PDA

View Full Version : Too true to be funny -



talamh
November 17th, 2001, 08:21 AM
i really do think this fits better here then in the Just Silly department... i know many will disagree... this really is how it seems to be to me.. and to a lot of people.

Now... if i had to make a choice, of course i would rather live in the US then in Afghanistan.... but i am actually very thankful that i live in neither... although Canada's anti-terrorist legislation is almost as draconian as what's happening in the States.

i think what is so shocking about this comparison is that it *can* be stated like this. So please...give your criticisms of the comparison.. not of me. i'm not being deliberately anti-American. i am, however, very very concerned that in fighting the terrorists, our leaders are themselves becomming terrorists.. and because they do it in our name... so are we all. bb talamh

_____________________

Confused ? Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys ?
Use this handy guide to discern differences betweenTerrorists and the U.S. Government:

TERRORISTS: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician,from extremely wealthy oil family

US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family

TERRORISTS: Leader has declared a holy war ('Jihad') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes God
is on his side, and that any means are justified.

US GOVERNMENT: Leader has declared a holy war ('Crusade') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes God is on his side, and that any means are justified.

TERRORISTS: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election

US GOVERNMENT: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election

TERRORISTS: Operates through clandestine organization (al Qaeda) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other
terrorist tactics

US GOVERNMENT: Operates through clandestine organization (CIA) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics

TERRORISTS: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties

US GOVERNMENT: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties

Kaylara
November 17th, 2001, 01:55 PM
Creepy!

Kaylara

UnSolon
November 17th, 2001, 03:16 PM
Too true... too true...

Thanks for posting that...

Dellit Tandannon
November 18th, 2001, 12:30 AM
well, when you put it that way, of course its gonna sound bad!
hehe

Margie
November 18th, 2001, 12:35 AM
I've often thought that we were doing the things we're accusing "them" of doing. It is so true.

EasternPriest
November 18th, 2001, 04:03 AM
except bush won in the election.

Myst
November 18th, 2001, 04:11 AM
Where's the "Bush flew two planes into the World Trade Center, another one into the Pentagon, and missed the Camp with the last one, thereby killing thousands of innocent people out of hate" part?

I mean I see the point but still..

UnSolon
November 18th, 2001, 04:50 AM
Actually I dont think Bush did WIN the election.

The most recent recount actually has Al Gore win Florida.

This news story is also one of the most self-censored, or missing, news stories of 2001. Since the recount was completed JUST after 9/11 the headlines were more interested in showing the smoking ruins of the WTC than to say that Gore had won. Its one of those stories that disapeared in the US along with that senetor (or somebody I dont really remember or care) that was charged with having an affair with an intern, and that intern is missing, or something like that.

But hey

talamh
November 18th, 2001, 08:13 AM
Myst wrote:

"Where's the "Bush flew two planes into the World Trade Center, another one into the Pentagon, and missed the Camp with the last one, thereby killing thousands of innocent people out of hate" part?"

________________________

More children have died in Iraq as a direct result of the American-backed sanctions then the number of people who died in the terrorist attacks. Those deaths were unspectacular and not carried live on CNN but i'm sure their families grieve as deeply.

One does not justify the other but they are both deliberate acts of violence done with full knowledge of the consequences. bb talamh

Danustouch
November 18th, 2001, 12:10 PM
Talamh...you were saying that more Iraqui children died as a result of the sanctions placed on Iraq, then the people that died in the WTC attacks.

I would REALLY like to see this evidence. If you can provide me with a RELIABLE source, I'll believe it. But until then...I can't. Sorry. Won't just take you're word for it..I want evidence in my hand...reliable news sources, etc.

talamh
November 18th, 2001, 06:24 PM
i was wrong. The common estimate of the number of children in Iraq who have died as a result of the UN sanctions is actually about half a million.

The first site i found was this one"

http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/may96_iraq2.html


In case you wonder about the credibility of the OneWorld organization (which i have never heard of), this is a list of the financial backers:



British Telecom Community Partnership Programme
The European Commission
Ford Foundation
Hivos, the Humanist Institute for Cooperation with DevelopingCountries, Netherlands
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate General for International Co-operation (DGIS)
The Rockefeller Foundation
UK Department for International Development
The UK National Lottery

OneWorld has strategic alliances and memoranda of understandingwith:

Association for Progressive Communication (APC)
Association mondiale des radiodiffuseurs communautaires(AMARC)
HIVOS
The United Nations Development Programme
The World Bank

There are several NGOs that can also give the information. i haven't done a media search.. but there is a solid body of info out there for a search with the keywords "Iraq and sanctions and child deaths"

bb talamh

UnSolon
November 18th, 2001, 07:07 PM
Danustouch... its true you know. More people have died each MONTH because of those sanctions than all the people that died on the Sept 11th terrorist attacks. Since they dont happen in one location, and the deaths dont involve HUGE buildings collapsing, and people diving out windows, and suicide bombers, and instead consist of people SLOWLY wasting away from lack of food and basic nessecities, these tend to be ignored by mainstream media. Its more appeasing to the western mind to simply see a pile of building rubble than to see the bloated body of an emancipated child.

And yes Danustouch, as Talamah has demonstrated, It is EASILY documented. There are more references for these facts than you can wave a stick at. So I hope you except it. You may not like it, I truely HOPE you do not like it, and I pray you do not turn a blind eye towards it now that you know.

The USA impossed these sanctions to try and get Saddam off the throne. However these sanctions are have virtually NO effect on him, he is not going to starve I guarrentee you. Instead it is harming the people of an already impovrished nation, and to tell you the truth, probably giving Saddam even more popularity and support. He could not ask for a better way to get the people of the country hating the US, and loving him, the man who stood up to the US. I sincerly hope these sanctions will be lifted. The UN has declared these sanctions to be uneffective, and unjust (yes, references for this are available if you look too), however the USA is unwilling to lift the sanctions for whatever reason. Perhaps they are afraid of admiting they were wrong.

Peace

bansidhe
November 18th, 2001, 07:54 PM
eeepp!!! i never thought of quite like that talamh !!!

i agree tho, its a more attractive media proposition to have innocent americans jumping out of buildings, etc, than to see children of iraqi swine wasting away slowly.

im not saying that the terrorist attacks were justified or not totally evil, but the coin always has two sides, its just that the media always makes one side brighter than the other.

SpikesPet5150
November 19th, 2001, 02:26 AM
Why does it always have to be about "Who has it worse"? Who cares???? Both nations are suffering dearly... either directly, or indirectly because of each other.

The thing I'm curious about.. and this may come off harsh, but I admit, I don't know the whole story... but why is it the US's fault that children are starving? Is it our job to feed them? Is it our job to make sure they're getting fed? No, not really. It's a nice gesture.. one that many other countries don't even think about... but think about it this way... you keep giving christmas gifts to this family.. the family screws you over, takes your money, steals your dog and has sex with your wife/husband... do you still continue giving them christmas gifts? Probably not. There are children starving in America too. Are there other countries sending us food? Maybe it's just me, but I think we should worry more about whats happening in our own country, before looking to help any other countries. But I could be totally wrong here... someone explain to me, please.
~Bree

UnSolon
November 19th, 2001, 02:59 AM
Spikes pet... I could get off on some long-winded speech about American imperialism and the negetive effects it has had in many places in the world, but I wont.

Perhaps your right, its not DIRECTLY the US's fault that people in Iraq were starving before the war (and people have been starving in every country for age immortal), however the sanctions impossed by the US on Iraq after the war has caused over a million of people to face starvation. The sanctions have cut off the ability for the people of Iraq to import the products needed for survival. I dont know much about the geography of Iraq, but from what I do know its much less friendly to agricultural endevors.

Now do not kid yourself. The USA, and Canada, would be hard pressed to feed itself in the manner in which it does if an embargo was placed apon our respective populations.

Thats why the US has a responsibility towards the starvation of people in Iraq.

Peace,

SpikesPet5150
November 19th, 2001, 04:10 AM
Ok.. thanks for explaining. I just had no idea... but I see now.. and yes, it's not right for us to impose on their imports... how are they supposed to feed and clothe their people?
~Bree

Daniel
November 19th, 2001, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by UnSolon
Actually I dont think Bush did WIN the election.

The most recent recount actually has Al Gore win Florida.Yes, and as I've said before, the Miami Herald (no friend to the Republical party) did their own count and said he won. Back On Topic(tm):


The USA impossed these sanctions to try and get Saddam off the throne. However these sanctions are have virtually NO effect on him, he is not going to starve I guarrentee you. Instead it is harming the people of an already impovrished nation, and to tell you the truth, probably giving Saddam even more popularity and support. I disagree with your hypothesis.

If Hussein played ball with the United States and let us search his country for weapons of mass destruction, and if he stopped killing his own people, we wouldn't need to use sanctions in an attempt to remove him. Besides, even if you disagree with me there, you have to admit that the weight of the responsibility for the deaths of Iraqui citizens while Hussein is well-fed and housed comfortably rests with Hussein. He could get up off his ass and do something about it anytime he wanted to, if he was prepared to make a few personal sacrifices.

In any event, aren't we allowing them to sell oil in exchange for food and other humanitarian aid? If so, is it truely our fault if these resources aren't making it into the hands of the people who need it the most?



I am, to be honest, sick and tired of how all the ills that plague the Earth are laid at the feet of the United States. We, as a nation, are barely two and a quarter centuries old. Our population accounts for roughly 5% of the world's total population. Most of us are regular Joe and Jane Citizens who go to work in the morning and come home at night. We aren't all that important, and when you take a look at the problems we're wrestling with at home, we aren't really all that powerful either.

If we were, this country would be somebody's idea of Eutpoia, and I don't hear about anybody dancing happily in the streets about the state of the union.

The suggestion that the other 95% of the world bears no responsibility whatsoever for the woes of humanity positively sickens me; before anybody says that that wasn't their conclusion, take note of the fact that when we talk about who is "responsible" for this or that somewhere in the world, the United States is always the first "culprit" mentioned.

UnSolon
November 19th, 2001, 06:21 AM
Daniel - Nice post.

I would now like to make a few points. You are correct, the US is not responsible for ALL of the worlds woes. However I would like to suggest that it is responsible for a disproportionate amount of inequality and injustice.

Whereas: the population of the US accounts for approximatly 5% of the worlds populations;

Whereas: the US consumes more per capita than any other nation on the planet (eg: 30 times more than a person from India [Note: India will soon be the most populus nation on the planet, surpassing China, however the US will still consume MORE than all of INDIA])*reference National Geographic

Whereas: the US is the worlds second largest contributer to Green house gases per capita, and the worlds largest contributer total;

Whereas: the US is the worlds largest arms exporter;

Whereas: the 86.7% of the worlds wealth is controlled by 5% of the worlds population;

Whereas: aid shipments to impovrished nations (from whatever country) comes nowhere NEAR to the amount paid BACK to the giving country through debt repayment;

Whereas: IMF and World Bank policies (not the United States, however their policies benifit western capitalism the most) dictate that inorder to get help from them they must often cut social, education and other programs before getting aid.
Quote (paraphrased because I have lost my origional, and I dont feel like going and searching thourgh 30+ magazines at 2:15 in the morning, so exact dates, figures and names may be wrong, but you get the picture)
In 1992 (see above about date) the World Bank asked Desmond Tutu, retired president of Zambia, what went wrong with the countries economy. He replied, "In 1980 the per capita income was $250. By 1992 the per capita income was $120. However, during that time we followed every single instruction and mandate the World Bank put to us. So I asked them 'What went wrong'.";

Whereas: the environment is already being destroyed at an incredible rate with an extinction rate higher than since the end of the dinosaurs;

Whereas: this environmental distruction is blamed largly (but not completly) on human actions;

Whereas: North Americans consume 8/10ths of the world produced goods, therefore could be reasoned to be responsible for 8/10ths of the environmental destruction;

Whereas: the so-called wish and ability of western capitalism to bring ALL countries to the level of affulence enjoyed by North Americans, therefore bringing everyone up to the level of consumerism of North America, and increasing environmental destruction exponentialy;

THEREFORE: The United States and other western countries (Canada, parts of Europe, Japan, etc [the so-called 'North'), because of their policies and drive for affluence, have severly affected the environment, the economies, the cultures, and peoples of the world.



