|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which is it today? |
| Piggy Banks |
|
10% |
[ 2 ] |
| Freddie Mercury |
|
10% |
[ 2 ] |
| Danish Cartoons |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| The Pope |
|
31% |
[ 6 ] |
| Burger King Ice Cream Cones |
|
31% |
[ 6 ] |
| St. George |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| The Flag of England |
|
15% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
|
| Author |
Message |
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| happeningthang wrote: |
| ...as long as there's no higher authority saying some opinions are more legitimate than others. |
What about a self-appointed higher authority (or various collections of aspiring intellectual tyrants) that at least implicitly claims we are not free unless we prove it by adopting leftist, antiEstablishment views?. |
Well, the little winky thing was supposed to convey it wasn't a serious assertion. It would open the the door to moral relativisim, which isn't something I'm up for. Just pointing out the irony of Pligg's post positing opinions with both a heirarchy and an implied equality making all people free. You are right though, intellectuals of any persuasion trying to cow people into following their way of thinking isn't to be supported. People making assertions in an argument or debate, however, there's no problem with that is there?
| Gopher wrote: |
| happeningthang wrote: |
| ...it was pretty coherent to me. |
It was a weak immitation of Kant or Nietzsche (on the "think for yourself" part) with a postmodernist twist for good measure (on his constant references to "objectification" and, in the post you are praising, his reference to "the other") no more no less. And yes, by the way, we should all be thinking for ourselves and going our own way in the world. I do not believe anyone on this board would disagree with such sentiments.
But, again, one does not have to sypmathize with Al Qaeda or Hezbollah's worldview to prove that he or she is thinking freely. I wholly reject that. And that is exactly the position that Ddeubel has staked out on this board. |
What, you're a philosophy professor now?? I understood the ideas he was presenting, hence the coherency, I wasn't try to grade him. No, no-one would disagree with people thinking for themselves, but I question how many people are willing to look at themselves and their own behaviour and hold themselves accountable. This is the idea I'm "praising" in DD's post.
Abbe Ferria (?) has a tag line.
"Ghandi said, 'Be the change you want in the world'. Screw that! I say be the trouble you want in the world"
I'd agree with the Ghandi bit, and I would guess so would DD. The rest of that quote is supposed to be funny, I guess, but either way it represents the principle of inividual's echoing how they want the world to be in their words and their behaviour.
I don't recall DD sympathising with terrorists or their world views, but I'll leave it up to him to refute you on this point. All I want to say on that is it sounds suspiciously like Pligg's idea of people assuming Americans are arrogant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Happening...
Thanks for seeing something in my words. Despite the labels others would throw at me, I am not for sale. Dog tags, price tags, neo twist this tags........I want to look at something and as I've said before "do the right thing". And sometimes, very often that is DOING NOTHING. A lesson America is having a hard time swallowing, given their history and the dynamics of the place.....
I'd send Gopher once again to Fallows and his essay in Atlantic "Declare Victory" on this point. Do nothing, go on with doing the same, change things in other ways than the gun.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200609/fallows_victory
Fallows writes;
| Quote: |
the greatest threat posed by these groups is not the damage they can do directly, but rather the self-defeating, irrational, or excessive responses they can goad a target country into making. Osama bin Laden has boasted that the attack of 9/11 cost at most $500,000 to launch and provoked more than $500 billion in military and security spending by the United States; a million-to-one �payoff.� As several military officers and strategists emphasized in the article, the United States can reduce but never entirely eliminate the threat of terrorist attack. What it can do is think about the way it will respond when threats arise |
He discusses this briefly in a good radio interview...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5678454
Why do I make this point again, through Fallows? Well, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, a world I care about. Civil liberties, keep your head low, be a patriot, newspeak, military bases everywhere, torture and young Americans dying......for what? Naught. Yes, let's say that out loud . NAUGHT. Let's let the cat out of the bag.
I am not anti-American anymore than I am anti-disposable razors (though I do use them) It is just this is the world I am from , this is the frame around my picture, this is what I am. I believe as Oscar Wilde that "dissent is man's original virtue" and that power seeks only concensus, the sheep culled, baa baa , bla bla...... If anything, civilization is this tiny voice in us saying -- this is wrong. The fox can know many things (to quote an old Greek) but I'll be the hedgehog that knows one BIG thing.
