Why not designate the "No Go" areas of Pakistan UN administered areas and send in the troops?
The Pakistan government appears to no longer have any power or authority over some areas, so they truly are not under their governed territory.
It gets tiring to hear that we cannot stop non-state actors because we are allies with their state of residence.
I suppose, as much as I might hate the behaviors of some American extremist fringe groups, I would not want other countries to send in the drones. Still, our allies have to do a better job at being sovereign in their own lands!
Even our own super power has to face the shame of impotent regulation of Wall Street greed, as a comparison to say Yemen's lack of enforcement against terrorist groups.
Our freedom to innovate, imagine and raise capital to invent new things in an environment of the rule of law is what made us great. The rampant abuse of that system is a terrible threat to our greatness.
Still, it's not an equivalent comparison. Sub-state actors in other countries are not just extremists acting in their own country, they threaten us directly and by name. I think we are justified when responding to such threats.
Consider that it's a consciously employed technique to put a friendly government up as a shield to allow terrorist groups to flourish. Could Pakistan be purposely defending home-grown terror by telling us what we want to hear at the diplomatic level?
What is the motive? May I suggest the possibility that some Muslims hold aspirations we would call totalitarian with regard to Islam forming a future world government?
I expect the liberal American response would be to insult me as culturally biased, even "racist" for suggesting such a thing.
I am certainly not a racist nor am I opposed to anyone's private, personal worship practices, but even the core, central interpretation of Islam is as an all consuming lifestyle that does not exclude governmental aspirations which are not just aspirations, but facts in many countries.
I am biased with regard to how we are governed. I think a dogmatic religious government which is inescapably based in irrational beliefs is dangerous and inferior to our free, democratic government system, even with its imperfections.
Our western religious "inquisition" is long gone, but horrific things still exist in many places in the world and let's not be blind to the aspirations of those bases of power to rule over us as well.
=sw
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Draw Mohammed Day
The point of drawing mohammed is to insist that people are free to speak, criticize and satirize without the fear of death threats.
Although, I must say that I think a video response to "Draw Mohammed Day" that emphasizes the good things people believe about their prophet IS an appropriate response.
It is just not right to equate a cartoon with hatred. Everyone who is offended takes that offense actively and is responsible for it.
I don't think it's polite to be mocking or insulting of people's cherished beliefs, until they try to impose their values on others through coercion, threats, violence or rage.
I think Islam needs some feedback. Allowing people to depict mohammed could lead to understanding and sharing in addition to the mocking cartoons.
Christians also have written in their scriptures "Thou shalt make no graven images" and "worship no idols". It's probably the same source material for both the Bible and the Koran.
Christians have come to interpret that advice spiritually, not literally. You can make a picture or statue of your god, but you worship the god not the symbol itself. It can also be interpreted to mean that religious believers should not idolize material things or non-spiritual ideas.
Eventually Muslims will come around, but what everyone else is telling them is that certain reactions are not appropriate, proportional or acceptable. Lashing out violently over drawings is not socially acceptable. Assault is unlawful.
That Muslims are insulted by drawings of Muhammad and will be vocal about that is something non-muslims can understand and accept.
Murder, violence, death threats, assaults, property destruction and the like we do not have to accept.
Over the centuries I can only hope people cling to good principals of social behavior instead of dogma. The dogma's have a great risk of being wrong and persisting uncorrected.
In some ways the rage people feel about religious "offense" hides the fear and doubt every person must feel from time to time with our analytical pre-frontal cortex needing evidence and seeking a consistent reality.
Religion can be a form of denial and can lead to unhealthy circular and cognitively dissonant thought patterns.
I understand that, culturally, Muslims have lived with centuries of dogma taking the lead role in how people understand reality. I cannot expect Muslims not to feel offended when their sacred beliefs are mocked. I just want to remind them that their religious rules and beliefs have no application, authority or bearing on the rest of us and to attempt to enforce their laws upon non-muslims is at best intolerant and at worst absolutely unacceptable and will need to be countered. Hopefully the mild sting of social criticism using free speech with be enough to carry that message.
=SW
Although, I must say that I think a video response to "Draw Mohammed Day" that emphasizes the good things people believe about their prophet IS an appropriate response.
It is just not right to equate a cartoon with hatred. Everyone who is offended takes that offense actively and is responsible for it.
I don't think it's polite to be mocking or insulting of people's cherished beliefs, until they try to impose their values on others through coercion, threats, violence or rage.
I think Islam needs some feedback. Allowing people to depict mohammed could lead to understanding and sharing in addition to the mocking cartoons.
Christians also have written in their scriptures "Thou shalt make no graven images" and "worship no idols". It's probably the same source material for both the Bible and the Koran.
Christians have come to interpret that advice spiritually, not literally. You can make a picture or statue of your god, but you worship the god not the symbol itself. It can also be interpreted to mean that religious believers should not idolize material things or non-spiritual ideas.
Eventually Muslims will come around, but what everyone else is telling them is that certain reactions are not appropriate, proportional or acceptable. Lashing out violently over drawings is not socially acceptable. Assault is unlawful.
That Muslims are insulted by drawings of Muhammad and will be vocal about that is something non-muslims can understand and accept.
Murder, violence, death threats, assaults, property destruction and the like we do not have to accept.
Over the centuries I can only hope people cling to good principals of social behavior instead of dogma. The dogma's have a great risk of being wrong and persisting uncorrected.
In some ways the rage people feel about religious "offense" hides the fear and doubt every person must feel from time to time with our analytical pre-frontal cortex needing evidence and seeking a consistent reality.
Religion can be a form of denial and can lead to unhealthy circular and cognitively dissonant thought patterns.
I understand that, culturally, Muslims have lived with centuries of dogma taking the lead role in how people understand reality. I cannot expect Muslims not to feel offended when their sacred beliefs are mocked. I just want to remind them that their religious rules and beliefs have no application, authority or bearing on the rest of us and to attempt to enforce their laws upon non-muslims is at best intolerant and at worst absolutely unacceptable and will need to be countered. Hopefully the mild sting of social criticism using free speech with be enough to carry that message.
=SW
Monday, April 26, 2010
Muslim Responses to Free Speech
Somehow, after the insensitive cartoon has been made, and justifiably, some feelings were hurt, still the stinging indignation is pointed at the free speech rather than at the death threats and in all too many cases actual murders perpetrated by those who call themselves Muslims. The choice is whether to side with the irrational murderous rage or with the freedom to speak.
The focus of indignation must surely be the untempered reaction of the radicals. The focus is the believer, already given to leaps beyond reason by believing in the first place, who is not able to limit his or her recourse to something fitting offended sensibilities but must make such an outcry as to place oneself above all others and invoke the right to take away human life as some kind of payment for hurt feelings. No laws, judgements, trials, sense, reason or self-control employed, just blind murderous rage. That is what is truly offensive. That is what should be the target of all our outrage. It is unacceptable to overlook the sanctity of human life before going right for the free speech as the target of anyone's indignation.