OKAY before you jump all over me... stop for a second. I do not think that the US is responsible for ALL of the worlds problems, far from it, however they do share a large part of blame, and all I ask is an accknowledgement of this, so that constructive democracy and a sustainable change can be brought into being.

What does regular Dick and Jane American have to do with this... well themselves personally, not much... they are simply living their lives under the codes which have been instilled into the minds of our collective culture. They do not realize what happens outside of their bubble. It is the collective result of an entire culture based on consumeristic materialism, and invisible exploitation.

Anyways...

Peace
UnSolon

talamh
November 19th, 2001, 08:58 AM
i had time to look up some more sites that refer to Iraq and the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_183000/183499.stm

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00171.html

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.html&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=Iraq+and+United+Nations&option=&start_row=14&current_row=14&start_row_offset1=0&num_rows=1&search_results_start=11

unfortunately, they are not difficult to find.
bb talamh

xjsjaglvr
November 19th, 2001, 09:58 AM
Bush was elected fairly, and surprise Bush did win in Florida, in fact using just the method Gore wanted Bush one the recount. So for the last time Bush was fairly elected. He is sworn in and is. in spite of all the boo hooing our president. Bin Ladin wasn't elected by anyone. Terrorists don't have Democracies they are ruled by he who kills his rivals.

Myst
November 19th, 2001, 11:07 AM
This is a very interesting thread. The only comment I have to make at this time though is that the idea of "you should help these people because it's the right thing to do/you're obligated to because I think so" reminds me of "you should have faith in God because I think so". It's nice that you have those morals, but I find it disturbing that you think an entire country should live by them (especially in the case of Hussein and Iraq) just because you think so.

UnSolon
November 19th, 2001, 05:08 PM
whoa hold up nellie....

Okay... the point of my little speech, Myst, was not to justify Saddam Hussain's leadership. ABSOlUTLY NOT! It was simply trying to point out some facts which are often ignored.

A parable:
The people in one city LOVE eating pickles. They love pickles more than anything else in the world. They eat them for breakfast, lunch, dinner, for snacks, they even use them to shine their shoes.
However, their love for pickles means they have to import an enourmous amount cucumbers for this process. As an idirect result they are depriving the surrounding cities to even get enough cucumbers to make a sandwhich with.
Also the vinigar and bacteria needed to make those pickles are having a disasterous effect to the environment around this 'pickle' city. However, because of the luck of the draw, this pickle city is VERY affluent, and can afford to eat as many pickles as it wants. And the scary truth is, that most people in this city do no know the consequences their pickle eating habits are having in the rest of the country side.

Is it right, honerable (whatever word you want to put on it) for them to continue to do this? Is it atleast not fair for these facts to be shown to the people of this city? So that by doing so, they can change some of their habits, while NOT giving up the pickles, so that everyone, not just this city, can benefit.

It's true, "ignorence is bliss". Do you realize how 'happy' I could be with this world if I did not know the things I do. If I did not see the injustice which happens around me daily, and the immobility of so many of my fellow citizens to lift a finger to try and stop or change it. Mostly it is because they do not know, so I can not really blame them. They are simply living their lives as they think they should. Okay... I ramble again... Peace

Xois
November 19th, 2001, 07:23 PM
I have been reading the reports of the recounts and here are the FACTS

1. The recount that Gore wanted would have enanbled Bush to win (in other words, just the counties that Gore though would favor him)

2. Bush LOST the election because a state wide recount comes out more for GORE.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.

But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.

So...GORE won florida!

And our supreme court still picked our president...

Sorry this is ot...BUt I get real tired of the selective fallacy of Bush supporters!

Cheers
Xois

MammaStar
November 19th, 2001, 10:58 PM
I read this thread earlier this morning. Quite frankly, it ticked me off. Why? Cause I'm really getting tired of people (no one specific, just in general) of ragging on the US for what they do to defend itself. At this point I don't give a rat's behind who won, was it fair. We're stuck with not a very bright bulb down in DC, but ya know what, he's taking care of business. That's all that matters, for right now at least. I think no matter what George W. does, he's gonna get critized, so he's just doing what he thinks is right.

But, more importantly what has ticked me off about this thread is, I am sick & tired of everyone going at the US, saying we're bad, we shouldn't do this, don't drop bombs, don't go in and find the SOB who just killed thousands of my neighbors. Yeah, I live in NY. Yeah, I know about 5 people now who died. My "town" (we're comprised of about 6 separate towns but governed by one big one) alone lost 10 people. One of the a mother of 2 very young children. I digress.....

I think, we should've taken care of this Afghanastan (sp??) problem about 20 years ago. But we didn't, no we chose to ban the summer olympics maybe we should've gone in kicked some butt and maybe this idiot wouldn't be in power. But there was that whole Cold War issue back then.

All I'm saying is that when there's a problem in any country, who's the first to respond, the United States. Who's the first line of defense for Canda? The United States. Yeah, we may seem like a big bully from time to time, and lord knows we fight with each other constantly, but if the power the United States has, suddenly disappeared, I think EVERYONE would miss us and freak out.

Xois
November 19th, 2001, 11:41 PM
LdyStarlite

Switch to decaf ;)

I am just teasing...

Actually, it DOES matter to me if it was fair or not...It will ALWAYS matter to me...because I care about the process...and I want to protect the integerity of the process...

And just to be honest, it does matter what GWB does...he just isn't doing the things I think he should be doing...

Like taking care of business here...or missel defense, or education, or the entire "Witchcraft isn't a real religion" thing...so if you want to ignore those, or like his policies...than you will be a person at peace during his administration, more power to you...and may you vote for him again, if that is what you want...but for those who don't...we have the RIGHT to crab and moan and voice our opinion--and VOTE in the next election!!!

I absolutly REFUSE to become one of those "America, love it or leave it" morons! I will look critically and intelligently on the good that our countries does and the bad...because when our country does something bad, we are ALL responsible... I will NOT rally around a president JUST becuase there is a crisis (which is not to say I won't support the US or our troops)...

I will not allow BUSH and his cronies in the congress to cloak every type of destructive policy (drilling in anwr, economic "stimlus" package etc...) in the sept 11 "america is mourning" TRASH that he has been spouting...Talk about taking advantage of a people who are healing!!! I will make sure my congresspeople and senators know how I feel about the issues...

But thats just me...and I'll spend the rest of this "imposed despotism sentence" very eager to vote AGAINST Bush in the next election...unless of course he becomes a reasonable person with reasonable policies...then I would vote for him...

Cheers
Xois

MammaStar
November 19th, 2001, 11:59 PM
frightening how uppity i can get. :eek:

Just for the record, I did NOT vote for Bush, I voted for Gore. Yes, I was incredibly PEEVED that this idiot won. But, at this moment, for the next 3 1/2 years, I gotta live with this guy running my gov't. I don't have it much better locally either, I got Carpet bagger Hillary, & chuck shumer. The only great thing my "district" has is our Rep. Ben Gillman. The ONLY Republican I have ever voted for and probably ever will.

You're right, the process does suck. We do need to change it. If that is one lesson all Americans should take, is that we NEED to change some things how people can get elected. But right now, things need to get done and we're the ones who have to do it.

It's all a mess right now. I think sometimes I react the way I do is because I feel like we're being kicked while we're down. It could just be me, for all I know. It's still not all that happy around here and I don't think it will be for a long time. There's on average in my county a funeral or memorial service every 2 days. I think these things cause me to react the way I do.
Cause as everyone knows, I very rarely come in this forum at all.

Myst
November 20th, 2001, 12:18 AM
The thing is (I know this is getting a bit OT), here at MW I see three kinds of people - those who hate Bush, those who think Bush being president is ok or "not great" but that he's under rule for a few years, and those who don't care. I'm in the middle group. Do I agree with his policies? Nope. Do I think he should be in office. Maybe (btw, what does it say about either candidate when the vote has to be recounted a few times anyway?). He is for a few years though. Do I know of at least a million reasons to hate him thanks to some of the folks here at MW? Yup. My thoughts are that I've seen the same reasonings for hating him about a million times. Ok, we get it. I do know several people who won't come in this forum anymore because of all the Bush bashing. Not that it should matter (it's their choice, right), but I thought it was something to think about.

Oh well, excuse my rambling. I don't really want answers on what I said, just thought I'd mention it for people to think about. :)


Unsolon : My only point is that you may think it's "right, fair" etc. but that's your opinion and I tend to disagree with anyone who thinks an entire country should follow their beliefs just because that's their opinion.

Radocs
November 20th, 2001, 08:24 AM
Well if hitting back isn't the thing to do then what is? Ignore that they killed a couple thousand people and go on with life? yell at 'em? I'm sure their feelings would be really hurt if we said "Hey, jerks, don't do it again."

As much as I want peace and as much as I hate the fighting, this is the only thing these people understand. Letting them get away is like saying "Hit me with the brick again, I like it." It's despicable, it's horrible, but the alternative is more of these lunatics killing people.

Just my opinion.

talamh
November 20th, 2001, 08:29 AM
i'm sorry some people feel that some of the opinions here amount to kicking the United States and the people of the United States while you are down. i truly do not mean my opinions to cause you even more distress then you are already experiencing. LadyStatlite - it must be truly heartbreaking to be there and to be living in the heart of this terrible, shocking, traumatic experience. i am sorry if my posts are causing you additional upset.

i am also sorry if some people have stopped coming to MW because of percieved anti-American bias. It was not my intent to drive people away.

However - listening to the general discussion here in the early days after Sept. 11 was, to me, a shocking experience. i had never before witnessed such a (what seemed to me) blind and blazing and unquestioning rally. i understand now that i was watching America grieve. It was not a time for critical analysis on a bulletin board where people are, first and foremost, caring friends....

However, i also saw what seemed to me to be a cynical government manipulation of the grief and an uncritical response by people who normally would call into question the larger issues. i was also concerned when some people expressed bewilderment as to why anyone would want to do such horendous things as the terrorist attacks.. why anyone would be critical of the US.

i'm sorry if you felt in any way attacked by any of my opinions. They weren't meant personally. i should have realized how vulnerable people in America.. especially people in NYC... were feeling and maybe tempored my words.

i do still believe the words need saying. Maybe they could have been said in a kinder way... or with kinder timing.

Yes, i am grateful, overall, on many levels, that the US is there and that my country, Canada, benefits from American "protection". My country has a record of contributing to American protection by providing geographical and materiel and personnel support... and the lives of our people.