And further, if being anti - American is listening to this little voice inside me.....so be it, whatever your tag.
Gopher says about me,
| Quote: |
It was a weak immitation of Kant or Nietzsche (on the "think for yourself" part) with a postmodernist twist for good measure (on his constant references to "objectification" and, in the post you are praising, his reference to "the other") no more no less. And yes, by the way, we should all be thinking for ourselves and going our own way in the world. I do not believe anyone on this board would disagree with such sentiments.
But, again, one does not have to sypmathize with Al Qaeda or Hezbollah's worldview to prove that he or she is thinking freely. I wholly reject that. And that is exactly the position that Ddeubel has staked out on this board. |
Again, label........but then agree!!!!! I will gladly discuss Nietzsche with you in another context but I do brush aside your view that I am "imitating", however flattering.......
To address your contention and absolutely unidimensional view of what I think. --- I agree wholly with that statement of yours. Never said anyone had to agree to be a free thinker. My point was and which Happening sniffed and smelled is that in this day and age of media and mumblings...it is so easy to believe you are free. Yet to be free, one must constantly be changing one's viewpoint, constantly gardening. Freedom is about knowing you are NOT free and not like so often the case, a cardboard, newspeak, trite cry, "I am free" . This is the fight, it is so easy to just be passive, to take no responsibility for who you are, your actions. Just give in, believe (and I again refer to Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor chapter for this....in Brothers Karamazov with Ivan..). So evil has an easy time, just give me your soul and I'll do the rest.
This in essence is what Bush, Ahmandinejad , Zhou , Putin, Castro and even Billy Graham, Sadr, Oprah, Pepsi and PopOmatic are doing....and why I concurr with Oscar Wilde to say that "dissent is Man's original virtue." and why I would kiss Eve if I ever came across her and her apple.....
I am for civility. Sad this week because Faludy passed away. A fellow man who always believed that the fight was forever for the enlightenment. It isn't about countries, religions, warships....but about light and dark. Humanism, knowing, understanding against the "fill your belly" be lead, cow down, the barbarians are at the gates types (so many alas....) . Obit at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/03/news/obits.php
If anyone interested. Quite the man and I am fortunate to have met and known him from a distance.....
I throw this out to you, from Faludy
| Quote: |
| "I do not know what creates civilization but I suspect strongly that what keeps it in existence is nothing more than an unrelenting preference for the agreeable on the part of the few, in the face of wide-spread opposition." |
I ask like Fallows for more agreeability , especially from the one with all the missles.
| Quote: |
| but what DD is suggesting in his post is that, if we're truly civilised people we need to do better than that. If we're going to aviod following the lead of the nutters in this world, nutters of any persuasion, than it's a good idea to start being accountable for yourself before worrying about anyone else. |
here! Here! I agree, and Israel and America can be strong by being right....i still believe in my mother's quaint, "the proof is in the pudding " (and not having it thrown on your head).
| Quote: |
| Translation: I can't argue with more legitimate opinions than my own. Therefore, I will post an incoherant blurb that appears magnanimous yet lacks any true thought and will appear enlightened. |
Pligg.....If it is at all incoherent, please look within. If you believe it is facile and "appearing enlightened" (though I beg to know what you mean by that....), then it is. A comment on yourself, not my words. Live a little more, you will know what I mean. Truth is not on a cereal box.
And just to honour the man, a few more "civil " words of Faludy who has been thrown out of enough countries to have proof he is right, or on the right track....ave faludy morituri, te salutante..............
DD
| Quote: |
IV. DESPISED & WELCOMED
(A Villonaud)
I've proudly wrapped my dazzling sky around me
and I have found one faithful friend: the fog.
In banquet halls I've heard my hunger howling,
by fires I have endured the teeth of frost.
I am a prince of all mankind: I've reached out
and to my thirsty lips, the mud has swelled--
our paths are marked by dead wildflowers and trees while
sweet summers wither fruitless from man's breath.