The trouble with belief is that the ability to make great leaps without evidence leaves the door open to accepting many more irrational ideas without question. The deep ignorance of statements by Pat Robertson about the Earthquake in Haiti being some kind of punishment for a pact with an invisible evil being is one example. Plate tectonics and physics explain that, there is no need to invoke the supernatural. Infact, it does more harm to stop and pretend it was done by magic, thereby contending that further study is either impossible or unneeded. How callous the statement is to those suffering the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
A Muslim Cleric in Iran tried to declare that female immodesty is causing Earthquakes via the mechanism of God's anger.
"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes" Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi said.
This is absolute ignorance coupled with a brilliantly cynical use of social control mechanisms. That the people have already surrendered to belief without evidence makes it possible.
One can never be sure of what the next leap into irrationality will be, among any religious group.
Moderate Muslims need to turn their attention away from obscure cartoons, toward their more extreme co-religious elements and begin to criticize their behavior, if only because it is actually destructive to human life and risks defaming all those who share their faith, instead of just simply being "unkind" like a political cartoon.
Every other faith group seems to be above taking offense to their critics or perhaps they have found constructive ways to project their own positive messages. Institutions are in need of a little ribbing from time to time to point out their injustices and faults.
No person or group can be immune from criticism. The act of killing, making death threats or even making thinly veiled death threats is not an appropriate nor acceptable response.
No more unjustified murders can be allowed before civilized society must act to defend civil living. People frankly have the right to offend one another and to speak their minds without being targeted for death. If the terrorist had powerful weapons they would use them. Free countries already have powerful weapons and the depth of their restraint is shown when confronting fascist radicals such as those who murdered Theo Van Gogh for making a short video against wife-beating!
People must come to their senses and start criticizing the violent and murderous radical religious actors not the free speakers!
=sw
The focus of indignation must surely be the untempered reaction of the radicals. The focus is the believer, already given to leaps beyond reason by believing in the first place, who is not able to limit his or her recourse to something fitting offended sensibilities but must make such an outcry as to place oneself above all others and invoke the right to take away human life as some kind of payment for hurt feelings. No laws, judgements, trials, sense, reason or self-control employed, just blind murderous rage. That is what is truly offensive. That is what should be the target of all our outrage. It is unacceptable to overlook the sanctity of human life before going right for the free speech as the target of anyone's indignation.
The trouble with belief is that the ability to make great leaps without evidence leaves the door open to accepting many more irrational ideas without question. The deep ignorance of statements by Pat Robertson about the Earthquake in Haiti being some kind of punishment for a pact with an invisible evil being is one example. Plate tectonics and physics explain that, there is no need to invoke the supernatural. Infact, it does more harm to stop and pretend it was done by magic, thereby contending that further study is either impossible or unneeded. How callous the statement is to those suffering the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.
A Muslim Cleric in Iran tried to declare that female immodesty is causing Earthquakes via the mechanism of God's anger.
"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes" Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi said.
This is absolute ignorance coupled with a brilliantly cynical use of social control mechanisms. That the people have already surrendered to belief without evidence makes it possible.
One can never be sure of what the next leap into irrationality will be, among any religious group.
Moderate Muslims need to turn their attention away from obscure cartoons, toward their more extreme co-religious elements and begin to criticize their behavior, if only because it is actually destructive to human life and risks defaming all those who share their faith, instead of just simply being "unkind" like a political cartoon.
Every other faith group seems to be above taking offense to their critics or perhaps they have found constructive ways to project their own positive messages. Institutions are in need of a little ribbing from time to time to point out their injustices and faults.
No person or group can be immune from criticism. The act of killing, making death threats or even making thinly veiled death threats is not an appropriate nor acceptable response.
No more unjustified murders can be allowed before civilized society must act to defend civil living. People frankly have the right to offend one another and to speak their minds without being targeted for death. If the terrorist had powerful weapons they would use them. Free countries already have powerful weapons and the depth of their restraint is shown when confronting fascist radicals such as those who murdered Theo Van Gogh for making a short video against wife-beating!
People must come to their senses and start criticizing the violent and murderous radical religious actors not the free speakers!
=sw
Friday, April 23, 2010
Global Wha Wha?
I read two articles today that both struck me as a little far fetched...at first.
Someone pointed out that there was a Live Science article proposing that the movement of Ice Weight as water could redistribute pressures which can disrupt force balances and lead to Earthquakes. Global Warming is increasing Earthquakes, at least until the ice is all melted and the water weight is done shifting. That seems plausible.
See the 2007 article:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html
And then there's today's article. Where a Muslim Cleric in Iran tries to declare that female immodesty is causing Earthquakes via the mechanism of God's anger.
"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi said.
Is it really still the dark ages over there? I thought it through. If Global Warming causes Iranian women to uncover "some of their hair" and wear more "revealing" clothing (I presume they mean...like Ankle and Neck) then one could correlate that the same thing that is contributing to a spike in Earthquakes is also contributing to a spike in dressing lighter among Iranian women!
Here is a the link to the BBC article about Iranian women:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8631775.stm
Of course, no matter what happens it will be taken as a spur to more religious commitment:
"What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes," he said.
The Cleric's attitude is awfully insensitive to the tens of thousands of Iranian Earthquake victims and their families over the last decade. This is on its face an egregious (though that word should be used for things that are not as common as this) example of the exploitation of tragedy and the use of fear to manipulate credulous people. I find it shameful and yes, ignorant as well, by the best definition of the term.
=sw
Someone pointed out that there was a Live Science article proposing that the movement of Ice Weight as water could redistribute pressures which can disrupt force balances and lead to Earthquakes. Global Warming is increasing Earthquakes, at least until the ice is all melted and the water weight is done shifting. That seems plausible.
See the 2007 article:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html
And then there's today's article. Where a Muslim Cleric in Iran tries to declare that female immodesty is causing Earthquakes via the mechanism of God's anger.
"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi said.
Is it really still the dark ages over there? I thought it through. If Global Warming causes Iranian women to uncover "some of their hair" and wear more "revealing" clothing (I presume they mean...like Ankle and Neck) then one could correlate that the same thing that is contributing to a spike in Earthquakes is also contributing to a spike in dressing lighter among Iranian women!
Here is a the link to the BBC article about Iranian women:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8631775.stm
Of course, no matter what happens it will be taken as a spur to more religious commitment:
"What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes," he said.
The Cleric's attitude is awfully insensitive to the tens of thousands of Iranian Earthquake victims and their families over the last decade. This is on its face an egregious (though that word should be used for things that are not as common as this) example of the exploitation of tragedy and the use of fear to manipulate credulous people. I find it shameful and yes, ignorant as well, by the best definition of the term.