But as a member of the family.. albeit a cousin...i still feel connected enough to feel i have a right to dissent. Isn't that the way families work? Isn't it a good thing when friends feel that part of their loyalty is to tell you something that many others feel and is being held against you but which you seem to be unaware of? Come to think of it.. those kind of people are usually not very popular in any dynamic.

i know it can be difficult to get alternate perspectives without a whole lot of work.. and people are busy enough as it is just surviving in the best of times. And i understand that the American mainstream media doesn't provide as varied a perspective as many, including people within the country, would like to see.

So, LadyStarlite and others, if i have caused you upset and if you feel emotionally pummeled by some of my posts, i apologize. It is all too easy to lose sight of the primary importance of our personel relationships here... this is a community. In some ways, it's extended family. i could have and should have been more gentle, more considerate.

i still believe it is important to be able to present a wide range of perspective... but maybe information can be tempored with understanding. None of us here is any more or less responsible for what our different governments do and do not do then any other. We are all just trying to live and love the best way we can.

i'm declaring a three-day criticism fast for myself.... i will not criticize anything here for three whole days. It will be interesting and maybe enlightening for me personally to see if i make any posts at all... eeeep! Who knows.. i might learn something. hugs talamh

Xois
November 20th, 2001, 09:09 AM
hey Tal

Wow...that as quite a post! WIsh I was as strong as you...

It is my opinion that the time to greive is over...especially for those of us not "directly" connected with someone in WTC or pentagon...

So...I can't offer the criticism fast...Nope...I gotta keep working for change..

Cheers
Xois

xjsjaglvr
November 20th, 2001, 01:42 PM
Talamh an elac you don't need to apologize. All opinions are valid ones. The fact that you can form opinions and express them is better than many people who only react without understanding why they feel that way. Everyone on these boards may say or read something that gets under someone elses or their own skin. Even the closest of families disagree occasionally, why should it be different here. By the way would you folks up in Canada be interested in becoming new states? I like the way The great State of Nova Scotia sounds.

Myst
November 20th, 2001, 02:08 PM
No thanks. We have our own country and most of us are quite happy in it. ;) :D

Illuminatus
November 21st, 2001, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by UnSolon
A parable:
The people in one city LOVE eating pickles. They love pickles more than anything else in the world. They eat them for breakfast, lunch, dinner, for snacks, they even use them to shine their shoes.

< more pickle nonsense cut out >

Is it right, honerable (whatever word you want to put on it) for them to continue to do this? Is it atleast not fair for these facts to be shown to the people of this city? So that by doing so, they can change some of their habits, while NOT giving up the pickles, so that everyone, not just this city, can benefit.


Oh for the love of...

OK, I'm a rich white male, and I LIVE in pickle city, or aspire to one day. And Let me tell you - if I earn them? I CAN EAT ALL THE GODDAMN PICKLES I WANT TO!!!!! I'm not stealing them! I'm not hiring out teams of bandits to go raid the countryside, and rob people of their damn cucumbers at gunpoint. I'm BUYING them. I'm trading for them. Trade = Good. Any way you slice it, Trade always benefits both parties. If it didn't, one side or the other would refuse the trade. It's voluntary on both sides.

If they don't want to trade their damn cucumbers for the big pile of gadgets I help produce in Pickle city.. well they don't have to. But if they DO decide to trade with me, that doesn't give them the right to bitch to the maitre'd that cucumber sandwitches are five bucks a pop. You're getting gadgets for thee bucks apiece, you're happy, now shut up!!!

I know, this is Off Topic, but at least I'm not bitching off topic about the election which comes up in every fifth thread in this forum. We have this debate every 3 weeks or so, it's getting old.

- Illuminatus!

Illuminatus
November 21st, 2001, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Confused ? Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys ?
Use this handy guide to discern differences betweenTerrorists and the U.S. Government:

TERRORISTS: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician,from extremely wealthy oil family

US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family

TERRORISTS: Leader has declared a holy war ('Jihad') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes God
is on his side, and that any means are justified.

US GOVERNMENT: Leader has declared a holy war ('Crusade') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes God is on his side, and that any means are justified.

TERRORISTS: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election

US GOVERNMENT: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election

TERRORISTS: Operates through clandestine organization (al Qaeda) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other
terrorist tactics

US GOVERNMENT: Operates through clandestine organization (CIA) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics

TERRORISTS: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties

US GOVERNMENT: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties

<sarcasm>
As for these, wow, someone made a list of half-truthes and biased, manufactured definitions that don't relate at all to the situation at hand to make the US government look bad. I'm so surprised, wow this list really made me think. NOT.
</sarcasm>

SpikesPet5150
November 21st, 2001, 03:41 PM
Wow... Ill.... I'm in awe of you. And I'm not being sarcastic, either. You rock.
~Bree
P.S. Did that make anyone else wanna go out and buy a bunch of pickles?

UnSolon
November 21st, 2001, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Illuminatus


Oh for the love of...

OK, I'm a rich white male, and I LIVE in pickle city, or aspire to one day. And Let me tell you - if I earn them? I CAN EAT ALL THE GODDAMN PICKLES I WANT TO!!!!! I'm not stealing them! I'm not hiring out teams of bandits to go raid the countryside, and rob people of their damn cucumbers at gunpoint. I'm BUYING them. I'm trading for them. Trade = Good. Any way you slice it, Trade always benefits both parties. If it didn't, one side or the other would refuse the trade. It's voluntary on both sides.


Your right, trade is not nesscissarily bad.

However I would like to make a distinction.

FREE trade = trouble
FAIR trade = good

And anyways. Yeah... I'm really gonna try and not go off on a tirade.

Peace

Myst
November 21st, 2001, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by SpikesPet5150
Did that make anyone else wanna go out and buy a bunch of pickles?

Nope but it made me really proud of the pickles I earned already ;)

talamh
November 21st, 2001, 04:48 PM
quote:
Terrorist: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician,from extremely wealthy oil family

US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family .

----------------------

Anyone interested in seeing the actual connections between Bush and his cabinet and oil interests .. and even those who aren't ..should have a look at

http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=10650&group=webcast

...maybe not such a biased, manufactured definition or half-truth after all......

bb talamh

Illuminatus
November 21st, 2001, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by UnSolon
Your right, trade is not nesscissarily bad.

However I would like to make a distinction.

FREE trade = trouble
FAIR trade = good


Take it from the guy with the economics minor: FREE trade = FAIR trade.

Sanctions, quotas, and isolationist policies which hamper or restrict trade, while they may help a certain few keep their jobs from being outsourced... harm the nation as a whole, since everyone enjoys the benefits of lower prices.

Can you quantify why you think free trade is bad?

- Illuminatus
Mayor of Pickle City

Illuminatus
November 21st, 2001, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by SpikesPet5150
Wow... Ill.... I'm in awe of you. And I'm not being sarcastic, either. You rock.
~Bree
P.S. Did that make anyone else wanna go out and buy a bunch of pickles?

Thanks, sometimes I get on a roll and get a bit carried away, I think that these are my finest moments. Yes, I am also very hungry for pickles, but there will be a whole plate at them at thanksgiving tomorrow, so I will curb my craving until then!

SpikesPet5150
November 21st, 2001, 05:06 PM
Yes, I think I'll wait until tomorrow, also... don't wanna get burnt out on pickles before tomorrow. :)
~Bree

Myst
November 21st, 2001, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
quote:
Terrorist: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician,from extremely wealthy oil family

US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family .

Uhhuh. And the point relating that to the death of thousands of innocent people who were crushed, burned to death, or even jumped from buildings, is...? Maybe it happened because Bush is spoiled, or maybe because his family is wealthy?

Illuminatus
November 21st, 2001, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Myst


Uhhuh. And the point relating that to the death of thousands of innocent people who were crushed, burned to death, or even jumped from buildings, is...? Maybe it happened because Bush is spoiled, or maybe because his family is wealthy?

No, Myst, you've got it all wrong.

She's trying to point out that for all their differences, Bin Laden and Bush are more alike than different.

But, that's a half-truth, and a fallacy. If it were true, you can bet we wouldn't be sending humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, we'd just fence in the entire nation and begin an old-fashioned ethnic cleansing of the whole place. Don't think we couldn't either, there are small-scale nuclear weapons that could do it without any problem at all, with minimal risk of radiation contamination to neighboring states.

Whoever thinks Bin Laden and Bush are both evil diabolical masterminds, had better wise up and thank the lucky stars that Bush is a GOOD person, not an EVIL one like Laden. If you are ever in doubt of this, remember their policy towards civilians:

Laden - kills civilians
Bush - helps civilians

- Ill

SpikesPet5150
November 21st, 2001, 06:12 PM
Two enthusiastic thumbs up, Ill... once again, you hit the nail right on the head. :)
~Bree

Myst
November 21st, 2001, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by SpikesPet5150
once again, you hit the nail right on the head.

We should make up a cheerleader squad for Ill. ;)

Illuminatus
November 21st, 2001, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Myst


We should make up a cheerleader squad for Ill. ;)

You wouldn't like the dress code I'd impose!

SpikesPet5150
November 21st, 2001, 06:59 PM
RAH RAH RAH! :)

Hey, I wore a french maids costume for Halloween (yuck), of course I was insanely drunk, so I didn't care.. but please don't make me wear anything that short... I would cry.
~Bree

UnSolon
November 21st, 2001, 07:05 PM
Illumanatus - your arguments for Free trade being better than fair trade are based on economic arguments. Yes you probably will get LOWER priced cheese burgers and running shoes. I can almost guarrentee you will get lower prices on consumer products.

However my view is not purely from an economic standpoint (and take it from a guy who has a poli-sci minor) but you must weigh the pro's and con's of all sides.

Social
Economic
Environmental
etc...

If you look at it purely from an economic view point than you ignore the complications that free trade has against the environment and social systems.

In some cases you can have the best of all worlds. You can have cheap prices from products, and not harm the envirnoment or social systems in any country. However, often the benifit of one area comes to the detrement of another.

I am willing to pay $5 more for a pair of shoes if they were made in a factory (even if it is still in Singapore) that is ethical and human. I am willing to pay $10 more for a car part if it was made in a factory that did not excessivly harm the environment in its making. THAT is what I mean by Free vs. Fair trade.

I beg of you Illuminatus, do not simply look at it from an economic view point.

Peace

Xois
November 21st, 2001, 07:10 PM
UnSolon

WORD!!!

Glad to see there are other people in the world who judge wealth on more things than money!!!

Dellit Tandannon
November 21st, 2001, 07:19 PM
wait! i've got it!

George W. Bush is Osama bin Laden!

:rolleyes:

Myst
November 21st, 2001, 07:20 PM
LOL Dellit.

Ok, so, UnSolon, was that your answer to his question of explaining why it's not good? Maybe we should start a new thread and expound on this issue?

MistOfTheSea86
November 21st, 2001, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Illuminatus


You wouldn't like the dress code I'd impose!

I thought the code was SKYCLAD!

MistOfTheSea86
November 21st, 2001, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Dellit Tandannon
wait! i've got it!

George W. Bush is Osama bin Laden!

:rolleyes:

I KNEW IT!!!!!!

Illuminatus
November 21st, 2001, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by UnSolon
However my view is not purely from an economic standpoint (and take it from a guy who has a poli-sci minor) but you must weigh the pro's and con's of all sides.

Social
Economic
Environmental
etc...

True. The Industrial Revolution really sucked hard in England, until appropriate social adjustments caught up to the technology and economic advancements. A lot of people suffered as a result. So I'll concede that free trade is not always in the best interest of a people.