And thus I all but hesitate when calmly
warm sunshine holds my frame in still caress.
And thus across three continents I've wandered,
a man despised and welcomed everywhere.
I've wrestled with the winds on frozen wastelands;
my clothes: a figleaf from a bygone tree;
and nothing's clearer for me than night's fragrance
and nothing darker than high noontide's bleach.
My sobs have burst their dams in smoky taverns
but in the graveyards I have laughed my fill;
and all I own are things I've long discarded
and thus I've come to value everything.
Upon my stubborn curls, the mist of autumn
collects its silver while a lonely guest,
I cross this changing landscape never pausing,
a man despised and welcomed everywhere.
Triumphant stars erect their vast cathedral
above me and dew calms my feet below
as I pursue my god (and he's retreating)
and feel my world through every loving pore.
I've rested on the peaks of many mountains
and wondered at the sweating quarry-slaves
but whistling bypassed all the stately towers
for I knew well our rulers' fancy games.
And thus I have received but scorn and kisses,
and thus I've learned to find an equal rest
in squalor and beneath the whitest pillars,
a man despised and welcomed everywhere. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| ...in this day and age of media and mumblings...it is so easy to believe you are free. Yet to be free, one must constantly be changing one's viewpoint, constantly gardening. Freedom is about... |
In other words (and in application), this usually means that you and the other critics reserve the exclusive right to arbitrarily decide if those of us with points of view you dislike are "free" or "brainwashed, mindless, patriotic drones."
Let me ask you this: can free-thinking people reach the conclusion that they agree with W. Bush and support the Iraqi War? If so, what do you propose to do with such people?
This is exactly why the far left is impregnable in its obstinacy, and I do not know who creates the most rigid dichotomies or politicizes and abuses the word "freedom" the most: the far left or the far right. They are all the same to me these days (and you are one of their poster-children here on this board...
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheFonz
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: North Georgia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
And further, if being anti - American is listening to this little voice inside me.....so be it, whatever your tag.
Gopher says about me,
| Quote: |
It was a weak immitation of Kant or Nietzsche (on the "think for yourself" part) with a postmodernist twist for good measure (on his constant references to "objectification" and, in the post you are praising, his reference to "the other") no more no less. And yes, by the way, we should all be thinking for ourselves and going our own way in the world. I do not believe anyone on this board would disagree with such sentiments.
But, again, one does not have to sypmathize with Al Qaeda or Hezbollah's worldview to prove that he or she is thinking freely. I wholly reject that. And that is exactly the position that Ddeubel has staked out on this board. |
Again, label........but then agree!!!!! I will gladly discuss Nietzsche with you in another context but I do brush aside your view that I am "imitating", however flattering.......
To address your contention and absolutely unidimensional view of what I think. --- I agree wholly with that statement of yours. Never said anyone had to agree to be a free thinker. My point was and which Happening sniffed and smelled is that in this day and age of media and mumblings...it is so easy to believe you are free. Yet to be free, one must constantly be changing one's viewpoint, constantly gardening. Freedom is about knowing you are NOT free and not like so often the case, a cardboard, newspeak, trite cry, "I am free" . This is the fight, it is so easy to just be passive, to take no responsibility for who you are, your actions. Just give in, believe (and I again refer to Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor chapter for this....in Brothers Karamazov with Ivan..). So evil has an easy time, just give me your soul and I'll do the rest. |
| ddeubel wrote: |
This in essence is what Bush, Ahmandinejad , Zhou , Putin, Castro and even Billy Graham, Sadr, Oprah, Pepsi and PopOmatic are doing....and why I concurr with Oscar Wilde to say that "dissent is Man's original virtue." and why I would kiss Eve if I ever came across her and her apple.....
|
Aren't you labeling Billy Graham, Oprah, and etc. as being evil in that sentiment? Do you believe they portray a follow me without questioning type of attitude? I disagree with your viewpoint of Billy Graham specifically. From what I understand about the man, he is an advocate of world peace. How can you label him so easily? Especially when in the previous paragraph you call out Gopher when he "labels" you. I know I am nitpicking a little, but it seems hypocritical in my opinion. How can you justify your label of Billy Graham or even put him in a category of evil?