=sw
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Just one Bible verse
I am going to examine just one claim of the Creation myth in the Bible by evaluating just one verse:
To someone who knows about modern scientific discoveries and understanding, the passages in Genesis reveal a deeply localized pedestrian view of the Universe from the perspective and understanding of an unsophisticated observer. The emphasis on Earth its self as significant in the Universe betrays a provincial perspective. The scale of the rest of the Universe compared to the significance of the Earth and its day, night, sky, waters...is staggeringly great. It almost too much to express.
Our Sun is an average star. Even so, it is around a million times greater in volume than the Earth. There are billions of stars in billions of galaxies in the Universe many of them larger than the Sun by orders of magnitude. To say all of that was created on the fourth day when making the Earth took more than a day is clearly a notion proceeding from the perspective of an Earth bound author with little scientific knowledge. It is to the desert religious of the bronze age as if the stars were quickly stipple painted on to the sky as an after thought.
I understand that this is not the lynch pin of religion, of course. Though reading the myth does reveal its heavy dose of anthropic preference and inadequate description of what we now know is out there.
The most obnoxious thing is the phrase "two great lights". Because the author, or the author's imagined god, didn't happen to know that the Moon merely reflects the Sun's light and is not a source all its own.
When scrutinized from a perspective of truly greater light and knowledge, the Bible stories show their deep lack of understanding and real information about the Universe and they appear to be just what they are, the best effort of a quivering baffled and dazzled early man.
=sw
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
To someone who knows about modern scientific discoveries and understanding, the passages in Genesis reveal a deeply localized pedestrian view of the Universe from the perspective and understanding of an unsophisticated observer. The emphasis on Earth its self as significant in the Universe betrays a provincial perspective. The scale of the rest of the Universe compared to the significance of the Earth and its day, night, sky, waters...is staggeringly great. It almost too much to express.
Our Sun is an average star. Even so, it is around a million times greater in volume than the Earth. There are billions of stars in billions of galaxies in the Universe many of them larger than the Sun by orders of magnitude. To say all of that was created on the fourth day when making the Earth took more than a day is clearly a notion proceeding from the perspective of an Earth bound author with little scientific knowledge. It is to the desert religious of the bronze age as if the stars were quickly stipple painted on to the sky as an after thought.
I understand that this is not the lynch pin of religion, of course. Though reading the myth does reveal its heavy dose of anthropic preference and inadequate description of what we now know is out there.
The most obnoxious thing is the phrase "two great lights". Because the author, or the author's imagined god, didn't happen to know that the Moon merely reflects the Sun's light and is not a source all its own.
When scrutinized from a perspective of truly greater light and knowledge, the Bible stories show their deep lack of understanding and real information about the Universe and they appear to be just what they are, the best effort of a quivering baffled and dazzled early man.
=sw
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Implications of Conservative Thought
I think what is happening in Colorado Springs is really interesting. Apparently inspired by the Tea Party Movement, they are conceding to do without many public services as an experiment in lower taxation. It's funny to me that Greece is in the opposite situation. The Greeks are unable to convince and prepare the public for the austerity measures necessary to balance the budget. People in Greece are rallying at the severe reduction in government services while Colorado Springs is rallying to severely reduce government services. It will be fascinating to see how it turns out. Germany is surely not excited about bailing out Greece and had, in fact, set "no bailouts" as a condition of economic (specifically currency) union with Europe. Interesting times!
I think the Tea Party movement imagines that private business can provide services better than governments can. This sounds good and reasonable to me actually, until you realize that the outcome will probably be that wealthy people have excellent services and poor people suffer dearly under conservative politics. And the implication is the wealthy will have to defend their wealth with weapons against the rest of the world.
Conservatives philosophy has an inherent flaw. It's all about US, our town, our people making a good life for ourselves. The trouble is, as I have said before, for everyone in the world to live like a wealthy American we need a planet 70 times larger in land and resources. This implies, uncomfortably, that we and our ways are better and more valuable to preserve than the millions of other people out there. It means that one society has to imagine its self as more worthwhile and with higher individual value than every other society and support this claim with big guns trained on the hungry masses.
The conservative mentality is "if it's us or them...then I think WE should win!" When the draft comes, I'll surely be fighting right beside them. However, is this the only and best way to run a planet? I'd think that normalizing wealth would be the only humane way to have a peaceful world without war.
Studies show that wealthier societies do not have such high birth rates. What do we think we are going to do about all the new mouths to feed under the current patterns? Trust in starvation, floods, wars and other acts of "god"? A sustainable world is one where everyone is well enough off that they don't use reproduction as a weapon, but the world manages growth at or below the planet's reasonable capacity and everyone is well off. EVERYONE IS WELL OFF! That means you can't have tycoons that scorch the environment and amass wealth at the expense of other people. Earth is a finite system.
Capitalism is a fine motivator and has been priceless to establish our society.
"Gather all the wood you can and we will be sure of having fire"...until there is no more forest as "tribes" compete to out-grow each other.
In a finite world where the system is competition for resources, it makes sense to have as many children as possible, amass as much wealth as possible and dominate. The implication is...you give hunger, thirst, disease, exposure and sometimes bombs to all the other over-growing factions. Thus the Earth is won for US not them. That's the end game of conservatism. It makes perfect logical sense, but is utterly inhumane and couldn't be called christian at all (if christian still means loving one's neighbor).
Pseudo-communistic dictatorships have been tried as well as violent fascist totalitarian systems. Somewhere there is another way that provides enough motivation while not refusing dignity and individual worth to any person.
=sw
I think the Tea Party movement imagines that private business can provide services better than governments can. This sounds good and reasonable to me actually, until you realize that the outcome will probably be that wealthy people have excellent services and poor people suffer dearly under conservative politics. And the implication is the wealthy will have to defend their wealth with weapons against the rest of the world.
Conservatives philosophy has an inherent flaw. It's all about US, our town, our people making a good life for ourselves. The trouble is, as I have said before, for everyone in the world to live like a wealthy American we need a planet 70 times larger in land and resources. This implies, uncomfortably, that we and our ways are better and more valuable to preserve than the millions of other people out there. It means that one society has to imagine its self as more worthwhile and with higher individual value than every other society and support this claim with big guns trained on the hungry masses.
The conservative mentality is "if it's us or them...then I think WE should win!" When the draft comes, I'll surely be fighting right beside them. However, is this the only and best way to run a planet? I'd think that normalizing wealth would be the only humane way to have a peaceful world without war.