However... I'd press the point that while the adjustments to a new type of economy can cause temporary suffering, displacement, disenfranchizement (is that even a word? I'm not sure)........ it is, and this is key, Temporary. Yes, the Industrial Revolution sucked hard, but as soon as the cities implemented appropriate social and health measures to support the influx of population, it improved pretty quickly, and at its end, everyone was better off. This is the case in all "Developing" nations. That word's not just a label. They ARE developing. Maybe now they're all working in textile mills with poor pay and no health care. But, as their skillset grows, and they further advance their use of their local resources, they WILL demand higher wages, develop other industries, and grow to new plateaus of quality of life. It happened in Britan, and China, and it can happen in Nairobi, it's really just a matter of time and political factors.



I am willing to pay $5 more for a pair of shoes if they were made in a factory (even if it is still in Singapore) that is ethical and human. I am willing to pay $10 more for a car part if it was made in a factory that did not excessivly harm the environment in its making. THAT is what I mean by Free vs. Fair trade.


That's your choice. You can do that in the US and Canada, since we are free to buy from whatever source we like. So I'd say we have both fair and free trade. Do you agree?

- Ill

UnSolon
November 21st, 2001, 07:33 PM
lol... Nice post Illuminatus.

Yes I will agree with you that as 'developing' nations progress, they gain new skills and often benifit by it.

However I would like to show a flaw in that whole argument. The way the world economy works right now, we NEED some people to be the poor. Money is funnelled from poor areas to the rich areas.

Illuminatus - your example of the industrial revolution. Good one. Yes, as technological advances were implemented, so did social conditions for the people in the cities. However, also with the industrial revolution came the beginings of IMPERIALISM! No longer able to make the products in the cities which were the most harmful to the environment or the local workers, they got them from the far flung reaches of their empires. Britain had its colonies, france, germany, spain, portugal, etc.... Most of those colonies are now gone, under controll of the local populations once again. And imperialism has changed from the direct impossed form it once was, to the indirect form it is now. Nations submit to this imperialism in the hope that they will become one of the wealthy nations.

Not all countries can be wealthy. Atleast under the guise of our current world economy. but hey... with a different form of world economy, one based on collective benifit, and responsible growth, in the LONG RUN we will all be better off (hopefully since I cant forsee the future).

Peace

Dellit Tandannon
November 21st, 2001, 07:34 PM
see, in america we can choose!
cheap shoes made by 8 year old slaves or expensive shoes made by an adult payed a decent wage or a machine.

sucks for the slave people, but i like to save money.

talamh
November 22nd, 2001, 08:27 AM
i did not say that Bush and bin Laden are the same. In fact, way back at the beginning i very carefully said i would rather live in the US then in Afghanistan.

The point is that both sides in this conflict have hidden agendas and that we're dealing with varying shades of gray here rather then a simplistic good guys vs the bad guys - more like the not-so-bad guys vs the really bad guys.

When it comes to politics, there is always a subtext. Unless we understand the subtext, we become like sheep, herded from one opinion to another. That is what i find so exasperating about things political - it's not a clear-cut choice between right and wrong but rather a choice of the lesser of two evils. Why can't there be a third option - what is good for all? Why should developing countries chose between starvation and sweatshop labour? Why can't they earn a living doing something meaningful for the benefit of their own society?

OK - i'm being incredibly idealistic here - but i think it's important to realize there can be a third option but it has to be envisioned before it can become real. And i am always saddened that there are so few people envisioning peace on earth. bb talamh

Xois
November 22nd, 2001, 07:23 PM
hidden agenda

try an oil pipeline through Afganastan pumping Russian oil...

Well, duh! :)

Myst
November 22nd, 2001, 07:27 PM
I find this argument interesting.

There seems to be two trains of thought

a) Bush is evil! Bush is bad! Hate Bush!

and

b) Regardless of whether Bush screwed up (and he has in ways) it doesn't justify thousands of deaths of innocent people in the WTC and Pentagon, etc. EVER

I actually had someone say to me the other night "I'm not trying to justify the Taliban's actions, I just don't want people thinking Bush is an angel". HeLLO!? Does *anyone* think Bush is an angel? Anyone!? Has anyone denied that he's made some mistakes? I mean yeah he's made mistakes, so what? He's in office; get together a lynch mob and take him out or do something positive for the future instead. We can sit in here and complaining and comparing him for days or actually *do* something worthwhile already. Which do you think is more constructive?

So the question is, now what?

(that and, where's my pickle??)

talamh
November 22nd, 2001, 08:38 PM
The question is - what kind of a government or whatever ....gets to control Afghanistan now.... one that welcomes a pipeline?

Who speaks for Afghanistan now? Which tribal war lord? What's to stop powerful oil transnationals from controlling a puppet government?

And why can't there be some sort of government that puts the welfare of the people of Afghanistan first... above power interests or profit? Will there be the same reconstruction effort that there is in the former Yugoslavia?

And why the heck are oil interests still so all-powerful when it's oil that is killing the planet?

What's wrong with simplistic questions, anyway? bb talamh

Myst
November 22nd, 2001, 09:44 PM
Maybe Afghanistan should decide who their government is, etc.?

After all, there are many people who feel that part of the reason behind the attack by the Taliban is that the U.S. was sticking it's nose in other countries' business as it chose to.

SpikesPet5150
November 23rd, 2001, 12:28 AM
The reason oil is such a big deal, even though it is killing our planet is because ALL of us use it. In our cars, buses, to heat our homes, businesses, schools... whether we like it or not, until we find another great resource like oil, we're stuck with it and the politics that go along with it.
~Bree

talamh
November 23rd, 2001, 07:10 AM
But then the simplistic question beomes - since we know oil is a limited resource and since we know it's killing the planet, why aren't we moving faster in switching our economy to non-polluting alternatives?

Could it be that oil-based transnationals are controlling governments including mine and yours.... and is this one of the "benefits" of a capitalist economy. Is this one of the so-called freedoms that so-called free enterprise bequeaths?

What kind of choice is that - between which of a handful of greedy transnational oil companies that put profit before the continued survival of the planet and her creatures? See... i don't think we really are that "free" here in the west. We live in much more comfortable circumstances but we really don't have a true freedom to chose because our range of choice is already dictated for us. How much difference is there, really, between the Republicans and Democrats in the States, Conservative and Liberal in Canada, Conservative and Labour in Britain?

We have about as much freedom to chose a government as the people of Afghanistan. i agree, Myst. The people of Afghanistan should chose their next government. Do you honestly think the United States will allow that? bb talamh

Myst
November 23rd, 2001, 01:35 PM
I don't know why better answers aren't being encouraged yet, talamh, what do you think we should do to change that?

Also, on Afghanistan choosing their own government - yes I hope the U.S. does let them. Then again there are also those who think that the Taliban should never have been allowed by the U.S. to come into power. It's a fine line between letting a country take care of themselves and trying to decide if they need help (because the Taliban were not voted in, to be sure). I may be naive, but I do hope that what happened will spur positive change there.

Illuminatus
November 26th, 2001, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
i did not say that Bush and bin Laden are the same.

Yeah you did. You used the exact same sentences to define them both. That's what 'same' means.

You posted other stuff but I didn't see the point to read on because your first 12 words were so incredibly wrong!

Illuminatus
November 26th, 2001, 11:43 AM
If Russia wants to run a pipeline through a war-torn country full of minefields and tribes that are constantly at each others throats... go ahead and let it. Who the f@#%# cares. There's an oil pipeline that goes through Nigeria, and every few months a section of it EXPLODES because people from nearby villages tap it to sell crude oil to motorists, and occationally a few hundred of them die to support this economy of poaching. The point is, that a pipeline going through Afghanistan is probably going to be the first thing to get blown up the next time a bunch of rebels picks up arms, and that country is constantly at war.

Illuminatus
November 26th, 2001, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by UnSolon
Illuminatus - your example of the industrial revolution. Good one. Yes, as technological advances were implemented, so did social conditions for the people in the cities. However, also with the industrial revolution came the beginings of IMPERIALISM! No longer able to make the products in the cities which were the most harmful to the environment or the local workers, they got them from the far flung reaches of their empires. Britain had its colonies, france, germany, spain, portugal, etc.... Most of those colonies are now gone, under controll of the local populations once again. And imperialism has changed from the direct impossed form it once was, to the indirect form it is now. Nations submit to this imperialism in the hope that they will become one of the wealthy nations.

And these colonies - America, The Caribean Islands, Hong Kong, and South Africa to name a few... are they textile-mill sweat-shops? Are they still the poor cousins to their mother countries, doing all the unpleasant and dirty work? No. They developed. The workers demanded higher wages, they innovated to be more efficient, and new industries started up. These nations submitted to imperialism in the hope that they would become one of the wealthy nations.. AND THEY DID.

Also, didn't America used to be England's primary source for raw materials? One of the causes of the American Revolution was the fact that England forbade America to manufacture its own textiles, insisting that all of America's textile needs be forcibly outsourced to England... so England could build it's industrial economy, while America was "kept down" doing mere agriculture.


Not all countries can be wealthy. Atleast under the guise of our current world economy. but hey... with a different form of world economy, one based on collective benifit, and responsible growth, in the LONG RUN we will all be better off (hopefully since I cant forsee the future).


You are so wrong. All countries can be wealthy. They have the capacity to grow, same as any other state.

talamh
November 27th, 2001, 01:35 PM
Yup.. all countries can be wealthy.. and if everyone were just nice to each other there wouldn't be any war.

The fact is.. and history proves, that some countries get greedy... ctually, some people get greedy and find countries that not only let them, but encourage them.. and help them.. and even subsidize them.

What kind of a world do you want to live in Illuminatus.... one where might and greed and selfishness triumph? You seem to be arguing the kind of economic Darwinism that got us into this mess in the first place. bb talamh

Illuminatus
November 27th, 2001, 03:31 PM
Greed is good. Watch the movie "Wall Street" if you don't believe me. I think it's Michael Douglas and Tom Cruise, but my memory's faded.

But there's nothing wrong with greed. If nobody wanted anything, nothing would ever get built. Economic darwinism, while it sounds brutal, creates wealth. The economic rifts you're lamenting occur when Economies are forced, and not free. Sure, the people of Russia are going to be poor, if their ONLY choice for employment is through The Communist State. Sure, the people of Afghanistan aren't going to be able to build up an industrial economy when Warlords With Guns are constantly vying for control of city blocks of Kabul.

All nations CAN be wealthy. Political instability is the primary culprit for poverty in third world nations. Furthermore, governments that allow and encourage unstable political elements (drug trade, harboring terrorists) have nobody to blame but themselves for their economic hardships. Governments that take the quick-and-dirty path to lining their pockets with drug and gun money are to blame here, not evil American corporations who just want to come in and give people jobs which they are free at any time to walk away from.

- Ill

Xois
November 27th, 2001, 03:56 PM
Furthermore, governments that allow and encourage unstable political elements (drug trade, harboring terrorists) have nobody to blame but themselves for their economic hardships. Governments that take the quick-and-dirty path to lining their pockets with drug and gun money are to blame here

You have described the behavior of the USA here. Like supporting third world dictators who will beat and starve their country while we support them with our military as long as the oil flows, for example...

I am glad to see we agree on this Ill... :)

Things are seldom as black and white as your portray them, Ill.

UnSolon
November 27th, 2001, 04:14 PM
Ill - you bring up some good points, but you must learn to also look at the other view point. On countless occasions I have seen you say you refused to read the rest of someones argument, and then launched into a tirade trying to undermine it.