Do you believe dissent is the most constructive way to address a problem?
I think outright dissent is on the far left and following without question is on the far right. Neither are helpful, and going overboard in either direction is ridiculous and unhealthy. I would think any logically person would agree with this.
Maybe I misread what you wrote and if that is the case I apologize for calling you out on what I might of misinterpreted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Aren't you labeling Billy Graham, Oprah, and etc. as being evil in that sentiment? Do you believe they portray a follow me without questioning type of attitude? I disagree with your viewpoint of Billy Graham specifically. From what I understand about the man, he is an advocate of world peace. How can you label him so easily? Especially when in the previous paragraph you call out Gopher when he "labels" you. I know I am nitpicking a little, but it seems hypocritical in my opinion. How can you justify your label of Billy Graham or even put him in a category of evil? |
Yes, I stand corrected. You bring up valid points. I wish I had the time to really elaborate on this, but instead wrote quickly and with my usual rhetorical flourish. Billy Graham of course is not evil. Nor Oprah or Bush. I think very few people are incarnations of evil. Graham is to be commended for all the great work he has done and I am aware of this. So too Bush, the guy does good....
Still, my point is that unaware , they are part of a system that pulls responsibility away from the individual and creates "following" and a culture that gives us everything, "sign , sealed, delivered". It feels good to belong, too good. Soon we lose that ability to check things internally and we believe blindly. Pepsi is the best!!!! Oprah? She can't be wrong!!!! etc....
Dissent is an internal checking mechanism, shit detector. Raise your children with a very good one, I advise.
So I think dissent doesn't mean "Protest" or "negativity". It includes dialogue, it includes "doing what is right". The way I use the word anyway. Dissent is but that ever present refusal , which in essence is our final form of humanity, the one thing nobody can take away. That control of our own individual conscience.
So I don't think dissent is "extreme" and it is very middle of the road. It is not a viewpoint but a way of being. Present on the left or right or middle......
| Quote: |
| Let me ask you this: can free-thinking people reach the conclusion that they agree with W. Bush and support the Iraqi War? If so, what do you propose to do with such people? |
Of course they can! I propose to do nothing but shake their hands! I disagree but if they can thoughtfully (and this is the key brick in this wall) show me the reason -- I will only , thoughtfully show them mine.
Still, you have to realize that culture does not operate in a neutral fashion....it is very hard to think for yourself (thoughtfully) and see clearly. This is no rhetorical trick, it is a fact. Everywhere, the signs and symbols point that we must obey, we must follow. The President and his media have laid many of the bricks in that thoughtful wall......it is this I speak of.
I would also point out that America is divorcing herself of the proud heritage of international leadership. There is a LARGE and real difference between leading and ruling. You can never win if you rule. America once led the way towards forming the League of Nations, creating international treaties and concensus, The Hague, Geneva Conventions.......all America babies. Now what? It is a rogue, defunct nation. Becoming the exact opposite of the founding father's view that America be a bright light for the world. Now it is a burst of gunflash, that is all. Short term, emptying of all leadership.
by the way, I agree that we don't know what freedom is......and it is abused by all. My contention is that we let people, other cultures, individuals decide for themselves what it is . Concentrate on creating a more liveable, peaceful world and not crying "My freedom">
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheFonz
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: North Georgia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Aren't you labeling Billy Graham, Oprah, and etc. as being evil in that sentiment? Do you believe they portray a follow me without questioning type of attitude? I disagree with your viewpoint of Billy Graham specifically. From what I understand about the man, he is an advocate of world peace. How can you label him so easily? Especially when in the previous paragraph you call out Gopher when he "labels" you. I know I am nitpicking a little, but it seems hypocritical in my opinion. How can you justify your label of Billy Graham or even put him in a category of evil? |
Yes, I stand corrected. You bring up valid points. I wish I had the time to really elaborate on this, but instead wrote quickly and with my usual rhetorical flourish. Billy Graham of course is not evil. Nor Oprah or Bush. I think very few people are incarnations of evil. Graham is to be commended for all the great work he has done and I am aware of this. So too Bush, the guy does good....