Studies show that wealthier societies do not have such high birth rates. What do we think we are going to do about all the new mouths to feed under the current patterns? Trust in starvation, floods, wars and other acts of "god"? A sustainable world is one where everyone is well enough off that they don't use reproduction as a weapon, but the world manages growth at or below the planet's reasonable capacity and everyone is well off. EVERYONE IS WELL OFF! That means you can't have tycoons that scorch the environment and amass wealth at the expense of other people. Earth is a finite system.
Capitalism is a fine motivator and has been priceless to establish our society.
"Gather all the wood you can and we will be sure of having fire"...until there is no more forest as "tribes" compete to out-grow each other.
In a finite world where the system is competition for resources, it makes sense to have as many children as possible, amass as much wealth as possible and dominate. The implication is...you give hunger, thirst, disease, exposure and sometimes bombs to all the other over-growing factions. Thus the Earth is won for US not them. That's the end game of conservatism. It makes perfect logical sense, but is utterly inhumane and couldn't be called christian at all (if christian still means loving one's neighbor).
Pseudo-communistic dictatorships have been tried as well as violent fascist totalitarian systems. Somewhere there is another way that provides enough motivation while not refusing dignity and individual worth to any person.
=sw
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Trying to Peg Everything
Since I nearly got beat-up by the Freshman football team in high school when I was a sophomore (I talked them down, actually). I have realized that people try to peg, categorize, pigeon-hole and make clichés of others using easy to identify symbols.
The football players shouted out "Fags" to me and my friends who were on our way to a French club party dressed, as we always did, in our long trench coats with long highlighted bangs (1985 or so?). To me, wearing a trench coat was just a way to be self expressive or at least to fit in with my small group of friends. It had nothing to do with being a gun toting punk and nothing at all to do with sexuality since we were all mormon virgins who wanted hot girls who hated us and shunned probably hot girls who were too accessible to be desired. None of us was ever gay in our lives but we sure took some abuse for that team. Enough to appreciate what actual gay people might go through, if only in some measure.
I like to think that high school stupidity, heaping flack upon anyone different, was from youth and inexperience. Yet, somehow the attitude often carries over into adulthood.
There are so many inane ways in which people try to identify lifestyle like McCarthy sussed out communists.
Things I have heard that are supposed to indicate that people are "gay", "liberal", or "right-wing cowboys" or "assholes" are just way off. Maybe some people just mean "different" by those labels. Still, there is little openness to difference in some attitudes of those who even feel like they are "just kidding around" while they propagate and reinforce silly ideas.
Popped collars? Gay? I thought maybe it just meant "Douche Bag"? Pardon me while I also make a cliché of people!
Cleanliness? Is it godliness or godlessness that it is closest to. I think people should make up their minds.
Driving a small/big car? It would be a good thing if all big tough belt buckle-wearing men were all homophobic and drove Mining-Dump-Trucks so no one would mis-read their sexual intentions. The premise is so ridiculous.
I hear things like that a lot. "Girl Car, boy car, old lady car, gay car, dork car, cocks-drive-this-car" etc.
I saw a sticker that said "Silly boys, Jeeps are for girls".
As a rational being I have explained to many that an automobile is an abstract device that takes feet, hands, brains and eyes to drive...the genitals are not relevant and (hopefully) not involved in controlling the vehicle.
Maybe some of this is just women wanting to assert their touch upon a segment of the world to make it feel like they can have it as their own, not just borrow it from male-ness. That transition is acceptable I suppose, though some day we must finally be rational and accept no one else as worth more than ourselves no matter how their collar is placed or even what color the collar is.
Anyone can drive anything. Anyone can like anything and it doesn't have to mean some secondary thing. This is what women have been fighting to tell us since the 60's. A woman who likes sex doesn't have to also be a slut etc. A mexican doesn't have to also be saddled with every cliché ever invented about Mexicans without any compelling interest in the individual.
"You drive a girl car"... I have heard before. My Dark Blue german sedan with awesome v6 power and 5 in the floor that can cruise at 139 mph is a girl car? People are nuts. My car is also a Mexican by birth, by the way. It still doesn't like mariachi music, but if it did it would be perfectly OK.
It's all in good fun on one level, but in the process we really do try to impose an equally ridiculous standard of behavior on people who's diverse behavior, no matter how seemingly different or ridiculous, is really personal and not really any of our business.
Generalizations can be destructive. 100 a day are spouted on T.V. (Especially on those daytime talk shows and guess who watches those! Don't be tempted to generalize!) Some people cause real harm trying to socially impose them.
"Gingers have no soul" is funny to an adult, but it can be a reason for violence to children. Perhaps no one has a soul, but just because that hip guy at work is wearing a pink oxford doesn't mean he drives a jeep (or whatever nutty conclusion you'd like to draw).
Labeling is just cruel...Not all bitches are stupid :) Not all douche bags are wealthy!
I think you get the point. Cars are cars people. We should all stop thinking you can dissect people without getting to know them. Besides, we can't let gay people be the only ones who like beauty and dress well.
Pop your collar at your own risk, especially in your european convertible! (Now I'm doing it too! Make it stop!)
=sw
The football players shouted out "Fags" to me and my friends who were on our way to a French club party dressed, as we always did, in our long trench coats with long highlighted bangs (1985 or so?). To me, wearing a trench coat was just a way to be self expressive or at least to fit in with my small group of friends. It had nothing to do with being a gun toting punk and nothing at all to do with sexuality since we were all mormon virgins who wanted hot girls who hated us and shunned probably hot girls who were too accessible to be desired. None of us was ever gay in our lives but we sure took some abuse for that team. Enough to appreciate what actual gay people might go through, if only in some measure.
I like to think that high school stupidity, heaping flack upon anyone different, was from youth and inexperience. Yet, somehow the attitude often carries over into adulthood.
There are so many inane ways in which people try to identify lifestyle like McCarthy sussed out communists.
Things I have heard that are supposed to indicate that people are "gay", "liberal", or "right-wing cowboys" or "assholes" are just way off. Maybe some people just mean "different" by those labels. Still, there is little openness to difference in some attitudes of those who even feel like they are "just kidding around" while they propagate and reinforce silly ideas.
Popped collars? Gay? I thought maybe it just meant "Douche Bag"? Pardon me while I also make a cliché of people!
Cleanliness? Is it godliness or godlessness that it is closest to. I think people should make up their minds.
Driving a small/big car? It would be a good thing if all big tough belt buckle-wearing men were all homophobic and drove Mining-Dump-Trucks so no one would mis-read their sexual intentions. The premise is so ridiculous.
I hear things like that a lot. "Girl Car, boy car, old lady car, gay car, dork car, cocks-drive-this-car" etc.
I saw a sticker that said "Silly boys, Jeeps are for girls".
As a rational being I have explained to many that an automobile is an abstract device that takes feet, hands, brains and eyes to drive...the genitals are not relevant and (hopefully) not involved in controlling the vehicle.
