little regard to reality. The facts are clear: He was a menace & the world is better off without him. I'm sure similar arguments as you've made could be made for Hitler: He thought he was doing good, blah blah blah. Yes, I'm well aware there are thousands of people who still feel Hitler was a hero & the holocaust never happened. So be it but don't expect me to ingratiate such a nonsensical conceptual framework & blatant denial of reality as if it's equally viable & valuable in the domain of intellectual thought. It's just babble, not cogent thought.

BTW, inaction on moral grounds in one arena isn't grounds for inaction in another, as you were so fond of pointing out for intervention in Libya. So you're a mishmash of all kinds of contradictions & imperfections, just like anyone else. At the end of the day, Osama Bin Laden is dead & that's a good thing imo. I doubt anyone can make any compelling argument otherwise, including yourself. What did you want/expect people to do, mourn Osama Bin Laden's death?!? C'mon you know better than that...

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

Americans value life more than any other country on the planet as measured by simply dollars per head in disaster relief. America trumps every other country by far in terms of donations/giving & it has nothing to do with athiesm as ShowTek asserts.

lol, no i was just trying to counter one statement of yours that i deemed irrelevant with a statement of mine that i found equally irrelevant in order to demonstrate the irrelevance. i didn't want to show that atheists "give more" or something like that. i remember one specific study where they told people that they had to be at a specific geographical place in a given amount of time. on the way to said place some guy laid on the floor, apparently hurt or something. the primary goal was to test when people stop and try to help dependent on how much time they have left to reach this place. there were some groups which had lots of time, some not so much, and some were busy or something like that. however, one thing the test showed was that religious people did not stop more often than non-religious ones. i remember another result of a study (unfortunately, i don't remember the study itself how stupid) which demonstrated that religious people offer more individual help (socially, monetarily) to other religious people and less to non-religious people, both conditions compared to non-religious people who offer equal amounts of help to both groups. i don't know a study on international donations. could be interesting. anyway..

when it comes to national and international aid and stuff like that: yea, sure, it's possible that the higher amounts of religiousness in the US contributes to that. i don't know. from a pragmatic viewpoint it also makes a lot of sense that the US donates more than any other country per capita as it's the richest in the world monetarily. but as i said, i don't really care a lot about that. i think it's a good thing when people wholeheartedly want to help others but that's not going to solve any long-term problems. they wouldn't be there to begin with if we just shared resources to begin with. so you're willing to give some away in charity, why not do it immediately by legislation?

[Pedal2Metal]

"I don't celebrate when someone is killed but justice must be satisfied imo."

This is actually the attitude I'm looking for.

I just fear that when you mix celebration with people dying you go down a bad path. I mean a bad path in terms of what you might call your own 'humanity' and your countries 'humanity'. I also dont expect to stop people from celebrating (or want to waste time trying to enforce that) but I think it is good to have at least mixed feelings. I imagine myself in the context of having to defend my home with deadly force being somewhat angry in the sense of "look what you made me do!"

Yes, I understand what you're saying & agree with your sentiment. At the same time, the overwhelming sense of national relief both collectively & individually seems impossible to hold back in such moments so celebrations are inevitable. However, I don't consider all celebrations equivalent as ShowTek does. I do hold the concept of initiation. I'm quite confident that if Osama Bin Laden had been killed w/o 9/11 (keep all his other terrorist acts), it would still have made the national news but there would have been no celebrations. So it's impossible to separate the celebration today from the events of 9/11/2001, they are inextricably linked. As you've probably read, few members of families that actually had members murdered that day celebrated. They are happy & relieved he was killed but the loss is unfillable. So in that sense, I think they are the most accurate indicators of the mixed bag it is in reality. I'm sure they all wish no celebrations had been necessary & their loved ones were present instead.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[ShowtekGER]

it seems that you have ignored a lot of what i have written just yesterday.

The rejoicing over the death of a terrorist mastermind who perpetrated many deaths over decades of terrorism does seem more justified in my mind (although I did not particpate) than the rejoicing of 3000 people dieing (many Muslims btw) in a single terrorist act.

it seems more "justified" to me as well. as i stated before. in other words, it is easier to justify these celebrations from common moral points of view.