Still, my point is that unaware , they are part of a system that pulls responsibility away from the individual and creates "following" and a culture that gives us everything, "sign , sealed, delivered". It feels good to belong, too good. Soon we lose that ability to check things internally and we believe blindly. Pepsi is the best!!!! Oprah? She can't be wrong!!!! etc....
Dissent is an internal checking mechanism, *beep* detector. Raise your children with a very good one, I advise.
So I think dissent doesn't mean "Protest" or "negativity". It includes dialogue, it includes "doing what is right". The way I use the word anyway. Dissent is but that ever present refusal , which in essence is our final form of humanity, the one thing nobody can take away. That control of our own individual conscience.
So I don't think dissent is "extreme" and it is very middle of the road. It is not a viewpoint but a way of being. Present on the left or right or middle......
|
Then I agree with your sentiment. My definition of dissent was a little bit different from yours. I saw it as constantly looking for whatever you could to disengage an authority. I think that you can follow blindly in dissent in my definition. Of course believing that Bush is always right is just as pathetic as believing Bush is always wrong. I completely agree with your stance that you shouldn't follow blindly in any way. I also agree that more and more people are supressing that internal instinct of "dissent" (in your definition). The herd mentality is a scary mindset. Thanks for clarifying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevieg4ever
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cottage cheese? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that dissent (and I would rather use expressions such as "plurality of views," than "dissent," by the way, as the former, to me, implies democratic discussions and reasonable exchanges and, these days, the latter implies Michael Moore-style hysteria) is healthy and good.
On this...
| ddeubel wrote: |
| America is divorcing herself of the proud heritage of international leadership... |
I think you show (again) a lack of depth in U.S. history. I will recite what is now accepted by many in the academe and originates with William Appleman Williams and "the Wisconsin School" of the late 1950s and early 1960s...
U.S. "international leadership," as you call it, originated in a crisis of overproduction and several pretty severe depressions in the late-nineteenth century.
Industrialists and "internationalists" in govt eventually concluded that an activist foreign policy (and here they coincided with those Progressives who called for an interventionist govt, domestically -- social welfare, etc.) was necessary. This was to secure foreign markets (as consumers of excess American goods) and sources of raw materials and cheap labor, esp., at first, in China and Latin America and the Caribbean.
The other alternative, redistribution of the wealth, was simply not politically feasible.
It required "a blue water navy," coaling stations, and the Panama Canal, for example, to secure our interests and investments, and to keep the sea lines of communication open (for us and everyone else; the nineteenth-century colonial powers, of course, had different ideas of how that should have been; and we did not overcome these worldviews until the mid-twentieth century when we forced them to accept our position on that matter -- think especially of the Suez Crisis).
We went back and forth on whether we should do this, especially after the First World War, where the internationalists lost to "the isolationists," who held sway until the Second World War was full blown -- when, also, the earlier Progressive movement saw its proposals realized in the shape of FDR's "New Deal." This was debated so for many reasons, one of them being that it would necessarily, sooner or later, involve us in colonial-style wars.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, however, the internationalists came to dominate -- apparently once and for all. And that is how it has been since 1945ish.
Now, you speak of some imagined "proud heritage of international leadership" as if it were something different than what I cite above, and I guess you refer to the excess of goodwill we enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.
In many respects, perhaps in all the ways that really matter, we squandered that goodwill via the Containment Doctrine and prosecuting the Cold War and have no one to blame for it but ourselves. (This has led many to see things through a very distorted and angry U.S.-centric worldview, bin Laden and Chavez, for example, or your own characterization and overly-simplistic reduction of America to "a rogue" or "just a gunflash.")
So, when we acted as leaders this necessarily involved creating and diplomatically and militarily enforcing a unified system of international commerce and finance -- our own civilization, if you will. This involved, like anything pros and cons, for everyone, everywhere, and these pros and cons, I am sure, are not evenly distributed either.