Maybe some of this is just women wanting to assert their touch upon a segment of the world to make it feel like they can have it as their own, not just borrow it from male-ness. That transition is acceptable I suppose, though some day we must finally be rational and accept no one else as worth more than ourselves no matter how their collar is placed or even what color the collar is.
Anyone can drive anything. Anyone can like anything and it doesn't have to mean some secondary thing. This is what women have been fighting to tell us since the 60's. A woman who likes sex doesn't have to also be a slut etc. A mexican doesn't have to also be saddled with every cliché ever invented about Mexicans without any compelling interest in the individual.
"You drive a girl car"... I have heard before. My Dark Blue german sedan with awesome v6 power and 5 in the floor that can cruise at 139 mph is a girl car? People are nuts. My car is also a Mexican by birth, by the way. It still doesn't like mariachi music, but if it did it would be perfectly OK.
It's all in good fun on one level, but in the process we really do try to impose an equally ridiculous standard of behavior on people who's diverse behavior, no matter how seemingly different or ridiculous, is really personal and not really any of our business.
Generalizations can be destructive. 100 a day are spouted on T.V. (Especially on those daytime talk shows and guess who watches those! Don't be tempted to generalize!) Some people cause real harm trying to socially impose them.
"Gingers have no soul" is funny to an adult, but it can be a reason for violence to children. Perhaps no one has a soul, but just because that hip guy at work is wearing a pink oxford doesn't mean he drives a jeep (or whatever nutty conclusion you'd like to draw).
Labeling is just cruel...Not all bitches are stupid :) Not all douche bags are wealthy!
I think you get the point. Cars are cars people. We should all stop thinking you can dissect people without getting to know them. Besides, we can't let gay people be the only ones who like beauty and dress well.
Pop your collar at your own risk, especially in your european convertible! (Now I'm doing it too! Make it stop!)
=sw
Saturday, October 17, 2009
No War
I have been thinking about war a lot lately.
Today, in November 2009, the United States is at war. I have written before about how we won World War II. I have always had an interest in seeing, reading and hearing all I could about the World wars. Maybe it just seemed such a fearsome prospect that I wanted to be sure I understood how it came about and came to an end if only to feel it could be avoided or to feel some sense that the world was a safe enough place for me to live in.
I'd love to hate war. I'd love to work to end it and prevent it in all circumstances. I have run the theoretical models in my head over and over again. Repressive regime or dictator wants to control and enslave all mankind, I do not wish to be controlled or enslaved along with millions of others so I must stand up and fight. War is thus made.
Sometimes I think the most reasonable end to war is overwhelming force. Back in the day we used incendiary and even nuclear weapons to make the point that Empires and Reichs were not going to dominate free people. To make the point stick required unhindered recourse.
How can I hate war but call for overwhelming violence? If there must be war shouldn't it be decided as swiftly as possible?
I really don't enjoy considering the plausibility of the theories that profiteers arrange for wars to be able to buy up wealth when prices are low or panicked and thereby own more of the world after the prices recover. What a cold rationality.
Then again, we have had a population crises before and I think a philosopher like Nietzsche would applaud convenient solutions such as global conflict to reduce the exponential growth.
My very religious mother likes to say "God has plagues, wars, famines and thirst to handle population growth, don't worry about it". That sounds like the least-managed outcome I can envision.
Dr. Norman Borlaug died this year. He helped forestall what might have been a major 20th century disaster by encouraging the use of new high yield crops and by lobbying for policy changes in areas of high growth in population such as India and Pakistan. He warned that while the grain production might now be ahead of the population growth, the limit would be reached again as the population grows beyond the ability of science to produce higher yields while at the same time arable land shrinks because so many more people need to live and be housed.
Many religious cultures would try to out grow their counterparts by overbreeding to the point of senselessness watching infrastructure fail to keep up. Attitudes like that are deeply detrimental to the future of life on earth. If the capacity of the planet is greater than the current population, we should grow cautiously and sensibly. Now it seems there is a war to flood the world with ones own culture and ethnicity.
In a contest such as this, those who limit their reproductive rate risk being overwhelmed by the others. It reverses the logic of cautious growth. This push to maintain relevance in exponentiating throngs will bring conflict over finite land and water resources.
I think the irrationality of religious belief often becomes the core cause of war. It is often religious people who aspire to have as many children as possible. This is also usually much more than just a personal hope, it is thought to be a moral duty to God.
An American Physicist and Nobel Laureate said:
What is the solution to be? Is the prescription really war, famine, flood and pestilence?
Perhaps the earth can sustain more people that I might think. Maybe a sentient culture needs many people to survive at all. Still, where ever the limit, there is one and I think the problem is not being addressed. Violent evil dictators have tried their solutions. I think there is something better.
Can we live without war? I would like to think so, though my common sense sees a different picture.
-sumwun
Today, in November 2009, the United States is at war. I have written before about how we won World War II. I have always had an interest in seeing, reading and hearing all I could about the World wars. Maybe it just seemed such a fearsome prospect that I wanted to be sure I understood how it came about and came to an end if only to feel it could be avoided or to feel some sense that the world was a safe enough place for me to live in.
I'd love to hate war. I'd love to work to end it and prevent it in all circumstances. I have run the theoretical models in my head over and over again. Repressive regime or dictator wants to control and enslave all mankind, I do not wish to be controlled or enslaved along with millions of others so I must stand up and fight. War is thus made.
Sometimes I think the most reasonable end to war is overwhelming force. Back in the day we used incendiary and even nuclear weapons to make the point that Empires and Reichs were not going to dominate free people. To make the point stick required unhindered recourse.
How can I hate war but call for overwhelming violence? If there must be war shouldn't it be decided as swiftly as possible?
I really don't enjoy considering the plausibility of the theories that profiteers arrange for wars to be able to buy up wealth when prices are low or panicked and thereby own more of the world after the prices recover. What a cold rationality.
Then again, we have had a population crises before and I think a philosopher like Nietzsche would applaud convenient solutions such as global conflict to reduce the exponential growth.
My very religious mother likes to say "God has plagues, wars, famines and thirst to handle population growth, don't worry about it". That sounds like the least-managed outcome I can envision.
Dr. Norman Borlaug died this year. He helped forestall what might have been a major 20th century disaster by encouraging the use of new high yield crops and by lobbying for policy changes in areas of high growth in population such as India and Pakistan. He warned that while the grain production might now be ahead of the population growth, the limit would be reached again as the population grows beyond the ability of science to produce higher yields while at the same time arable land shrinks because so many more people need to live and be housed.
Many religious cultures would try to out grow their counterparts by overbreeding to the point of senselessness watching infrastructure fail to keep up. Attitudes like that are deeply detrimental to the future of life on earth. If the capacity of the planet is greater than the current population, we should grow cautiously and sensibly. Now it seems there is a war to flood the world with ones own culture and ethnicity.