You hold them identical in moral value

here it really gets weird. no, i didn't. again, as i stated before. i don't see how you draw this conclusion other than that you must have reacted very intuitively and emotionally to my last post. i expressed my disapproval of the american celebrations in that post, that's all. i didn't equalize anything.

Here's one CNN video (there's some from FOX, etc...). http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9934522322847#
I recall seeing other videos which were taken down & references to them on YouTube seem to have been removed. Interesting...

the internet is full of these videos. this particular one has 77000 views on youtube.

conspiracy theories? i never negated that middle eastern people celebrated 9/11. i remember those pictures very clearly (i don't remember them being censored, though) and i have already said that i found them disturbing. i also remember one video of a large group of cheering middle eastern men and little boys doffing a dead, completely burnt, black body of an american soldier through the streets, gibbeting it and throwing stones at it. i say that because i found that even more disturbing imagining what the family of this guy must feel and think when they see such pictures that already make me feel sick to the stomach and sad.

the difference between me and you is that i also see how destroyed the lives of these middle eastern people must be when they do this. boys of the age of 8 gladly throwing stones at a horribly disfigured body? imagine how callous they must already be. something like that only happens after great pain. why would people ever do something like this at all? because they're extremely angry and frustrated. we should search for the roots of this anger and frustration. without removing these roots we can kill as many al-qaida people as we want. there will always be new ones. which is one of the reasons why killing bin laden was practically meaningless. it doesn't make the world "safer" or such stupid crap. that's propaganda. more likely, it makes it more dangerous in the short-term because of retaliation attacks. in the long-term, it doesn't do much unless we stop the grievances in the middle east. sadly, we are responsible for a lot of them.

[Pedal2Metal]

so you're willing to give some away in charity, why not do it immediately by legislation?

This is a key question & one reason I typically don't agree with legislating charity of any kind.
One of the value propositions of helping others is something people rarely discuss:
The CHOICE to help others & how that impacts the one making that choice.

I believe making this decision & executing it does something intrinsically internal for those making that choice that can not be duplicated through external measures. I suspect that is one distinction between us. I have years of interaction with real people in real situations (homelessness, domestic violence, religious persecution abroad [across faiths btw], etc...) which I've personally chosen to engage with in my time, money, residence, & family involvement. BTW, this started while I was in college so no need to wait to get involved in a practical manner. As a result, I have a different perspective than those who simply say "Don't I pay taxes to provide some government agency to take care of that"?

I also think that coercing charity means it is no longer charity. Now those who are coerced may be influenced towards negative feelings towards those who are benefitting from such charity. In short, I think coercion is a form of injustice & justice is a necessary prerequisite for a moral society. So I can't agree with coercive forms of charity, no matter how well-intentioned. In their logical conclusion, they are nothing more than gestapo tactics applied to resource re-distribution, which I find as evil & disgusting as the original problem you propose.

On the other side of the coin, if one accepts that mankind is worse than worms & cats (a premise I tend to agree with unfortunately) , then it does stand to reason that perhaps some baseline of coercion is required to achieve a more lofty outcome than mere survival. So the larger question becomes:
Is a lesser evil justified to achieve a greater good? In other words, the old Machivellian question: Does the ends justify the means?

I honestly struggle with this every day as a parent of 3 children. It is not an easy question to answer in any absolute manner. This is very difficult in reality. In that sense, I do have some compassion on our leaders. It is easy to armchair quarterback from the sidelines but if parenting has taught me anything, real-world governance is difficult indeed. I can say with certainty it is individually determined & some kids require more coercion than others to achieve a similar outcome. I wish I had known some things I know now before I had kids or I could go back & try again. I guess it's the constant desire to learn & improve, too bad we don't get to do it over with our kids after a trial run.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

the difference between me and you is that i also see how destroyed the lives of these middle eastern people must be when they do this. boys of the age of 8 gladly throwing stones at a horribly disfigured body? imagine how callous they must already be. something like that only happens after great pain. why would people ever do something like this at all? because they're extremely angry and frustrated. we should search for the roots of this anger and frustration. without removing these roots we can kill as many al-qaida people as we want. there will always be new ones. which is one of the reasons why killing bin laden was practically meaningless. it doesn't make the world "safer" or such stupid crap. that's propaganda. more likely, it makes it more dangerous in the short-term because of retaliation attacks. in the long-term, it doesn't do much unless we stop the grievances in the middle east. sadly, we are responsible for a lot of them.