Please, how can you even hope to understand the other view points if you will not even LISTEN to them.

Greed is good? Whoa, hold up nellie. Ummm... AMBITION is good, GREED is bad. I think we need to seperate the two here. Greed is when you want MORE than you need. You are greedy when your wants take more than your fair share. When your consumption takes away from other people. That is greed.

And I'm sorry Illuminatus, but you argue simply from an economic standpoint, guess what, life is NOT just about money. Money can not cure all the worlds ills, it has caused many of the worlds ills.

I'm not going to go off right now, and try and debate your points, because I have learned its hopeless to try and change your mind. Because you know what, I hate to say it, and I dont mean to be rude, but you are stubborn and thick headed. I apologize. But, I quote, "You posted other stuff but I didn't see the point to read on because your first 12 words were so incredibly wrong!" . Why? You are using a strawman argument. Takeing one sentence out of context and using it to justify your point of view.

Now dont get me wrong Illuminatus, I appreciate your posts, and you bring up good points, but please, RESPECT, atleast read the other posts before controdicting them, eh.

Peace...

Illuminatus
November 27th, 2001, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Xois
You have described the behavior of the USA here. Like supporting third world dictators who will beat and starve their country while we support them with our military as long as the oil flows, for example...

I am glad to see we agree on this Ill... :)

Things are seldom as black and white as your portray them, Ill.

Mmm yes, the US does have a bad record of supporting naughty dictators. Here's a clip from my Onion daily calendar, from the August 13 Onion, 1985:



Good Dictators:
Auguste Pinochet (Chile)
Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines)
Jean-Claude Duvalier (Haiti)
Saddam Hussein (Iraq)

Bad Dictators:
Muammar Quaddafi (Libya)
Fidel Castro (Cuba)
Juan Ortega (Colombia)
The Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran)

SOURCE: U.S. State Department (This list subject to change.)


Heh... funny. So, yeah, the US government does have a lot of blood on its hands so far as this issue is concerned. But, there is a difference. The US doesn't encourage unstable activities within its own borders. Our government is pretty tough on crime and drugs within the US. You won't find Warlords with armed gangs of assault rifles descending on suburbia, in order to sieze local drug resources. So the US Government looks after its own citizens wellbeing as its first priority.

As opposed to US's foreign policy... where the US has absolutely no problem screwing over OTHER nations citizens.... whereas the governments of Colombia and Iraq and Congo and the many nations like them are in the buisness of screwing over their OWN citizens. It's a small point, but relevant.

- Ill

Illuminatus
November 27th, 2001, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by UnSolon
Ill - you bring up some good points, but you must learn to also look at the other view point. On countless occasions I have seen you say you refused to read the rest of someones argument, and then launched into a tirade trying to undermine it.

Ah... well... I hate repeating myself. So if people regurgitate points I've already addressed in the near past, I won't repeat myself by addressing them again. That's why I stop reading sometimes, because I can see where they're going with this and I've already been there more times than I care.

I also have an Instant Veto policy... if someone says someting so completely and utterly wrong, I will hit Reply right then and there, and not read the rest. This is how I have stayed sane these long 24 years.



Greed is good? Whoa, hold up nellie. Ummm... AMBITION is good, GREED is bad. I think we need to seperate the two here. Greed is when you want MORE than you need. You are greedy when your wants take more than your fair share. When your consumption takes away from other people. That is greed.

Ambition is good... unless you're a Roman Emperor! Cesar was ambitious, and it didn't do him a lick of good. But in that context, I think Shakespeare was equating Abition with Greed for Power...

But Greed is the driving force of Production in the world. If there were no greed, nothing would ever be produced. I think you're in error when you say that Greed means taking more than your fair share. I'm greedy, but I'm also fair, and I work hard for the luxuries I lust after. You can be greedy without being a theif, which is what you are implying when you say that we want more than our fair share.

And consumption of ANY sort is going to 'take away' from other people. The man-hours spent creating my MP3 player could have been used to produce 12 big bags of rice to feed the homeless. However, if I hadn't demanded an MP3 player in the store, NOTHING would have been produced. See the difference? I'm not depriving anyone of anything.



And I'm sorry Illuminatus, but you argue simply from an economic standpoint, guess what, life is NOT just about money. Money can not cure all the worlds ills, it has caused many of the worlds ills.


Economics is about Wealth, not Money. Economists don't sit around counting all the shiny coins that move from one country to another, they catalouge systems of wealth and the transfer of resources. The purpose of Economics is to understand the concept of Scarcity, and how people eliminate it under different circumstances and through a variety of techniques. And, while the scramble to fight Scarcity may have caused some Ills, it is the acts of man, not their invention of money, that are the cause. Money's just a witness, a bystander, neutral. Like a measuring stick, or the markings on the side of a pool. Understanding how wealth moves, and how people move it (though this is the realm of Psychology and Political Science)... illustrate how scarcity can be eliminated.



I'm not going to go off right now, and try and debate your points, because I have learned its hopeless to try and change your mind. Because you know what, I hate to say it, and I dont mean to be rude, but you are stubborn and thick headed. I apologize. But, I quote, "You posted other stuff but I didn't see the point to read on because your first 12 words were so incredibly wrong!" . Why? You are using a strawman argument. Takeing one sentence out of context and using it to justify your point of view.

See above, My Instant Veto policy. I did not take the statement out of context. Besides, everyone does this.. they let the strongest points of their oppnent slide, and only address the weak ones. At least I'm honest about it.

- Illuminatus!

SpikesPet5150
November 27th, 2001, 04:59 PM
"Greed is when you want MORE than you need. "

So you're saying you have NO luxuries. All you have is a very modest house, one outfit of clothing, only the food you can survive off of (no cookies or anything), no CD's, no car (cause you can walk), no TV, no Computer.... ??

I work damn hard for the money I earn. Yes, sometimes I can afford to buy alot more than some of my friends.. but it's because some of my friends are lazy and don't work, or spend all their hard earned money on beer. I don't think I'm greedy because I want Richie Kotzen's new CD. I don't think I'm greedy for wanting to get a new paint job on my car (I mean, sure it runs ok but it looks bad, so I want to make it look good). I don't think I'm greedy because I have the luxuries that I can afford to buy, because I work for my money.

Life isn't all about money... but it sure does play a huge part. And maybe I read this wrong from someone... but how is it the US's fault that other countries are starving? Why is it our job to fix them??
~Bree

Myst
November 27th, 2001, 05:13 PM
Greed is another thing that I think is misunderstood. Yes I'm greedy. Yes I want that notebook, yes I want a drawing tablet, and yes I want the newest shade of lipstick. So I get a job. I work hard. I earn the money. I buy them. I own them. And I'm happy.

How is that inherently evil unless you think greed is a sin?

Xois
November 27th, 2001, 06:49 PM
The US doesn't encourage unstable activities within its own borders.

yeah so thats better?! I am not sure...


How is that inherently evil unless you think greed is a sin?

everything in moderation...your rights end where mine begin...when your consumption of your items creates an environmental hazard in the city I live in, it is unethical--and I have every right to work for and change the standards and perhaps put that company out of business, regardless of how much you want your item...

You see...?

Myst
November 27th, 2001, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Xois
everything in moderation...your rights end where mine begin...when your consumption of your items creates an environmental hazard in the city I live in, it is unethical--and I have every right to work for and change the standards and perhaps put that company out of business, regardless of how much you want your item...

You see...?

Sure you do, that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you or stop buying my lipstick. So good luck on that one. :)

Xois
November 27th, 2001, 06:58 PM
can you see how it might be unethical?


*doesn't wear lipstick*

Myst
November 27th, 2001, 07:08 PM
By your code of ethics, sure.

But we gotta remember mine might not match yours. It's all in the perception.

maythen
November 27th, 2001, 07:17 PM
A notebook is a necessity for a writer and a sketchbook is a necessity for an artist. Even lipstick is a necessity becouse we women have been programmed to believe that our real faces are unattractive. Greed comes into play when one buys 10 notebooks to write one haiku or 15 sketchbooks to draw 1 picture. And it seems to be the prevalent attitude of many people that they want the best and the most of everything. A modest house with a good roof will keep one just as warm and dry as a 20 room mansion.

Myst
November 27th, 2001, 07:28 PM
Well. I buy the lipstick not because I think I need to use it to be beautiful, but because I like the colour. I meant notebook as in laptop (sorry I didn't specify). And of course I want the best laptop out there, for school and for work. In my mind a 166 with 96 meg ram is not going to do the job, I need a 1GHz with 256. I might think I need a mansion to be comfortable. All in the perception.

SpikesPet5150
November 27th, 2001, 09:22 PM
All of you who are claiming to use only what you NEED are being hyporcritical... just by typing. You don't need the computer to survive, and yet, here you are, using a computer.

I say, if you work for your money, you have every right to buy whatever you wanna buy with it. Thats why it's called MY money.. not THE money.

Myst is right... what people NEED is a matter of perception. Who's to say that that artist doesn't NEED those 10 sketchpads or I don't NEED to buy the Bulk Size of laundry detergent? Nobody has a right to tell another person how to live and how to spend their money.
~Bree

Xois
November 27th, 2001, 10:16 PM
First of all

I was not trying to come down on those who want stuff...I want stuff too...but I try to buy the stuff that is friendly according to my code of ethics and I very often DONT buy things for that reason.

Myst, I think you might have misunderstood what i was saying...lets remove the lipstick part...

The bottom line is, if there is demand, the product, no matter how destructive, will be made...so our only option is to try to educate people about the alternatives...that was my point...

Why buy a lipstick that caused intense suffering to rabbits when an alternative (in your desired color) exists...

I realize you are in one of your moods ;) and no matter what I say you are gonna disagree with...

However, it seems clear to me that greed in moderation is fine...but becomes unethical when your greed infinges in on my rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness...

For example...my right to widely swing my fists estatic abandonment ends the moment I hit you...then I can be charged with assualt...and rightfully so!

That is what I was trying to say...

see personally, I don't think life should be a free for all...We all have a degree of social responsibility becuase we CHOOSE to live within a society not on some desert island...

That is just how I see it...

Myst
November 27th, 2001, 11:10 PM
My question wasn't whether greed can be evil or how it can be, it was how can you say it's inherently evil. Well, if you think it is bad if my greed infringes on your rights, then you don't think it's inherently evil (to be inherently evil, I wouldn't have to infringe on your rights for it to be), so why were you arguing with me on the subject at all? ;)

maythen
November 27th, 2001, 11:15 PM
RIGHT ON Xois!!

The only problem with priorities and perceptions is that sometimes they tend to be harmful to others. For instance, a city may decide to build a 60 million dollar football stadium when their public schools are crumbling. Sure, football brings immediate revenue, but 15-20 years down the road when there's a generation of poorly educated people trying to enter the work force...what then? I guess the response to this will be,"well, they can sell beer at the stadium. And it doesn't matter because they're just a bunch of poor people who don't deserve a fighting chance anyway." Hopefully, I'm wrong.