In a contest such as this, those who limit their reproductive rate risk being overwhelmed by the others. It reverses the logic of cautious growth. This push to maintain relevance in exponentiating throngs will bring conflict over finite land and water resources.
I think the irrationality of religious belief often becomes the core cause of war. It is often religious people who aspire to have as many children as possible. This is also usually much more than just a personal hope, it is thought to be a moral duty to God.
An American Physicist and Nobel Laureate said:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Steven Weinberg
What is the solution to be? Is the prescription really war, famine, flood and pestilence?
Perhaps the earth can sustain more people that I might think. Maybe a sentient culture needs many people to survive at all. Still, where ever the limit, there is one and I think the problem is not being addressed. Violent evil dictators have tried their solutions. I think there is something better.
Can we live without war? I would like to think so, though my common sense sees a different picture.
-sumwun
Monday, June 01, 2009
MSI's Craptastic Philosophy
Maybe they should be called "Mac's Slow Imitator" oh yah... with gold star support for a lousy OS!
Again I say, no one wants underpowered, less useful computers. Getting the price lower is only meaningful when performance is matched or improved upon. You can make it pretty, but a personal computer is ultimately a device valued most for what it does. The other thing is...if you want innovative design, look somewhere else. MSI's Wind is essentially a knock off of an Apple monitor design from 10 years ago.
MSI 2009:
Apple 1999:
Ten years is along time in the computer world.
Yes I know, MSI made an "all in one" computer out of Apple's Cinema Display design. They also already tried to copy the new iMac's form factor, missing the boat in my opinion.
MSI:
Apple:
I think MSI should "come orignal" (as 311 sings), and build some powerful machines instead of trying to make people happy with dumbed down, wholly inadequate machines.
Their designs are already not only far behind Apple but also failed attempts to imitate Apple. Another sad truth about being far behind... so are their OS options.
=sw
Again I say, no one wants underpowered, less useful computers. Getting the price lower is only meaningful when performance is matched or improved upon. You can make it pretty, but a personal computer is ultimately a device valued most for what it does. The other thing is...if you want innovative design, look somewhere else. MSI's Wind is essentially a knock off of an Apple monitor design from 10 years ago.
MSI 2009:
Apple 1999:
Ten years is along time in the computer world.
Yes I know, MSI made an "all in one" computer out of Apple's Cinema Display design. They also already tried to copy the new iMac's form factor, missing the boat in my opinion.
MSI:
Apple:
I think MSI should "come orignal" (as 311 sings), and build some powerful machines instead of trying to make people happy with dumbed down, wholly inadequate machines.
Their designs are already not only far behind Apple but also failed attempts to imitate Apple. Another sad truth about being far behind... so are their OS options.
=sw
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thinking Back on World War II
I hear so much uproar about the idea that we can never stop fascism, pirates, suicide bombing and the culture of terrorism.
They can use human shields and take hostages and threaten everyone, decapitating our citizens or soldiers with impunity. When we kill a pirate or an extremist fighter their martyrdom breeds 20 more, it's said. It's not socially acceptable or even morally right to demonize the religion they exploit to carry out whatever crime they want god to back.
I have a kind of tongue in cheek argument against all that. I would by far prefer a peaceful co-existence of free and diverse societies to war. Though if it must be war...if Islamist, Taliban or other extremist fighters feel emboldened enough to behead their neighbors, then something is deeply out of sync with that peaceful vision.
So I propose, mostly as a thought exercise, an alternative to feeling victimized by terror.
Comparisons can be made of the Word II War Axis powers to the the anti-semitic, anti-western rhetoric of radical Islamic movements of today. In some ways we are even referring to governments in the Muslim world who use propaganda to educate children with rhetoric that demonizes Jews and Westerners, makes suicide bombing an ideal for living and even speaks of the annihilation of Jews, Israel and any other culture or group that aligns with the Jews. They teach children that a god turned Jews and Christians into apes and pigs and other ridiculous rhetoric. Students are shown videos of real and dramatized suicide bombing acts, to glorify these and recruit new bombers. For some reason, one needs a steady stream of new recruits to continue suicide bombing campaigns.
Comparisons can also be made between the rise of racist, anti-semitic fascism in Germany and the rise of anti-western anti-Israeli Fascism in Iran and Pakistan. Many Palestinian, Saudi, Iranian and other Islamic populations believe in the idea of conquering the west and having a world governed by religion, specifically their Muslim Sharia law. The Taliban movement instituted that system in Afghanistan and is now trying to "Talibanize" Pakistan now that Afghanistan is occupied by coalition powers (or Allies of nations standing with the Unites States).
Sharia law is something Muslims are trying to push into government all over the world, including large countries in Africa like Nigeria and even in England.
Some think that the west is idling its way to being conquered, while ignoring these trends on a kind of autopilot of political correctness.
As I promised, I wish to break the politically correct barrier and recall some of the factors that allowed us to win World War II, which was a battle against seemingly all powerful fascist, totalitarian governments that wished to conquer the world and racially targeted millions for murder.
Studying a past victory over fascist, racist enemies should give us a hint as to how to defeat the same kind of culture in our time.
Stalin's soviet regime bore the brunt of the Allied casualties. Stalin apparently killed many of his own people. He also had heavy losses because of Hitlers decision to break promises and breach accords and attack the Soviet Union. These facts were important in the turning of the tide, though when taken in total, the war required other efforts to succeed as well.
There were brave, determined soldiers who simply marched into harms way, landing on beaches and throwing themselves into the fight who turned many occupied areas into reclaimed Allied or liberated lands. An example of this the Americans in North Africa, who learned hard lessons of combat and pushed to defeat the Germans there with the British pushing from the other side.
I could cite the British Commonwealth citizens as examples. These were troops from New Zeeland and India who fought along side Polish, and American troops in Italy to slowly push back Nazi positions. I am sure I have left many nations off the list here.
Also the British, Canadians, Americans and other Allies that pushed up onto the beaches of Normandy to break the German occupation.
I could say that, from an allied perspective, many manufacturers took part in designing, building and deploying the needed hardware for war. Many of these allowed women and minorities to support the war effort by working on weapons or taking on varying degrees of military duty.
Americans grew victory gardens to stem food shortages and did without or rationed many goods so soldiers could have provisions.
Another thing that America and Britain did to push for victory against Germany and Japan was the practice of indiscriminate carpet bombing with incendiary bombs. The Nazi's started the practice during the blitz on Britain. Thermite and White Phosphorus were used to purposely ignite fires, even fire storms. These substances once alight could burn through metal.
At least 25 German cities and many Japanese cities were bombed in this way. Dresden and Tokyo are among the stand out examples where the destruction was the most horrible. More Japanese people lost their lives in the Tokyo firestorms from American incendiary bombing than in the Nuclear strike on Nagasaki (that came after).