I don't disagree. However, as any therapist will tell you & you will learn yourself if/when you enter such a practice, you can't help anyone who does not seek/desire help for themself. In other words, you can't fill a black hole. At this point, there is not only things we can do, there are also value questions that must be confronted. We've been over this many times so I know you realize what I'm saying is simultaneously true with what you're saying. My position in life, given my experiences, is that it is always easier & more fruitful to start on my own personal journey to healing, rather than to wait on external assistance. So in that sense, it is incumbent upon the Middle-East to do it's own house-cleaning. Perhaps the scene of democratic uprising across the region is indicative of this & the realization of the emptiness of Al Qaeda rationale.

In any case, we can only take responsibility for our own actions & so that's where any process of growth must start. If one obsesses over the actions of others, that inevitably leaves you in the black hole. So in that sense I applaud your perspective but you need to realize that the Middle East region must do similarly. In that sense, I find your perspective imbalanced. They must own those actions themselves before any sort of rational dialogue with any hope of lasting recovery can take place. Trust me, I am well familiar with the process within my own life & family. There are other regions of the world where tremendous suffering takes place yet have not become a hotbed of terrorism, this also needs to be confronted & understood, not dismissed as mere coincidence.

Have you asked what would happen if Iraq were to invade the USA? Do you honestly think the Iraqi government would be trying to rebuild the infrastructure (schools, electrical power, water supply, etc...) once they had achieved their mission of overthrowing the President? Do you think they would even attempt to allow the American people to elect another President? Perhaps this is my own prejudice shining through, but I don't think so. At best, I think they would simply leave us to our shattered land to fend for ourselves. I don't even want to contemplate what would be the worst. So I guess my point is: I see mercy & compassion extended in the midst of our violence. Yes, you can decry the violence & all but you can't ignore the other & consider yourself to be attempting to be objectively assessing the situation.

So help can be offered but only within a context of self-introspection & personal responsibility on all sides can it be expected to take root & bear fruit over time. As long as the Middle East tolerates all the injustice [by our definition] that is rampant in its society (women's rights, educational rights, practical religious freedom, rampant government corruption & waste, etc... as we've discussed many times), I doubt much real change can occur despite how many billions of dollars we pour into the region. On a practical level, we can compare Israel with other states in the region & at least in that case, we've got some ROI on our investment in terms of similar values in the society. I'd like to think it's possible elsewhere but it will take a great deal of time, money, & effort as the religious & cultural differences/divide are significant. In some ways, I think this is why some (libertarians in my experience) would just prefer a commerce model with no entitlements & let each country simply go their own way. Certainly, that is probably the more practical model.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.theheartandthefist.com/

I don't know much about the book but I intend to read it. I like the juxtiposition of opposing ideas (on the surface), the heart & the fist. I think the ideas can be synergistic when properly implemented so hence my interest.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Zefelius]

well, THIS is somewhat embarrassing. i took a look at the celebrations in america for the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kI8EUqbWdM

looks to me like a bunch of fools blindly celebrating their primitive instincts of revenge and superiority. i imagine the expression of relief differently. on the other hand, i don't know what else i should've expected.

Yup, humans are animals that enjoy victory over their enemies. Some humans pretend not to be this way, but in those cases I believe it's sublimated enjoyment--as in the case of moral judgement, intellectual debate, economic wealth, supernatural damnation of the wicked, and so forth.

[Zefelius]

At the same time, the overwhelming sense of national relief both collectively & individually seems impossible to hold back in such moments so celebrations are inevitable.