In any case, whether it was Hitler, the United States, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, or the Chinese hegemony some here pray for, there will be a hegemonic power or collection of powers creating and enforcing their version of how international commerce should be -- and it will involve a very different set of pros and cons, I assure you; and you should be careful of what you ask for, given that it is not entirely clear what these would be in the case of Chinese hegemony.
What I am saying, then, is that there is no "proud heritage of international leadership" for any hegemon. There are only pros and cons, unevenly distributed among allies and others, associated with picking up that mantle, as we did, and really with much reluctance and only after much internal debate, around the time of the Second World War.
Your attempt at trying to shame Americans is founded, therefore, on insufficient understanding of the historical development of said "international leadership." For better or for worse, we have taken the bull by the horns, and he is ours (even if he bucks hard and throws us from time to time). If you want us to let him go, please be sure you understand all that that implies and where it would probably lead.
As Pericles said of the Athenian Empire, "perhaps it was wrong to take it, but it is dangerous to let it go."
If you would rail against, repudiate, and denounce the internationalists, hoping that the civilization they have created -- and yes, imposed on the rest of the world -- might collapse, you would find, for one thing, loss of capital investment and finance in multiple Third-World countries, loss of international banking and exchange standards, and a host of other forms of chaos, in addition to, thankfully, no U.S. military intervention in places like Iraq -- but do not forget, fewer, if any, "good" interventions and humanitarian aid projects in places like Kuwait, Somalia, and typhoon-stricken Indonesia, too (and are people not calling on us to intervene in Sudanese affairs these days, for that matter? Is any other nation-state stepping up to that plate?).
Finally, I seriously doubt the Marxist utopia that you seem to want would emerge in the aftermath of such a U.S. withdrawal from world affairs, either. It is a violent, chaotic world. And for better or for worst, we have offered it some form of stability (and have seen it, in many cases, prosper), your tendency to see only faults and malice in us and purely good faith in everyone who opposes us notwithstanding... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Finally, I seriously doubt the Marxist utopia that you seem to want would emerge in the aftermath of such a U.S. withdrawal from world affairs, either |
First to get something off my chest.........how ever you could construe me as being "Marxist" I can't fathom. Most vile ideology I can think of.....so against human nature and thought , right thought, I can't even mumble any more words. So quit it with that. You think anyone who has read a few books is a Marxist? Get real.
I'll state right here, prefer democracy and in particular "gentler" capitalism. I don't prefer military adventurism and expansionism......You might think I know little about U. S. history and I can't say I am a genius in that area. But I know enough to say that U.S. history is not only about what it did, the policies and it's search for markets and territory.........U.S. history is most notable for the model it provided others, the example and shining light it usually always shone. In the last 40 years, yes so much squandered. The U.S. can win the NEW war, by returning to doing what is right and not mucking and shooting in other countries affairs, kidnapping, torturing and bullying other countries ....dialogue, international roundtables, concensus, partnership (real partnership), leadership and not ruling......
The U.S. contrary to your practical view of its history has always been a leader in fostering international treaties and conventions, standards. Industrial, commericial, military.....it has been a great broker of peace and understanding. The last 20 years beginning with Reagan, completely out the window and America has moved towards beligerance and away from leadership. Very evident today.
Also, why can't the U.S. have its cake and eat it too.???? The world is a different place today, you can't conquer nations with a few thousand Gurka, you can't just call up the local chief of police and have troublemakers arrested. You have to do things softly and by example.....why can't the U.S. pull back and do what it does well, cultivate its own great Garden of Eden and ALSO, help internationally, with education, relief, economic subsidy/aid???? WHY? there doesn't need to be a tit for tat here....it is not expansionism or isolationism. You are still of the old school.
Your version of American history lacks all subtlety and seems like it is right from a grade 12 primer.
| Quote: |
| U.S. "international leadership," as you call it, originated in a crisis of overproduction and several pretty severe depressions in the late-nineteenth century. |
What about the whole civil war? The leadership that suppossed? What about someone like Jennings Bryant who constantly won international accolades for supporting neutrality and working for real American interests and the working folk. What about international leadership not through the govt but through its being, its sharing of abundance, its community, its rule of law, its belief in the rights of man.....leadership isn't something about a person, the commander in chief. I scoff at you for thinking leadership comes in the form of a chin and bio......