Because of the terror associated with this kind of attack, they have been outlawed by the UN.
Our modern high tech weapons try to reduce collateral damage, in what is a seemingly more humane practice of targeting closely what are deemed military assets.
Using firebombing exacts a cost on an entire society for what their fighters are doing. It is a terror weapon, creating the fear of overwhelming, indiscriminate, random destruction. The humanity here is the intended effect that a culture can be freed from oppression for future generations, reducing, in the long run, the suffering of themselves and others under fascist regimes that institutionalize killing and hatred.
Some say there is no terror weapon greater than the suicide bomber. I would disagree with that and insist that the fire-storm method of exacting a social cost for war-like, murderous and other terrorist behavior is an effective weapon even more frightening than suicide bombing.
I can see the arguments people make...that bombing a poor and starving population during war is insanely cruel and it is really the evil dictator and his power structure that should be the true targets.
Yet, pin point bombing of Nazi tanks, gun positions, planes,ships and other military assets may have slowed their war machine but the entire Nazi culture, ideals and spirit were what firebombing suppressed and defeated. It was the Allies way of saying...the cost of your evil ideology is to be paid by all of you until it is brought to an end.
Nothing would bring terrorist warriors to change their ideology faster than the understanding that the cost was indescribably high and poignantly dear for continuing to teach, promote, indoctrinate their own people and carry out such evils.
There are no effective human shields against indiscriminate regional bombing.
The outcome of World War II was not reinvigorated angrier Nazi's with martyrs to inspire them, it was the total defeat of the institution and the culture that supported it. Sure there may be people who still harbor similar pathologies, but they are entirely marginalized and outlawed. Similarly, the attacks on Japan did no lead to more Bonsai charges and angry Kamikaze raids with even more emboldened killers shouting praises to the Imperial emperor. It ended the culture, the ideal and the concept of Japanese Empire. It does not mean there are no longer criminals or evil intentions in Japan, but they are no longer the main stream. A peaceful society is the main stream.
For example, the wars between Israel and Palestine will go on forever because the Fascist palestinian terror gangs desire the complete destruction of Israel (and perhaps western culture in general). The way to end the war is to end the ideology of hatred toward Jews and the West. Then future Palestinian peoples can rejoin the world community and begin to live in peace like Germans and Japanese now do.
Can we end that ingrained, under-educated and brainwashed militancy with peaceful means? I welcome that. I am not sure how well that would have worked against Nation Socialism or Imperial Japan.
As it is, we tend to be apologetic far too often. It is not acceptable for people to teach hatred in their schools and religious gatherings. It is insanity, irrationality and makes such a culture not a moral equivalent for our western culture and freedom.
We know how to defeat the most fearsome, powerful and overwhelmingly indoctrinated fascist regimes. It is was done in WWII against overwhelming odds.
I would think we are in a much better position now to combat ignorance, Fascism, Totalitarianism and religious extremism. We must simply remember the justness of our cause, the value of our freedom and way of life and the reach of the options available to us to counter the vast and deep ignorance, hatred and violent nature of an enemy we surely don't want to have charge of our lives, our lands and our governments.
I think we should stop cradling and apologizing to "the good people" while trying to target "the bad people" and send a message that the price will be shared by all members of an antagonistic culture until the ignorance is eradicated.
Sometimes I am of that mind, that we should use all means to defeat the terrorists. Other times I wonder who can describe the peaceful resolution to the conflict created by radicalism and the huge obstacle of years of ignorance through indoctrination.
Indiscriminate firebombing is a weapon against suicide bombing and terrorism. If there is a peaceful solution, it must involve showing millions of indoctrinated people how wrong they all are before the Religious government is instituted under our feet and therefore over our heads.
I often repeat this example about what makes war so unavoidable. I truly am a peace-loving person. I do not wish to harm or kill anyone. Though, in a symbolic example that applies to nations, someone may come along and put a gun to my head and insist that my way of life is offensive and evil and that they desire to destroy me. Whether or not it can be argued that I could improve my way of life, this situation leaves me with a choice. I can die a pacifist, allowing those who would gladly commit violence to live on, reproduce and occupy the world or I can have enough strength to stand and counter that argument and choose to live on myself and fight so long as my life is threatened.
I'd rather stand up, push back and fight to defend my way over the other way. Then people like me, who do not love war or killing, but who will defend their lives are those that live on in the world.
I would love to be able to conceive of a peaceful, effective tactic or "weapon" against mass-ignorance, suicide bombing and terrorism. Until such time, I think the UN should lift the ban on incendiary weapons and firebomb the hell out of the war lords, perverse militants and murderous movements of the world and stop impotently messing around as if our western society isn't ultimately better, more deserving of preserving and refuse to accept any "inevitability" or purportedly "irreversible" trends.
=sw
They can use human shields and take hostages and threaten everyone, decapitating our citizens or soldiers with impunity. When we kill a pirate or an extremist fighter their martyrdom breeds 20 more, it's said. It's not socially acceptable or even morally right to demonize the religion they exploit to carry out whatever crime they want god to back.
I have a kind of tongue in cheek argument against all that. I would by far prefer a peaceful co-existence of free and diverse societies to war. Though if it must be war...if Islamist, Taliban or other extremist fighters feel emboldened enough to behead their neighbors, then something is deeply out of sync with that peaceful vision.
So I propose, mostly as a thought exercise, an alternative to feeling victimized by terror.
Comparisons can be made of the Word II War Axis powers to the the anti-semitic, anti-western rhetoric of radical Islamic movements of today. In some ways we are even referring to governments in the Muslim world who use propaganda to educate children with rhetoric that demonizes Jews and Westerners, makes suicide bombing an ideal for living and even speaks of the annihilation of Jews, Israel and any other culture or group that aligns with the Jews. They teach children that a god turned Jews and Christians into apes and pigs and other ridiculous rhetoric. Students are shown videos of real and dramatized suicide bombing acts, to glorify these and recruit new bombers. For some reason, one needs a steady stream of new recruits to continue suicide bombing campaigns.
Comparisons can also be made between the rise of racist, anti-semitic fascism in Germany and the rise of anti-western anti-Israeli Fascism in Iran and Pakistan. Many Palestinian, Saudi, Iranian and other Islamic populations believe in the idea of conquering the west and having a world governed by religion, specifically their Muslim Sharia law. The Taliban movement instituted that system in Afghanistan and is now trying to "Talibanize" Pakistan now that Afghanistan is occupied by coalition powers (or Allies of nations standing with the Unites States).
Sharia law is something Muslims are trying to push into government all over the world, including large countries in Africa like Nigeria and even in England.
Some think that the west is idling its way to being conquered, while ignoring these trends on a kind of autopilot of political correctness.