Seems very likely. For the most part Americans are held up to a higher standard than others because of our military and economic power. I'm not even an uber-patriot, as many of you know, yet I always kind of find it amusing when we are critiqued for just about anything we do. Negotiate and do business with a dictator---how dare we! Ignore and isolate them---how limited and ignorant! Spend billions on defense---what a waste! Not intervening quickly enough to help rebels in a foreign country---do something with that military! Intervention is difficult---you should have known better! And now of course there are people around the world, and also in the States, who have watched a very small number of college kids in DC and NY celebrate as if they're no more mature than college kids for the silly reason that they have heard nothing but bad news about the decline of their country's prospects for the last 10 years and for just one or two hours decided to let loose and get a little stupid because our country actually accomplished something that was a very good thing---and of course that's just blatant American stupidity coupled with postmodern imperialism!!

I'm all in favor of agreeing that most people are stupid, but I'm not going to judge them too harshly in this particular case when there is so much more to worry about in the world right now.

[ScottieX]

I'm all in favor of agreeing that most people are stupid, but I'm not going to judge them too harshly in this particular case when there is so much more to worry about in the world right now.

heh OK OK..
Ill move onto other disasters..

How about that Syria eh?

[elthrasher]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...245610028.html

Change in topic. Ethanol is one example of political policy gone all wrong to address a real issue. We are paying for it now & will continue to do so as long as politicians are idiots & fail to assess the unintended consequences of just knee-jerk reactions to long-term issues such as climate change.

Ethanol is just a piece of the puzzle. Another piece is that we have had artificially low food prices for ~50 years and now the bottom is dropping out just as it did in the housing market a few years ago.

Check out this film: http://www.kingcorn.net/

It tries to tell the whole story of all this low-grade corn we produce to use for livestock feed and fuel and many other things.

[elthrasher]

well, THIS is somewhat embarrassing. i took a look at the celebrations in america for the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kI8EUqbWdM

looks to me like a bunch of fools blindly celebrating their primitive instincts of revenge and superiority. i imagine the expression of relief differently. on the other hand, i don't know what else i should've expected.

I don't see anything wrong there. They are celebrating the defeat of a villain. What you see there isn't jingoistic pride. It is hope that we have turned the corner as a people and finally gotten something right. Why are they demonstrating outside the White House? To let the occupant know they approve of what he's done. Do you know how many demonstrations of support there have been in that location in the past 50 years? I don't either, but probably anyone either of us asked would say "not many!" and be close to the mark.

Not that their message is positive, "USA! USA!" Not something celebrating killing. They are waving flags, not posters with images of a dead man. The vast majority of the news we receive on a daily basis is bad. I think it is healthy for people to express themselves like this upon receiving such good news.

Also the ones around the White House were mostly George Washington University students who were glad to have an excuse to take a break from studying.

[elthrasher]

i just don't get this part. some true element of it conflates with my logic and i can't figure out what it is. i think what you say here literally is "the value of human life has not something to do with proximity" but in reality you say, "the value of human life is equivalent to proximity". all the huge amount of empathy directed at the victims of 9/11 and the collective grief were a result of proximity? as opposed to the direct identification with and appreciation of your fellow countrymen? it seems to me this is somehow the underlying conclusion that you draw which is very interesting. it opens up the possibility of a very egoistic approach to the valuation of human life. i.e., "i only deeply care about the terrible misfortunes of other people when they are in geographical/cultural proximity to me because only then i feel threatened myself. i don't really care about atrocities in regions far away from me because that can't hurt me."

i'm sorry if that might sound a little confusing but i'm confused myself.

You don't get why a tragedy closer to home hits us harder? Have you ever known a person who died violently or in an accident? Did you feel exactly the same about that as you feel knowing that someone will die the same way today? How would it affect you if a house in your neighborhood burned to the ground? Exactly the same as you feel knowing that a house is burning right now?

If you like, perhaps we dampen our empathy to those we don't know because if we felt the same sense of loss every time anybody anywhere in the world died, we would either weep constantly or we would become callous an insensitive to any loss of human life simply as a defense mechanism.

I guess I'm confused as to why you are confused.