UnSolon
November 28th, 2001, 01:39 AM
Okay you folks have brought up some good points, yes, I live in a house, yes I have more than one pair of cloths, yes I occasionally drive a car (I dont own one, and I live in the boonies, and it takes me an hour by bus to get anywhere)... some luxuries are fine, it is that endless consumeristic frenzy which we in the "rich" world live in that I (notice "I") belive is wrong. Someone questioned whether I was being a hypocrit... well lets see now. I tell people not to buy me presants on birthdays and christmas, in the last year I have bought a total of 2 (TWO) CD's from a second hand store, I recently bought my first pair of jeans in 8 years from a second hand store, my other pairs of pants have been mended about 30 times each (covered in patches from one side to the other), I rarely spend my money on anything other than some form of food. Last year I made a total of 3,500$ aprox. (going to school full time sortof restricts your ability to make money) I lived quite happily. I covered ALL of my NEEDS, and those few luxuries which I enjoy.

Can we PLEASE define what is a NEED.

A NEED is something which you cannot survive without. IE: food, clothing, shelter... EVERYTHING else is a luxury..

A LUXURY is something which makes our lives more enjoyable or pleasant... weather that be a bar of soap, JUNK food, or the CD's we listen too.

The use of luxuries is fine, everyone, except the poorest of the poor, and those who have given up all worldly possesions, uses luxuries. It is the materialistic overconsumption which I (again notice "I") belive is wrong. The "rich" world's (North America, western Europe, japan, australia, essentially) overconsumption DOES make the fist hit the NOSE (to use that metaphor)... I am not going to use a PURELY economic viewpoint, so if you cant look beyond money, stop reading...

We consume vast amounts of products, we have turned almost any occasion into a reason to consume more... Christmas, Birthdays... according to MODERN western standards they would not be a celebration without some sort of gift giving...

The products we consume do affect other people and places in a negative way... wether it be the destruction of forests, polluting the sea, strip mining, overfishing... we north americans, are overfed, over clothed, over everything... Sure buy yourself a computer... use it for school, but it is a luxury not a NEED. There are other ways you could use a computer... if you had the initiative, go to a library, go to the university, go to a friends house, EVERY SINGLE house in North america does not need a computer...

Just ask yourself for a moment... HOW much crap do you have lieing around your house which you dont really NEED. I have a fair bit... you probably have a fair bit too. You know all those really stupid gifts your aunt Bertha gives to you each christmas, that singing fish which your friend Jason gave to you on your last birthday and you havent turned on since because it is so *#^@ing annoying...

Buy the luxuries you actually wish to use... I wont stop you... but PLEASE dont buy those things which you dont. Dont buy a sweater which is going to sit in your closet for the next 4 years... etc... etc... okay I'm gonna stop rambling... I could go on for hours, but I wont...

SpikesPet5150
November 28th, 2001, 03:06 AM
That's exactly the point I was trying to make Unsolon... everyone uses luxuries. But you're right... excess of anything is bad... whether it be drugs or alcohol or water, or just consumer products.

I own 2 pairs of jeans (well, 4 if you count the ones that are so holey I can't wear them in public) and 1 pair of black slacks. I don't go out and buy that sweater that will sit in my closet for 4 years (although I do have some that my sister gave me ---hideous!) I give my older clothes, ones that don't fit me anymore, to places like the Salvation Army... along with kitchen items I have more than 1 of.. etc etc. I want to help as many people as I can, because I know how lucky I am to be able to work, and be able to buy these things for myself, simply because I want them. But the point I was trying to make was, why is it our job to fix these other countries? Some of them have made it perfectly clear they don't want our help.
~Bree

Myst
November 28th, 2001, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by UnSolon
Sure buy yourself a computer... use it for school, but it is a luxury not a NEED. There are other ways you could use a computer... if you had the initiative, go to a library, go to the university, go to a friends house, EVERY SINGLE house in North america does not need a computer...

Sure it's a luxury. I have 5.

Sorry just thought I'd interject that. I think people have shared some interesting opinions. I think we're a bit off topic, but then I don't remember what the topic is.... :)

SpikesPet5150
November 28th, 2001, 03:25 AM
Yes, Sean and I also have 5 computers that he built all on his own. We use 3 of them, the other 2 are in the closet, waiting for someone who needs them (ie, our friends).
~Bree

Xois
November 28th, 2001, 10:38 AM
Myst

No I don't believe it is inherently evil...on the other hand until my "fist hits your nose" I don't call it greed either :D

Xois

Illuminatus
November 28th, 2001, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Xois
Myst

No I don't believe it is inherently evil...on the other hand until my "fist hits your nose" I don't call it greed either :D

Xois

I think I see where you're going with the whole 'borders of rights' concept... Yeah, I can swing my fists around as long as I like... until one of them intersects with someone else. You're saying that I can have my right to consume cheap products... but that should not take precedence over a foreign worker's right to decent working conditions. It's a good ideal, and I agree with it.

Sadly, I cannot control the actions of foreign governments and international corporate policy. To have everyone working for the common good of everyone else is Marxist Communism, and while it's a lofty ideal, the Communist systems that have been built specifically to achieve this ideal all failed miserably.

The capitolist system, the more economicly viable system, has proven far better of achieving that humanitarian ideal, even though it wasn't specificly designed to.

The main problem with Communism... is that it requires that people be GIVEN what they need... instead of encouraging and rewarding them for producing what they need on their own. The best way to feed 5 million Afghani refugees... is to help them to do it themselves. If we just straight out give them what they want, then they will never produce what they need on their own, and the world slips a notch closer to an unsolvent welfare state, with few working for many... as opposed to Capitolism, where many work for few, but all have their basic needs met.

- Ill

Myst
November 28th, 2001, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Xois
No I don't believe it is inherently evil...on the other hand until my "fist hits your nose" I don't call it greed either :D

I call it assault myself.

Xois
November 28th, 2001, 04:23 PM
Sadly, I cannot control the actions of foreign governments and international corporate policy

Just two points...

1. What about in the USA?

2. I think you can...you can talk with your dollar...this is what I was refering to by saying if you want to control consumption you ahve to control demand...

Good points, though

Xois

Illuminatus
November 28th, 2001, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Xois
Just two points...

1. What about in the USA?

2. I think you can...you can talk with your dollar...this is what I was refering to by saying if you want to control consumption you ahve to control demand...

Good points, though

Xois

No, I don't think either is within my scope to budge. Votes for elected officials mean nothing these days, since campaign donations rule the world. And Nike's not going out of buisness if I buy Reeboks. Not much left to do but buy a gun and wait for the next revolution to come!

Anyway, working conditions are pretty good in the US. The exceptions are illegal aliens, and they're not US citizens anyway.

- Ill

Xois
November 28th, 2001, 06:31 PM
Ill

Well, I can't say I agree with you on that one...

Cheers
Xois

Myst
November 28th, 2001, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Illuminatus
And Nike's not going out of buisness if I buy Reeboks.

Sure, you just have to convince every tom, dick, and harry you know to also buy Nike - assuming you know several hundred (or thousands, or millions?), toms, dicks, and harrys.

If everyone recycled a can....

we are the world.... :D

UnSolon
November 28th, 2001, 11:11 PM
one person CAN make a difference... small perhaps, but when lots of people aply the same pressure change can be made.

Organized boycotts do work. They have worked. There IS an organized boycott against Nike, organized by the workers in those sweatshops. Asking us, the Western Consumers, to NOT buy their products. This may sound weird, and you might be saying to yourself "well than Nike will lay off those workers because no one is buying those shoes"... except Nike knows that the reason their sales dropped was because people did not agree with their labour practices, and therefore will change those practices so that people will buy those shoes. IT HAS WORKED...

Reboke is fairly good, compared to Nike historically, but no company is really perfect... but hey...

Xois
November 29th, 2001, 07:49 AM
UnSolon

Word!!!

Just look at Michael Moore!

Angelwulfe
December 6th, 2001, 07:45 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Myst
[B]Greed is another thing that I think is misunderstood. Yes I'm greedy. Yes I want that notebook, yes I want a drawing tablet, and yes I want the newest shade of lipstick. So I get a job. I work hard. I earn the money. I buy them. I own them. And I'm happy.

well thats an interesting way of looking at it.

talamh
December 10th, 2001, 10:07 AM
greedy - avaricious; covetous.
Oxford English Doctionary.

Unrepentantly greedy. Self-confessed. Well, Myst - at least you are honest.

But what i take exception to is the assumption that all hard work is rewarded and that being able to make a lot of money gives people the moral right to spend that money any way they want.

That's economic Darwinism again... "i hauled myself up by the bootstraps.. why can't you, you lazy so-and-so" - "hard work and diligence is always rewarded by success"... which leads to the "the poor deserve to be poor" philosophy.

But i can see if one doesn't give any credence to the "Harm none" philosophy that everything is open to personal interpretation.....

i think what i am saying is.. i don't see how a person can be a pagan and a capitalist at the same time.. since capitalism is based on exploiting people and natural resources for one's own benefit without any temporing philosophy concerning moral considerations.

i am not being judgemental here.. at least i am trying not to be. i just wonder if amoral paganism is actually paganism... since my understanding of paganism, as distinguished from aetheism.... is that paganism is an earth-based spirituality that has a basic belief in honouring and caring for Mother Earth and life. Which seems to be to be antithical to the tenets of capitalism.

On the other hand.... maybe your idea of greedy is something i need to understand better.. since the O.E.D. also defines "pagan" as "an unenlightened or irreligious person". But then the OED also cites Tertullian and Augustine as sources for the use of the word "pagan". Sigh! Why is life so complicated? Why can't everyone just agree with me? :) bb talamh

Myst
December 10th, 2001, 12:06 PM
That made me giggle talamh ;)

To me greed is simply wanting more then you need. Interesting thoughts you've shared, I think I'm going to have to roll them around in my head for awhile.

Illuminatus
December 11th, 2001, 05:22 PM
Talmah,

Not all Pagans follow the law of Harm None. I don't. Mol doesn't. Myst doesn't. Many, many of us don't. The Rede is largely a WICCAN thing, and we're not all WICCAN. Hell, a lot of WITCHES aren't WICCAN.

Part of the beauty of a DISorganized religion is that we can dictate our OWN moralities, and not get a shoddy set of used ones passed down for 2000 years from a bunch of tribal bozos who weren't allowed to eat pig because of the risk of parasitic infections and the lack of any food preservative techniques.

And as an Economics student, I can't understand how ANY person of good conscience can NOT be a capitolist. Since .. and this is key.. the world has yet to encounter a system that works any better!! Then again, I know a great deal more about the subject than anyone else here, as I am 1) Enlightened and 2) have a degree in the field.

To answer your question, we can't agree with you because you are wrong!! :D

- Illuminatus!

talamh
December 12th, 2001, 04:20 PM
Illuminatus.... congratulations on being so enlightened. It must be wonderful to be perfect.

Most of the economics courses i did were so self-serving and devoted to unrealistic theory you would think they were talking about computor units.. not people.

What i really hope you can tell me.. and i'm truly *not* being sarcastic here... is where is the "morality" ( a very imprecise term) in capitalism? Being a good capitalist means making the absolute most money out of something.. or someone... with no concern about polution or ecology or respect for individuals.

In theory a capitalist wouldn't pollute because it would be destroying a source of future revenue.... but we all know it doesn't work that way.

Now.. i know communist governments have an equally horrendous record of pollution and exploitation.... but if capitalism works so well.... why are we killing the planet so quickly? bb talamh

TheTheologin
December 13th, 2001, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac


And why the heck are oil interests still so all-powerful when it's oil that is killing the planet

The interests are high because America and half the d@mn world is LAZY. We like our cars. Who want's to walk 16 miles in the snow (come on raise your hand) NO ONE! We love the comfort of heat. Not one of you here (unless you live in a place that is relatively warm all yr round) would give up that "necessity". When you can remove yourself from ALL luxuries and convieniences then come back and ask that question.