As I promised, I wish to break the politically correct barrier and recall some of the factors that allowed us to win World War II, which was a battle against seemingly all powerful fascist, totalitarian governments that wished to conquer the world and racially targeted millions for murder.
Studying a past victory over fascist, racist enemies should give us a hint as to how to defeat the same kind of culture in our time.
Stalin's soviet regime bore the brunt of the Allied casualties. Stalin apparently killed many of his own people. He also had heavy losses because of Hitlers decision to break promises and breach accords and attack the Soviet Union. These facts were important in the turning of the tide, though when taken in total, the war required other efforts to succeed as well.
There were brave, determined soldiers who simply marched into harms way, landing on beaches and throwing themselves into the fight who turned many occupied areas into reclaimed Allied or liberated lands. An example of this the Americans in North Africa, who learned hard lessons of combat and pushed to defeat the Germans there with the British pushing from the other side.
I could cite the British Commonwealth citizens as examples. These were troops from New Zeeland and India who fought along side Polish, and American troops in Italy to slowly push back Nazi positions. I am sure I have left many nations off the list here.
Also the British, Canadians, Americans and other Allies that pushed up onto the beaches of Normandy to break the German occupation.
I could say that, from an allied perspective, many manufacturers took part in designing, building and deploying the needed hardware for war. Many of these allowed women and minorities to support the war effort by working on weapons or taking on varying degrees of military duty.
Americans grew victory gardens to stem food shortages and did without or rationed many goods so soldiers could have provisions.
Another thing that America and Britain did to push for victory against Germany and Japan was the practice of indiscriminate carpet bombing with incendiary bombs. The Nazi's started the practice during the blitz on Britain. Thermite and White Phosphorus were used to purposely ignite fires, even fire storms. These substances once alight could burn through metal.
At least 25 German cities and many Japanese cities were bombed in this way. Dresden and Tokyo are among the stand out examples where the destruction was the most horrible. More Japanese people lost their lives in the Tokyo firestorms from American incendiary bombing than in the Nuclear strike on Nagasaki (that came after).
Because of the terror associated with this kind of attack, they have been outlawed by the UN.
Our modern high tech weapons try to reduce collateral damage, in what is a seemingly more humane practice of targeting closely what are deemed military assets.
Using firebombing exacts a cost on an entire society for what their fighters are doing. It is a terror weapon, creating the fear of overwhelming, indiscriminate, random destruction. The humanity here is the intended effect that a culture can be freed from oppression for future generations, reducing, in the long run, the suffering of themselves and others under fascist regimes that institutionalize killing and hatred.
Some say there is no terror weapon greater than the suicide bomber. I would disagree with that and insist that the fire-storm method of exacting a social cost for war-like, murderous and other terrorist behavior is an effective weapon even more frightening than suicide bombing.
I can see the arguments people make...that bombing a poor and starving population during war is insanely cruel and it is really the evil dictator and his power structure that should be the true targets.
Yet, pin point bombing of Nazi tanks, gun positions, planes,ships and other military assets may have slowed their war machine but the entire Nazi culture, ideals and spirit were what firebombing suppressed and defeated. It was the Allies way of saying...the cost of your evil ideology is to be paid by all of you until it is brought to an end.
Nothing would bring terrorist warriors to change their ideology faster than the understanding that the cost was indescribably high and poignantly dear for continuing to teach, promote, indoctrinate their own people and carry out such evils.
There are no effective human shields against indiscriminate regional bombing.
The outcome of World War II was not reinvigorated angrier Nazi's with martyrs to inspire them, it was the total defeat of the institution and the culture that supported it. Sure there may be people who still harbor similar pathologies, but they are entirely marginalized and outlawed. Similarly, the attacks on Japan did no lead to more Bonsai charges and angry Kamikaze raids with even more emboldened killers shouting praises to the Imperial emperor. It ended the culture, the ideal and the concept of Japanese Empire. It does not mean there are no longer criminals or evil intentions in Japan, but they are no longer the main stream. A peaceful society is the main stream.
For example, the wars between Israel and Palestine will go on forever because the Fascist palestinian terror gangs desire the complete destruction of Israel (and perhaps western culture in general). The way to end the war is to end the ideology of hatred toward Jews and the West. Then future Palestinian peoples can rejoin the world community and begin to live in peace like Germans and Japanese now do.
Can we end that ingrained, under-educated and brainwashed militancy with peaceful means? I welcome that. I am not sure how well that would have worked against Nation Socialism or Imperial Japan.
As it is, we tend to be apologetic far too often. It is not acceptable for people to teach hatred in their schools and religious gatherings. It is insanity, irrationality and makes such a culture not a moral equivalent for our western culture and freedom.
We know how to defeat the most fearsome, powerful and overwhelmingly indoctrinated fascist regimes. It is was done in WWII against overwhelming odds.
I would think we are in a much better position now to combat ignorance, Fascism, Totalitarianism and religious extremism. We must simply remember the justness of our cause, the value of our freedom and way of life and the reach of the options available to us to counter the vast and deep ignorance, hatred and violent nature of an enemy we surely don't want to have charge of our lives, our lands and our governments.
I think we should stop cradling and apologizing to "the good people" while trying to target "the bad people" and send a message that the price will be shared by all members of an antagonistic culture until the ignorance is eradicated.
Sometimes I am of that mind, that we should use all means to defeat the terrorists. Other times I wonder who can describe the peaceful resolution to the conflict created by radicalism and the huge obstacle of years of ignorance through indoctrination.
Indiscriminate firebombing is a weapon against suicide bombing and terrorism. If there is a peaceful solution, it must involve showing millions of indoctrinated people how wrong they all are before the Religious government is instituted under our feet and therefore over our heads.
I often repeat this example about what makes war so unavoidable. I truly am a peace-loving person. I do not wish to harm or kill anyone. Though, in a symbolic example that applies to nations, someone may come along and put a gun to my head and insist that my way of life is offensive and evil and that they desire to destroy me. Whether or not it can be argued that I could improve my way of life, this situation leaves me with a choice. I can die a pacifist, allowing those who would gladly commit violence to live on, reproduce and occupy the world or I can have enough strength to stand and counter that argument and choose to live on myself and fight so long as my life is threatened.
I'd rather stand up, push back and fight to defend my way over the other way. Then people like me, who do not love war or killing, but who will defend their lives are those that live on in the world.
I would love to be able to conceive of a peaceful, effective tactic or "weapon" against mass-ignorance, suicide bombing and terrorism. Until such time, I think the UN should lift the ban on incendiary weapons and firebomb the hell out of the war lords, perverse militants and murderous movements of the world and stop impotently messing around as if our western society isn't ultimately better, more deserving of preserving and refuse to accept any "inevitability" or purportedly "irreversible" trends.
=sw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)