[ShowtekGER]

I believe making this decision & executing it does something intrinsically internal for those making that choice that can not be duplicated through external measures. I suspect that is one distinction between us. I have years of interaction with real people in real situations (homelessness, domestic violence, religious persecution abroad [across faiths btw], etc...) which I've personally chosen to engage with in my time, money, residence, & family involvement. BTW, this started while I was in college so no need to wait to get involved in a practical manner. As a result, I have a different perspective than those who simply say "Don't I pay taxes to provide some government agency to take care of that"?

there's no reason to assume that choosing to help others isn't permitted in a society where helping is also legislated, so to speak. if we to some extent would stop exploiting other peoples for our superficial, short-term materialistic gain resulting in a short-term, materialistic loss for us, you could still choose the lifestyle you are describing.

the reason why i would want resources to be largely equally allocated is that i don't see how we in the west are deserving of so much more than all the others in a very down to earth meaning of the word "deserve". there's basically no reason for us to own the wealth other than that we use oppression and might. first come, first serve. we choose to own it all and we choose to fight for this status quo resulting in the deaths and miserable lives of millions. i don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

I also think that coercing charity means it is no longer charity. Now those who are coerced may be influenced towards negative feelings towards those who are benefitting from such charity. In short, I think coercion is a form of injustice & justice is a necessary prerequisite for a moral society. So I can't agree with coercive forms of charity, no matter how well-intentioned. In their logical conclusion, they are nothing more than gestapo tactics applied to resource re-distribution, which I find as evil & disgusting as the original problem you propose.

of course, it's no longer charity. in a sane world, we wouldn't need charity because we would give everyone what he needs to live in the first place. if resources were automatically allocated, this wouldn't equate to coercion. people could also agree with it. it could be the status quo and nobody would question it. but it's not.

but calling such legislation coercion isn't very meaningful anyway, is it? then, all legislation must be coercion.

Is a lesser evil justified to achieve a greater good? In other words, the old Machivellian question: Does the ends justify the means?

very hard to answer indeed. i haven't come to a conclusion. it's probably not a yes/no answer because it's essentially a question about morality (and morality is always subjective). it's probably dependent on the context as well.

[elthrasher]

Is a lesser evil justified to achieve a greater good? In other words, the old Machivellian question: Does the ends justify the means?

It's a virtually unanswerable question. Fortunately, it doesn't actually apply here. Taxation isn't evil. It's how our society runs. The alternative is to have a world in which everybody is responsible for building his own roads and bridges, fighting his own wars, putting out his own fires, incarcerating his own criminals, etc. You would not have the leisure time to discuss politics on a video game forum in such a world.

[HydroDragon]

I don't see anything wrong there. They are celebrating the defeat of a villain. What you see there isn't jingoistic pride. It is hope that we have turned the corner as a people and finally gotten something right.

Not that their message is positive, "USA! USA!" Not something celebrating killing. They are waving flags, not posters with images of a dead man. The vast majority of the news we receive on a daily basis is bad. I think it is healthy for people to express themselves like this upon receiving such good news.

I don't like this train of thought. Maybe the specific group of people you mention are celebrating this defeat, but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. It's down to the individual whether they're celebrating his death, his defeat, the information gathered in the raid, US supremacy, etc. You can't make sweeping statements about this sort of thing.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. Is his death really the best result? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult for your SEALs to capture an unarmed Bin Laden (the least they could do was not shoot him in the head). Surely his capture was preferable.

In any case, he's just a scapegoat in the larger scheme of things. Killing him doesn't change the minds of the people he was sending in suicide attacks. Someone else is bound to take his place, and you'll probably face revenge attacks.

I'm actually more hopeful about the information recovered in the raid. I think that's much more likely to 'make the world a better place'.

[elthrasher]

I don't like this train of thought. Maybe the specific group of people you mention are celebrating this defeat, but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. It's down to the individual whether they're celebrating his death, his defeat, the information gathered in the raid, US supremacy, etc. You can't make sweeping statements about this sort of thing.

I can't know the heart and mind of every individual there, but I can analyze the situation with some accuracy, I think, particularly given I work approximately a mile from the White House and until last year lived in the same vicinity.

If they were celebrating blood and crying for more, I think they would have made that apparent. Instead they were exhibiting signs of patriotism. I honestly think mostly people are just glad he's gone.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. Is his death really the best result? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult for your SEALs to capture an unarmed Bin Laden (the least they could do was not shoot him in the head). Surely his capture was preferable.