America is off course. Needs a 180 back into being what it is....a land of possibility. this will be its legacy and continued light.
DD
A few good editorials in yesterday's IHT -- basically saying America is losing its soul. I'll post when I get home. We constantly need this check to get balance.....if acted upon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ddeubel: perhaps you should stick to your postmodernist readings and your comfortable and convenient editorials about "America losing her soul."
Your grasp of U.S. history and the historiographical currents which underlie it, not to mention its place in world historical contexts, is simply not up to par. You are from antro, right? Then your views make sense, as one of your great gurus, Malinowski, wholly and very high-handedly rejected historical approaches entirely.
Moreover, I cannot speak for Reagan or W. Bush or any other policymaker for that matter, but if it were me, no matter my political views, slant, or ideology -- that is, even if I were JFK or Bill Clinton -- I would simply see no reason to attempt to negotiate or modify the U.S. position when confronted with people with views like yours, people who are only inclined to see us as "a bully" or "a rogue," or people who only want to see us as acting in bad faith in all corners of the globe.
I have reached another impasse with you. So be it.
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ALSO, help internationally, with education, relief, economic subsidy/aid???? |
America is very generous in times of disaster.
In other cases, America has learned that you can't throw money at the problem, and has refused to give aid when they cannot be assured that the money won't go to people who would use the aid to make the situation worse.
| Quote: |
| A few good editorials in yesterday's IHT -- basically saying America is losing its soul. I'll post when I get home. We constantly need this check to get balance.....if acted upon. |
Bullshit. Much of America is angry with this President's policies, and it is only gerrymandering which might protect the GOP in the Senate, it looks like they'll hold onto the House if they're lucky. Don't tell me that America is losing its soul when the Pentagon's lawyers stood up to Bush and told him they wouldn't torture. Don't tell me America is losing its soul when the Supreme Court held firm and upheld the applicability of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions towards Al Qaeda detainees, not to speak of all other detainees in all other conflicts. Don't tell me America is losing its soul when a dozen Senate Republicans are standing firm against Bush's new terror detainment bill which would allow the CIA to continue to use 'unspecified methods' to interrogate detainees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| beep*. Much of America is angry with this President's policies, and it is only gerrymandering which might protect the GOP in the Senate, it looks like they'll hold onto the House if they're lucky. Don't tell me that America is losing its soul when the Pentagon's lawyers stood up to Bush and told him they wouldn't torture. Don't tell me America is losing its soul when the Supreme Court held firm and upheld the applicability of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions towards Al Qaeda detainees, not to speak of all other detainees in all other conflicts. Don't tell me America is losing its soul when a dozen Senate Republicans are standing firm against Bush's new terror detainment bill which would allow the CIA to continue to use 'unspecified methods' to interrogate detainees. |
| Quote: |
| Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect. |
Paul Krugman
I agree there is anger but the fact of the matter is, despite the efforts of so many good people, the circus , the show, goes on..........
Despite everything, looks like Bush's plan to make "torture and whatever is necessary" legal -- will make it through the Rep. Senate and law. As Krugman angrily points out, it is because Bush continually plays the card,
"I am protecting American interests. I am the ONLY ONE." And people buy into that.....John Wayne and all.....
And it just isn't this issue but so many others...from inequality to international relations, to health and education.....................
Don't think America has lost its soul but it is certainly without anyone at the helm....
| Quote: |
King of Pain
Monday, September 18th, 2006 by bill
From NY Times
By Paul Krugman
A lot has been written and said about President Bush�s demand that Congress �clarify� the part of the Geneva Conventions that, in effect, outlaws the use of torture under any circumstances.
We know that the world would see this action as a U.S. repudiation of the rules that bind civilized nations. We also know that an extraordinary lineup of former military and intelligence leaders, including Colin Powell, have spoken out against the Bush plan, warning that it would further damage America�s faltering moral standing, and end up endangering U.S. troops.
But I haven�t seen much discussion of the underlying question: why is Mr. Bush so determined to engage in torture?