TheTheologin
December 13th, 2001, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Myst
That made me giggle talamh ;)

To me greed is simply wanting more then you need. Interesting thoughts you've shared, I think I'm going to have to roll them around in my head for awhile.


I don't know one person in this world (including the All-Mighty talamh) that has NEVER wanted more than they absolutely needed. If you say you've never partaken in greed you a an out-and-out liar. Who wouldn't love to have a million $ to spend ANYWHERE on ANYTHING?????

Myst
December 13th, 2001, 11:55 AM
Who was it back there that mentioned that anyone who said they didn't want more then they need is lying by virtue of the fact that they're sitting here chatting online on a computer. Last time I checked a computer (nor access to a computer in a library or cafe, etc.) was a necessary component for life. *shrugs*

Illuminatus
December 13th, 2001, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
What i really hope you can tell me.. and i'm truly *not* being sarcastic here... is where is the "morality" ( a very imprecise term) in capitalism? Being a good capitalist means making the absolute most money out of something.. or someone... with no concern about polution or ecology or respect for individuals.

Correct.


In theory a capitalist wouldn't pollute because it would be destroying a source of future revenue.... but we all know it doesn't work that way.

What "theory" of capitolisim is that? I've never heard of it. What you failed to take into account, is that while yes, you are destroying a future source of revenue... it's SOMEONE ELSE'S future source of revenue. Not yours. Capitolism is based on competition, not co-operation. Co-operation is a communist/socialist concept, I don't know why you're applying it to capitolism.

Competition is really the best way. Hey, it works for nature.

- Ill

Illuminatus
December 13th, 2001, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Myst
Who was it back there that mentioned that anyone who said they didn't want more then they need is lying by virtue of the fact that they're sitting here chatting online on a computer. Last time I checked a computer (nor access to a computer in a library or cafe, etc.) was a necessary component for life. *shrugs*

Exactly. Talamah, go sell your computer and give it to some homelss people who will sqander it on booze and burgers. Live your socialist dream, watch resources get squandered as everyone reaches for a handout and doesn't lift a finger to produce.

Or, better yet, if you want to invest it in a system that WORKS, use the money to BUY something that keeps people gainfully employed, so that they in turn can BUY things that serve to employ others... so that stuff actually gets PRODUCED. Your choice. But only one works (hint - it's capitolism, not socialism).

- Ill

Valoe
December 13th, 2001, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by TheThologin



(including the All-Mighty talamh)

How does this qualify as respect? I am fairly new here - and I have seen many examples of rudeness and disrespect. Is it not possible to debate, however heatedly' without getting personal?
Perhaps I should rephrase that - I know that it is possible - is it not possible here?

Valoe
December 13th, 2001, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by TheThologin


The interests are high because America and half the d@mn world is LAZY. We like our cars. Who want's to walk 16 miles in the snow (come on raise your hand) NO ONE! We love the comfort of heat. Not one of you here (unless you live in a place that is relatively warm all yr round) would give up that "necessity". When you can remove yourself from ALL luxuries and convieniences then come back and ask that question.

America consumes approximately 25% of the worlds petroleum resources. A very large proportion of americas cars are 'gas guzzlers' that do less than 30 mpg (I wont quote the exact figure as I can't now find the reference - but its well over 85%). This is unlikely to change while the oil companies have a stranglehold on the administration via the Bush boys. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the questions even if one isn't living without "ALL luxuries". We are all using more than we need to sustain life - but are you suggesting that only someone who lives in a cave can think or talk about conservation?

Myst
December 13th, 2001, 05:03 PM
To clarify : if you feel someone has been disrespectful report the post so the moderators of this forum and the admins can handle the issue. Thanks.

SpikesPet5150
December 13th, 2001, 05:24 PM
"Who was it back there that mentioned that anyone who said they didn't want more then they need is lying by virtue of the fact that they're sitting here chatting online on a computer. Last time I checked a computer (nor access to a computer in a library or cafe, etc.) was a necessary component for life. *shrugs*"

That was me who said that... and I stand by it. To me... what you NEED is a standard shelter, a few items of clothing, enough food to survive, water, and blankets. Now what I WANT is something totally different. I want alot of stuff. I have alot of stuff. I worked incredibly hard to get this stuff. The money is mine and I can do with it as I please.

If it weren't for oil, the only other thing I can think of that warms homes is wood. Then we'd be cutting down all the tree's.. yet again another environmental issue. Or coal. And we had a huge environmental problem here, with coal mining... can't exactly remember.. something about cave-ins and screwing up the landscape... so yet again, another environmental issue. You can't please everyone. There's no way to make everyone happy. This is a no-win situation.

And I agree with Ill's entire post. In my old job, I delivered food. If it weren't for people spending insane amounts of money on the restaurants I delivery for, I wouldn't have had a job. If it weren't for the holiday season in all of it's corporate glory, my sister wouldn't have her desperately needed seasonal job in the mall. Around here, it's hard as hell to get a job. The cost of living is so much higher than the wages we get paid, so most people have to have 2 jobs to survive, therefor, not enough jobs for everyone. No, capitalism isn't perfect, but what is? Give us some ideas on how to make it better, and if it's a plausable solution, maybe we can try it out.
~Bree

talamh
December 13th, 2001, 06:28 PM
Who said captalism is working?

The small number of the rich are getting richer. The very large number of the poor are getting poorer.

It takes two jobs to even survive.. and there aren't enough jobs to go around? That doesn't sound like it's working.

We're killing the planet and ourselves with all the pollution? That doesn't sound like capitalism is working.

And Illuminatus, what are capitalists going to do when EVERONE's source of revenue is depleted and polluted? Or are you saying that capitalism and competition are utterly amoral?

There is no perfect system..... humans are imperfect. Life is a compromise..... But the arguement that might makes right sounds like fachism to me... or perhaps the Roman Empire.

i certainly don't want to live in that kind of world. No wonder you don't believe in "harm none". It sounds like it would be very inconvenient for you, Ill. bb talamh

Myst
December 13th, 2001, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Who said captalism is working?
..
But the arguement that might makes right sounds like fachism to me... or perhaps the Roman Empire.

What was that about spelling mistakes in the other thread?

talamh
December 13th, 2001, 08:13 PM
Indeed... but i truly wasn't trying to be sarcastic. :)
bb talamh

Myst
December 13th, 2001, 08:36 PM
lol

Illuminatus
December 14th, 2001, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
Who said captalism is working?

Me. Just now. You can quote me too. Capitolism is working. (1)

(1) - Illuminatus. Mysticwicks. 2001.



The small number of the rich are getting richer. The very large number of the poor are getting poorer.


eeh. Wrong. That's how it USED to be. Thanks to Capitolism, the middle class has grown to outnumber both the elite and the impoverished. People keep saying "oh the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer" but lady, I don't see it. If that's true, why are ordinary joes and janes buying huge expensive SUV's? The Rich ARE getting richer.. but so are the Less rich, and a lot of the not-so-rich.



It takes two jobs to even survive.. and there aren't enough jobs to go around? That doesn't sound like it's working.


I have one, and I'm doing fine. And there are plenty of jobs to go around. You have to compete for them. What, you think you're entitled to things? That's what liberalism is all about, entitlement. Oh, I DESERVE a job, it's my due. Well, actually it isn't. You have to be qualified, dedicated, and good, if you want a good job. Great opportunities aren't going to just land in your lap, so quit complaining that they aren't. Great things just don't happen. People MAKE them happen.



We're killing the planet and ourselves with all the pollution? That doesn't sound like capitalism is working.


Sure it is. Granted, right now the Demand is for good, cheap products. Someday, when pollution gets bad enough, the Demand will be for clean air. When it becomes a valued commodity, in comes capitolism to provide it.



And Illuminatus, what are capitalists going to do when EVERONE's source of revenue is depleted and polluted? Or are you saying that capitalism and competition are utterly amoral?


For every door that is barred, a window can be smashed open. Oil runs out? A SHITLOAD of money will go into using ethanol as a substitute. Real fast. There's always a way to meet the need, whatever it is. It has always been found, and it always will be found. You may not LIKE having genetically engineered trees that grow to full maturity in 5 years, but when it becomes necessary to meet humanity's need for resources, it will happen.



There is no perfect system..... humans are imperfect. Life is a compromise..... But the arguement that might makes right sounds like fachism to me... or perhaps the Roman Empire.

i certainly don't want to live in that kind of world. No wonder you don't believe in "harm none". It sounds like it would be very inconvenient for you, Ill. bb talamh

I don't know if you've noticed, but might DOES make right. In nature, and in the world at large. Some days, you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you. There's always a bigger fish. I didn't make it this way. Why you think that things should be some other way against these perfectly natural patterns (both in the natural world and the economic one) is truly puzzling to me.

It's a good world, and it will continue to be so. And so you know, I almost never harm anyone. I just prefer to leave the option open. Also you can't spell, so there :P

- Ill

talamh
December 15th, 2001, 10:37 AM
Illuminatus... It's easy to do anything with statistics..... A search on the web will come up with any number of sites telling you anything you're looking for in terms of whether the income gap between rich and poor is getting better or getting worse, depending on an organization's political/economic philosophy.

The International Chamber of Commerce at

http://www.iccwbo.org/home/case_for_the_global_economy/globalization%20brief/rich_poor.asp

tells us that while the gap is getting bigger.. the people at the bottom end of the gap are actually better off then they were before thanks to globalization of trade and economies. It doesn't say, that i could find, how their incomes relate to inflation in terms of actual buying power.

The New Internationalist, however, tells us that

‘The average American in 1985 made over 30% more than the average German, 40% more than the average Japanese, nearly 50% more than the average citizen of the United Kingdom, and 5,500% more than the average Ethiopian... These gaps defy the imagination... and will double in a century-and-a-half at the current trend.’

World Trade Organization study, Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty, 1999 (Note: doesn't say study by who)

http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue334/facts.htm

So lets take a look at something from the US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb4.html

You can see that while the numbers for families at the lowest end of the scale are lower... the numbers for families at the top of the scale are going up.

So one can safely say that it is , at least, debatable.

And Illuminatus, while i believe you would learn a whole lot, i hope you don't have to learn the hard way that bad things can happen to good people. Hard work and diligence is not always rewarded. It is dangerous hubris to say "i made it... why can't others?

Is there any room in your world for compassion and understanding... for kindness and mercy and unselfish giving?

You say that in your world that might does make right.... well... there's a line from a Bonnie Raitt song that says "You only see the world you make" and if you are happy living in that world.. then it's your choice. But please understand... that is not the world a lot of people live in and to think that your world is the only world and that everyone should see the world the way you do is....well... arrogant. But i don't think you will deny that you are arrogant. i do believe you see arrogance as a virtue.... and maybe for you... it is.

However.... today my sweetie and i are bringing in the trees to start decorating for Yule.. and making cheesecake and decorating teddybears and all sorts of happy, silly, wonderful loving stuff. i know i am very fortunate and very blessed.... and i wish you and everyone at MysticWicks the blessings of the season. The sun will return and life will contine. Blessed Be. talamh

Myst
December 15th, 2001, 11:39 AM
Millions of years ago there wasn't medical technology to sustain life when it wasn't meant to be. If you were slower then the rest of the group, you got left behind. If you were sick, you were the first one targetted by the predators. You could die from a flu if the weather was bad and food was scarce.