I could tell you how difficult that would be in various video games, say Halo vs. Half-Life2 vs. Mass Effect vs. Splinter Cell. I could tell you how difficult it would be in various movies or novels. In the real world? None of us have any freaking clue. Official word is that capture was on the table and was to be attempted if possible. We may never know why he wasn't captured. Probably someone in the field made the ultimate call. It could have been based on a desire to be the guy who pulled the trigger on OBL. It could have been hinted down the chain of command that dead was better than alive. It could have been that there simply wasn't a good opportunity to take him alive.

Some reports claimed that bin Laden was armed but not with a firearm and that he was hiding behind women. Maybe he was threatening them and so a sharpshooter took him out. It's a believable scenario I think. What I do know is that these SEALs pride themselves on being serious professionals. They aren't expected to use lethal force except when necessary.

In any case, he's just a scapegoat in the larger scheme of things. Killing him doesn't change the minds of the people he was sending in suicide attacks. Someone else is bound to take his place, and you'll probably face revenge attacks.

Well, it changes one thing and that is the notion that you can plan an execute something like 9/11 and get away with it. Additionally, leadership is important. Groups rally around a cause but they also rally around a leader. If nobody can fill bin Laden's shoes, al-Qaeda will splinter. That doesn't mean they will be less dangerous necessarily but they may be less effective.

[elthrasher]

Interesting take on OBL's death from the Dalai Lama.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,7229481.story

[Zefelius]

Also the ones around the White House were mostly George Washington University students who were glad to have an excuse to take a break from studying.

So true, so true...

Here at Seattle U our students are a little different, I think. After I emailed them that we wouldn't have class the next day, a few of them emailed back thanking me but also expressing, like Scottie and ShowTek, how disappointed they were in the celebrations. I think that reveals just how diverse the reactions are here in the States: from solemn reflection and relief to understandable celebration and not so understandable jingoism. It's a variegated country, just as with Pakistan, China, Germany, Mexico, and anywhere else.

[Zefelius]

# #

*
______

[HydroDragon]

I can't know the heart and mind of every individual there, but I can analyze the situation with some accuracy, I think, particularly given I work approximately a mile from the White House and until last year lived in the same vicinity.

If they were celebrating blood and crying for more, I think they would have made that apparent. Instead they were exhibiting signs of patriotism. I honestly think mostly people are just glad he's gone.

Some reports claimed that bin Laden was armed but not with a firearm and that he was hiding behind women. Maybe he was threatening them and so a sharpshooter took him out. It's a believable scenario I think. What I do know is that these SEALs pride themselves on being serious professionals. They aren't expected to use lethal force except when necessary.

I don't question that specific group of people, sorry, I didn't make that clear. It's just that earlier in the thread people seemed to be applying the 'motive for celebration' thing to everyone in America in one statement, so I decided to pick on that.

The reports I heard said he was unarmed and using a woman as a shield. Apparently they didn't kill the human shield, which is good. I'm just not fully confident the official story is what really happened.

IDK, I'm just having flashbacks to the killzone 2 ending.

I'm not saying that they didn't conduct themselves perfectly, I just think it's a reasonable possibility given the situation. Hence the mixed feelings. I'm glad he can't endanger people anymore, the same as when any criminal is apprehended, but I just don't know if it could have been handled better.

Would you agree that it's more of a political victory than a military one?

[Pedal2Metal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...00-503544.html

I realize there are a variety of opinions on this topic but I for one agree with President Obama. I think it's unnecessary as the job is done (for which I am glad), you can't convince the conspiracy theorists anyhow (just look at 9/11, we have true believers even here!) no matter how much data & rationality you apply, & it allows the USA to retake some of the moral high ground in this war with terrorism (terrorists often televise their killings) which I believe will help over the long-term in winning hearts & minds & further alienate the Al Qaeda approach towards the West within Islam.

I have to say, I am impressed with how this situation has been handled. I really doubt anyone can make any compelling case it could have been handled much better, especially given the context that most people would have ripped Bin Laden to shreds with no Muslim burial & paraded his photo all over the Internet. The administration & everyone involved have not done this, despite the emotionally visceral tendency to desire to do so. Be real now: What would you do with a mass-murderer where you could decide his fate solely in your hands? That's a reality question, not a philosophical one. In that regard, I have to give respect to President Obama for his decision-making in this specific matter. Nicely done sir!