Let�s be clear what we�re talking about here. According to an ABC News report from last fall, procedures used by C.I.A. interrogators have included forcing prisoners to �stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours�; the �cold cell,� in which prisoners are forced �to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees,� while being doused with cold water; and, of course, water boarding, in which �the prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet,� then �cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner�s face and water is poured over him,� inducing �a terrifying fear of drowning.�
And bear in mind that the �few bad apples� excuse doesn�t apply; these were officially approved tactics � and Mr. Bush wants at least some of these tactics to remain in use.
I�m ashamed that my government does this sort of thing. I�d be ashamed even if I were sure that only genuine terrorists were being tortured � and I�m not. Remember that the Bush administration has imprisoned a number of innocent men at Guant�namo, and in some cases continues to imprison them even though it knows they are innocent.
Is torture a necessary evil in a post-9/11 world? No. People with actual knowledge of intelligence work tell us that reality isn�t like TV dramas, in which the good guys have to torture the bad guy to find out where he planted the ticking time bomb.
What torture produces in practice is misinformation, as its victims, desperate to end the pain, tell interrogators whatever they want to hear. Thus Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi � who ABC News says was subjected to both the cold cell and water boarding � told his questioners that Saddam Hussein�s regime had trained members of Al Qaeda in the use of biochemical weapons. This �confession� became a key part of the Bush administration�s case for invading Iraq � but it was pure invention.
So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?
To show that it can.
The central drive of the Bush administration � more fundamental than any particular policy � has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president�s power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it�s a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they�re asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.
And many of our politicians are willing to go along. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is poised to vote in favor of the administration�s plan to, in effect, declare torture legal. Most Republican senators are equally willing to go along, although a few, to their credit, have stood with the Democrats in opposing the administration.
Mr. Bush would have us believe that the difference between him and those opposing him on this issue is that he�s willing to do what�s necessary to protect America, and they aren�t. But the record says otherwise.
The fact is that for all his talk of being a �war president,� Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause � even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw Winston Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.
Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.
Posted in News, Opinion |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| ddeubel wrote: |
Read my sig. I bet that you're one of the "Islam Sucks" crowd. I guess if I were on here spouting the evils of the Muslims and the shame that should come with being a citizen of an Islamic nation, I'd fit right in.
The fact is, Americans around the world get angry and offended anytime anyone says anything that criticizes their freedom or religion. Most Orientals, and even Americans in eastern countries., appreciate the right to free speech that allows people to criticize each other. Many preachers in western countries organize rallies and protests over the smallest stuff; the stuff that you and I take as common criticism. That's my point. Eveything on that poll is something that Americans have been offended by in the recent past. Deal with it.
_________________
Islam sucks, and if you say otherwise you are arrogant.
DD
We all wear a lense that keeps us from reality [and so much now in the form of media, quick stories, no thought....] -- sometimes though the bars of our prison cells, do not work.....to paraphrase Ondattje. |
Oh, get a clue.
A) You're trite little copy of my post is off-base and incomparable to my post.
|
Even worse, it is stale. This is at least the second time he's used this schtick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| ...my usual rhetorical flourish... |
Your usual rhetorical flourish?
Is that what you call what you do? Jesus. I mean, for a non-native speaker of English, which I can only assume you to be, you do pretty well, but nothing of the meandering, maundering �thoughts� you string into �sentences� that pepper anything you�ve ever written on this board can be said to rise to the level of actual rhetorical competence, let alone flourish. Maybe you do better in whatever your native language is. Maybe in that language what you write doesn�t come off like someone else�s half-digested thought, abruptly regurgitated in ways that make it clear you like the way it sounds, but which educated native speakers of the language take for redundant, rambling, embarrassingly half-baked twaddle, misusing words as often as Bush mispronounces them. In this I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as there�s no way for me to tell since my second language is no doubt not your first.
Anyway, please don�t flatter yourself by calling what you do �rhetorical flourish.� Keep studying English, though � maybe you�ll get there some day. But probably only if you buy a better dictionary than the one you seem to have, then study it. Strunk & White could maybe help, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