And yet back then was there pollution? World wars? Nuclear weapons? Overpopulation? What does that tell you about the value of mercy and compassion?

Just something to think about.

talamh
December 15th, 2001, 04:38 PM
Well, off the top of my head.. neither i nor my son would be alive without the benefits of modern technology.... and a medicare system. i like to think we have "progrssed" somewhat from the "only the strong survive" struggle of amoebae in the primal slime. Survival today means spiritual and mental survival as well as physical survival....... i think the point is for each one of us to find the balance that equates to holistic existance for each of us as an individual.. i don't think one size fits all....

And i believe part of that balance is an awareness that how that how we live our lives affects others..... Too much selflessness is as harmful as too much selfishness. But i do believe there needs to be a balance.
bb talamh
ps Our Yule trees are beautiful and the smell of the balsam fir is soooo lovely. :)

Xois
December 15th, 2001, 05:50 PM
Myst

Socail darwinism is a tool of facists!

Shame on you!

Xois

flar7
December 15th, 2001, 06:25 PM
gonna have to agree with Ill on the might make right. At least
the basics.
Morality is hard to confuse with "true survival" and thats what
a lot of it comes down to.
Medical technology has and is keeping me alive, but a side affect
is that medical technology produces a lot of pollution. Most
modern technology does. People will always try to better their
situation.
You want to know how to make a very poor person vote
Republican? Give him millions of dollars and he changes his
perspective to protect his new position in life.

Rich and poor. You cant have one without the other. Socialism
doesnt work as well because it cant compete. And competition
is what life has always been about. You compete with the
elements to survive, the animals to eat.

talamh
December 15th, 2001, 08:48 PM
flar - i simply disagree. Survival in the post modernist era is more than physical survival. Gandhi was a poor person. You wouldn't change his philosophy by giving him a million dollars because he didn't want a million dollars. Some people can't be bought. That doesn't fit into social Darwinism. Some people believe in ideals more than material possessions or power.... that doesn't fit into social Darwanism. This world would be a poorer, bleaker place without the fire and passion of idealism. Idealism has a power of it's own... and yes... aim a "smart bomb' at a bunch of idealists and they will be very dead.. but their idealism will outlive them a million million times.... It's like Obiwan Kenobi... "kill me and i become a thousand times more powerful". Don't you believe in magic?? Is your real name Darth??? bb talamh

Xois
December 15th, 2001, 11:54 PM
Tal

WORD!!

flar7
December 16th, 2001, 12:24 AM
U.S. point of view? Ghandi would have to register to vote! LOL

talamh
December 16th, 2001, 08:59 AM
Yes, and under the current laws, Nelson Mandella is a terrorist. Good thing Canada made him an honourary citizen before we passed laws that would prevent him coming into our country because he fits the definition of terrorist. Ironically, the founding fathers of America are also terrorists under today's laws. bb talamh

Myst
December 16th, 2001, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Xois
Socail darwinism is a tool of facists!

Shame on you!

Just because I come up with a random thought doesn't mean I'm a fascist, nor do I appreciate being told I should be 'shameful' for bringing up something to think about. What do you call a person who encourages shaming someone who brings a new idea into a discussion?

My big peeve here is it *always* comes back to "don't you have mercy, don't you have compassion". What in Hades makes you think anyone should have any morals you consider necessary? Don't tell anyone how to feel or what to believe unless you want to piss them off quite quickly.

IMHO idealism is a waste of time. Try living in reality for awhile.

Xois
December 16th, 2001, 05:28 PM
myst

first of all, forgive me...I forgot the smilie!!! I really meant it tongue in cheek...even though I really think social darwinism is a tool for facists...I would never call you out...I really did for get the smilie


IMHO idealism is a waste of time. Try living in reality for awhile

Oh you, Myst...what makes you think, exactally, that I don't live in reality...

Just becuase I choose to live differently than you, with different ethics, does not mean i am not "living in reality"

if you think that your way is the only "right way" than that does equate with facism...Thank the gods, I have a different reality than you...thank the gods for my idealism...because I woudln't want to live in your world...no thanks...

so instead, Myst...what don't YOU try living in reality..

:)

Xois

talamh
December 16th, 2001, 08:10 PM
i think a lot depends on what a person means by "idealism". There is realistic idealism.. and there is unrealistic idealism. Everyone finds their own level and their own definition. In many ways, idealism is a luxury... but it can also be a necessity.

i'd say someone who spends a lot of time being a moderator on a pagan board has a fair bit of unselfish idealism.... but maybe puts another word on it.... :) bb talamh

Xois
December 16th, 2001, 08:22 PM
:) Yeah and meanwhile, my thesis isn't getting written either!!! ;)

Valoe
December 17th, 2001, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by Myst


IMHO idealism is a waste of time. Try living in reality for awhile.

IMO, the world would be a sad and bleak place without idealism - if it still existed at all.
It may be idealism to think we can save the earth from its destruction by pollution - but does that mean we should stop trying, stop recycling, stop protesting when industry poisons rivers?
It may be idealism to think that the world could get to a stage where there were no more war - but does that mean that we should stop trying to find a peaceful way forward? Does that mean we should just rely on having the biggest weapons? How long do you think the world would last before we were all blown into nuclear oblivion?
Without idealism there is no hope.

Myst
December 17th, 2001, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Xois
Oh you, Myst...what makes you think, exactally, that I don't live in reality...

Xois, if that sentence explicitly states your name as someone who doesn't live in reality let me know, k? If you don't feel you're one of those people who don't live in reality because of extream idealism, then you really shouldn't have a problem with what I said in the first place, right?

Myst
December 17th, 2001, 10:35 AM
Recycling isn't idealism, nor is trying to find alternatives to war.

I think talamh nailed it actually, as far as realistic and unrealistic idealism.

And as usual, my opinion is my opinion and I don't expect anyone to agree with it.

(I should really put that disclaimer in my sig again)

Illuminatus
December 17th, 2001, 02:33 PM
I'm sick of everyone bringing up the point that capitolist systems don't have room for compassion or mercy.

A capitolist society doesn't preclude mercy and compassion. Under a strict capitolist society, it's OPTIONAL.

Whereas in a Socialist or Communist environment, it's MANDATORY.

That's the only difference. Capitalists can give as much money to charity as they want. It's their choice. They simply aren't forced to. A compassionate individual can do JUST AS MUCH GOOD under one flag or the other. The only difference is that under capitolism, less money gets squandered by corruption and bloated welfare rolls.

Valoe
December 17th, 2001, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Myst
And as usual, my opinion is my opinion and I don't expect anyone to agree with it.

Well, I have re-read my post and I don't see anything that suggests any other than your opinion being your opinion. The same is true for mine. However, I was under the impression that this forum was for debate (definition - to discuss or dispute) and there won't be much debate happening if we all fall back on stating our opinions as ours and not being willing to discuss them.

Recycling may not be idealism (and I didnt say it was) but it is driven by idealism - the ideal that the human race can stop bleeding the earth dry. Idealism is simply the pursuit of an ideal; my point was that if no-one can hold on to that ideal, that vision, then no-one would be striving to reach it. Most of the great achievements in any field have been motivated by idealism.

Myst
December 17th, 2001, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Valoe
Well, I have re-read my post and I don't see anything that suggests any other than your opinion being your opinion. The same is true for mine. However, I was under the impression that this forum was for debate (definition - to discuss or dispute) and there won't be much debate happening if we all fall back on stating our opinions as ours and not being willing to discuss them.


Well good for you! I don't see in my post where I mentioned your name and suggested that you specifically said otherwise.

It's a general statement, so take it as such (and before someone cries "I don't see where I suggested I took it as otherwise", THIS is a general statement too. Deal with it.)..

talamh
December 17th, 2001, 03:09 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Illuminatus
[B]I'm sick of everyone bringing up the point that capitolist systems don't have room for compassion or mercy.

i didn't say there wasn't room for compassion or mercy, Ill.. i wanted to know where it fits in *your* world?

And the problem with compassion being optional.... that's a really nasty system.... A lot of people would be driven to desperation if there weren't some form of help. Down through western history there has always been help for the needy, be it the role of the parish or the monestary or the Lord and Lady of the manor.

In some societies they let needy people die on the side of the road. Is that the way you want your country to be? bb talamh

Xois
December 17th, 2001, 03:35 PM
not corrupt and bloated?! Are we talking about the same capitalism here, in the USA...?! I think you are wrong Ill...there is plenty of corruption in our capitalism!

Like the person who spends the most money, wins the election! ITs the corruption of the PACs that make it possible...thanks to capitalism

Illuminatus
December 17th, 2001, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Xois
not corrupt and bloated?! Are we talking about the same capitalism here, in the USA...?! I think you are wrong Ill...there is plenty of corruption in our capitalism!

Like the person who spends the most money, wins the election! ITs the corruption of the PACs that make it possible...thanks to capitalism

Yeah, campaign donations are pretty f'd up. That should definitely go.

But communism contains equal, if not greater opportunities for corruption. Since the state (not the individual) completely controlls the distribution of EVERYTHING, it's just too easy for the government to f@#% over the prole. At least with the capitolist system, the prole gets f%@#'d over by a corporation once or twice, and the government once a year, but that's pretty much it. They can buy elsewhere, instead of having their fairly-earned resources withheld or unfairly distributed by a single, gigantic monopoly.

Monopolies are bad. Almost everyone agrees on that, liberals and conservative thinkers alike. And what is Communist state but a REALLY BIG monopoly on EVERYTHING! Think about it. You'll begin to understand what happened to the Soviet Union in the years leading up to 1992.

- Ill

talamh
December 17th, 2001, 07:09 PM
i certainly don't wish to live in a communist state..... but if you have an aversion to monopolies, then look out for free trade. It's getting so that 20 transnationals control 80 per cent of the world's economy.. and they want even more through "free" trade and globalization. Doctrainaire capitalism is as dangerous as doctrainaire anything else..... didn't your economics B.A. (or is economics a BSc?) teach you that. Ill? No one system is perfect. Mybe you should have taken a little more polisci... or perhaps some sociology. bb talamh

Myst
December 17th, 2001, 08:03 PM
Now if I recall correctly, 20 groups having control over 80% of any economy != monopoly. One group having control over 100% = monopoly. But that's being picky now isn't it? But then, this thread isn't about free trade either? Or is this just the "bitch about everything political" thread now? Maybe start a new thread?

talamh
December 18th, 2001, 08:36 AM
monopolies Myst... plural. We are not yet at the point where one transnational controls the entire world.. although i am sure there are corporations who would just *love* to be that one corporation. bb talamh

Illuminatus
December 18th, 2001, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Myst
Now if I recall correctly, 20 groups having control over 80% of any economy != monopoly. One group having control over 100% = monopoly. But that's being picky now isn't it? But then, this thread isn't about free trade either? Or is this just the "bitch about everything political" thread now? Maybe start a new thread?

20 groups controlling 80% boils down to about 4% each. Just because AOL-Time-Warner controlls 2% of the world economy doesn't make it a monopoly. As long as there is competition (the other cable networks and ISP's, the prices will be competitive and benefit the consumer.

Castro controlling EVERYTHING that gets distributed in his nation, period... that's a monopoly.

I am all for anti-trust legislation. It's in capitolism's best interest to keep big buisnesses on the level.

- Ill

Myst
December 18th, 2001, 12:05 PM
Yeah that's what I thought. See, my financial systems course didn't go completely to waste.