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Would you agree that it's more of a political victory than a military one?

It's a symbolic victory primarily which is important in war. I doubt it has much long-term political or military impact either way.

OBL deserved to die. He is not a US citizen & was not afforded US citizenship rights, nor was he apprehended in the USA, even if one does not agree he deserved death. The fact he was killed instantly, given a burial, & not paraded pictorially afterwards is far better than any of his victims over his 2+ decades of terrorism leadership. Any attempt to scrutinize that further is an exercise in perfectionism which has been shown to not be beneficial in organizations & their development (nor in individuals). I think we should stop here & move forward. It has been handled near flawlessly in reality & only because it was done so well are people able to have a calm discussion about it. It's clearly in the "good enough" zone. If they had done something horrible or it had gone horribly wrong, calmness would be long gone & it would be hysteria all over. The Muslim world has been largely receptive of the news (with notable fanatical exceptions: Hamas, other terrorist organizations, radical Imams, etc...). I think this is probably the clearest indication of all that it was handled well. I personally consider how this was handled one of the better demonstrations of American values under duress. We've made a lot of arguable mistakes in recent years, but I don't think one can make much of a compelling case in this specific action. It has been handled with considerably more graciousness & professionalism than I suspect most of us could muster under similar circumstances.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

I realize there are a variety of opinions on this topic but I for one agree with President Obama.

Totally agree and good on McCain for getting his former opponent's back. This is the most cooperation I think I've ever seen from the two parties.

[elthrasher]

Would you agree that it's more of a political victory than a military one?

How is bin Laden's defeat a political victory? I think it's a military victory and that's very important because we've had precious few true military victories in the sense that the job is complete and the heroes come home. Seems like most of the time even when we we're told we're winning we have no choice but to wonder "winning what?"

[elthrasher]

Here at Seattle U our students are a little different, I think.

That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Kids go to GWU mostly for an interest in politics, policy or law. That's probably not what your students are all about.

# #

*
______

Hey now, are you trying to start a flamewar?!?!?

[Pedal2Metal]

Interesting take on OBL's death from the Dalai Lama.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,7229481.story

When we discussed it that evening in our home, I said pretty much the same thing. It is sad (to me) that someone
who used to be a little boy (like all of us) grew up to become a mass murderer & somehow got into the frame of mind
that it was justified & even holy. So while I wish it hadn't come to this & he had changed paths before it was too late,
we all must suffer the consequences of our choices, sometimes long after those choices were made.

This is how I explain my support for capital punishment to my wife, even if someone has a true change of heart while on death row.
I see OBL as someone who was on death row. It was merely a matter of time before his judgement (long sentenced in
the public eye) of death was administered. He really was living on borrowed time imo & it finally caught up to him.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

Totally agree and good on McCain for getting his former opponent's back. This is the most cooperation I think I've ever seen from the two parties.

Yes. I think Romney said it best that this is an American thing, not a partisan thing. In that sense, I am reminded of the movie: "The Watchmen". As much as I hated that movie, I had to admit it was probably correct that the only way to achieve world peace was to create a tragedy so big, so enormous, so overwhelming with a potential fear of even greater destruction to cause everyone to focus their attention on that object of fear to the diminishment of all else. In some ways, OBL has been a bit of that for the American consciousness.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Zefelius]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...00-503544.html

I realize there are a variety of opinions on this topic but I for one agree with President Obama. I think it's unnecessary as the job is done (for which I am glad), you can't convince the conspiracy theorists anyhow

I have a somewhat different theory right now. Tell me what you think: the conspiracy theorists, and bin Laden's followers especially, will be convinced when they realize he's ceased communication. It would be absolutely stupid for the U.S. to claim that he's dead when all he would have to do to prove otherwise is send out a tape, a video, etc. I think it will be clear soon enough.

However, I think people will always question what exactly went down, and what we did with his body. I agree with Hydro above on at least one point, which is that the official story may not be exactly correct. Unlike Hydro, however, that doesn't bother me too much.

[Zefelius]

Totally agree and good on McCain for getting his former opponent's back. This is the most cooperation I think I've ever seen from the two parties.

I used to like that guy.