RE: [Futurework] What Iraqis really think
Harry Pollard: > As I've said, what wasn't apparently realized by any of us was that Iraq > had never really recovered from the wars. I've called it a basket > case with > evidence of the broken and ineffective pipe-lines and the lack of general > resistance to the invasion. > > Sadaam seemed no longer to have the will to run the country, > never mind set > up WMD. "Any of us"? To the contrary many, of "us" were saying precisely this (and more) before the invasion of Iraq. Harry, you yourself have been particularly unable to assimilate things we have been telling you that do not jibe with your certainties. If you had listened, nothing -- nothing --that is happening with regard to Iraq (or Palestine, for that matter) would now come as a surprise to you. Please speak for yourself when you state what "we" realized or didn't realize. And I am glad that you now are seeing some things a bit differently. Cheers, Lawry ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] Drip.Drip.Drip.4
Greetings, all, Let us remember that Bush's 'lie' is far greater than the matter of Niger uranium. The whole of the administration's rationale for invading Iraq was a lie, from the beginning. The uranium materials issue is trivial compared to the rest of their deception. I note that defenders of the President are still asserting that the invasion was 'morally' sound: in fact it was an egregious and clear breach of the basic tenets of international law. I am traveling and not able to access email much, or for long, but am following the emails here with interest and thanks to all who are posting. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Karen Watters ColeSent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:27 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Futurework] Drip.Drip.Drip.4 Now we are moving to stage 2, where investigation and questions are branded by the loyalists as “smear campaigns” against the President. When we were investigating sex or not last time around, these same men were insisting it was a search for the truth that the American public deserved. Congress, eyeing summer recess, plans for further testimony and investigations in September. Bush’s annual month long vacation in August should be interesting this year. And so it continues: Excerpts: Senator Says White House Wanted Iraq Uranium Claim By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, July 17, 2003, Filed at 8:31 a.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- CIA Director George Tenet told members of Congress a White House official insisted that President Bush's State of the Union address include an assertion about Saddam Hussein's nuclear intentions that had not been verified, a Senate Intelligence Committee member said Thursday. Sen. Dick Durbin, who was present for a 4 1/2-hour appearance by Tenet behind closed doors with Intelligence Committee members Wednesday, said Tenet named the official. But the Illinois Democrat said that person's identity could not be revealed because of the confidentiality of the proceedings. ``He (Tenet) certainly told us who the person was who was insistent on putting this language in which the CIA knew to be incredible, this language about the uranium shipment from Africa,'' Durbin said on ABC's ``Good Morning America.'' ``And there was this negotiation between the White House and the CIA about just how far you could go and be close to the truth and unfortunately those sixteen words were included in the most important speech the president delivers in any given year,'' Durbin added. ``The more important question is who is it in the White House who was hellbent on misleading the American people and why are they still there?,'' Durbin said Thursday. ``Being a member of the Intelligence Committee I can't disclose that but I trust that it will come out,'' he said. ``But it should come out from the president. The president should be outraged that he was misled and that he then misled the American people.'' Durbin and other Democrats in the Senate had said earlier the question is not why Tenet failed to remove the Africa information from the speech, but who insisted on leaving it in. ``All roads still lead back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,'' Durbin said. 2… But Democratic committee members said too much blame was being placed on Tenet. ``In a sense, I feel a little badly for George Tenet,'' said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Wyden said the CIA was not pushing to have the uranium matter included in Bush's speech, but that the White House was trying to justify its drive to oust Saddam. ``I believe that there was if not a battle royal between the CIA staff and the White House staff, certainly some back and forth,'' he said. ``I believe that in this case, the White House political staff was looking at every rock, every nook and cranny to make their case and I believe the political staff prevailed.'' (end of excerpts) How will the President address this, if indeed he is “outraged”? Will he announce that “I am not a dummy” or “I was not misled”? Will there be more than one scapegoat? And Tony Blair is due to arrive shortly. How unfortunate for him; he must be feeling like Job right now. Bush could use a good distraction. Let’s see: another aircraft carrier visit? KWC
RE: Fw: [Futurework] ) Hue and Cry on 'Whiteness Studies'
Good morning, Keith and Ray, Keith, I hope that you remain in the conversation. I haven't been active in your latest exchanges with each other, but I follow them with interest as I see you both groping to find the core realities that lie at the center of one of Man's most perplexing challenges: how to provide ourselves with fairness in the midst of power inequalities. The American Native experience in North America has been particularly horrific, Keith. It is hard for even Anglo-Americans to understand the depths of the betrayal and the cultural genocide that occurred here, practiced by Anglo-Americans upon Native Americans. In many ways, it exceeds the brutality of the European holocaust against Jew, Slavs, homosexuals, Romani. And in many ways it continues today. Keith, I wish you could come visit us here in the US. I would love to take you to some of the Native American reservations, for instance, and help you get a sense of how Native Americans have been treated, and still are today. The issues are still live today. A few days ago, I was close to the place where the battle between US General Custer and the Sioux took place. The Sioux were victorious, one of their few times. I must tell you, that, as an American, I took pride in what the Sioux -- against all kinds of odds -- accomplished. It is not only horrible that those who have power can be wrong and dangerous and destructive; worse is the arrogance and denial that so often saturates the thinking of those who have power, and their inability to see how wrong they are. Courbe sur sa rapiere Il regardait le sillage Et ne deignait rien voire. -- Don Juan aux Enfers I see Ray's eloquent and sometimes disturbing emails as attempts to break through the deep misunderstanding that Anglo-Americans have of this history and current reality. Over here, the image of an 'English gentleman' has none of the positive connotations that it does in England. It connotes for many arrogance, disdain, ignorance, and the blind misuse of power. Yet, Keith, I experience in you none of these characteristics. My experience of you is one of genuine inquiry, linguistic effort and integrity, and personal availability. Of course, the hardest issues will be the most difficult to handle on a personal level; of course they will have a propensity to get out of hand, to have people say things they may not fully understand themselves, and may even regret later; of course ego and certainty are at large. Ray's themes are deep ones; I doubt they will ever be understood by writers in the Economist or FT, much as I admire some of their articles. Worse, many who comment routinely on social, political and economic matters do not even realize that the issues that Ray addresses exist. No wonder he is frustrated! And he finds here (and elsewhere) people who do try to understand, who do engage in the discussion with him, and so he invests himself here, because we, too, are here. We should not experience this as offensive or intimidating. Oddly enough, it speaks well of how he sees us, and you, Keith. If he didn't, he would simply ignore us, and you. So he hopes that this discussion may find a way to break through the depths of ignorance that surround the treatment of his people by Anglo-Americans, and, yes, he gets frustrated when even the most eloquent of his efforts falls flat, and he raises the volume and passion when this happens. But this is no insult; it is desperation. Difficult as it may be at times, this is an important discussion that you, Ray and others are tackling, and I would ask both to hang in there and continue it. It is of value to me, and to others, and, I hope, will ultimately be so to both of you. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Keith HudsonSent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:24 AMTo: Ray Evans HarrellCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Fw: [Futurework] ) Hue and Cry on 'Whiteness Studies'Ray,To me, you have the effect of being patronising and intimidatory. I think you have probably driven scores, if not hundreds of people away from this list over the years. Well, you've driven me away now. Don't bother to write to me because I will delete you and will continue to do so until I have indirect evidence that you have learned some degree of moderation and courtesy.Keith Hudson At 15:40 28/06/2003 -0400, you wrote: Harry my comments are in red Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
RE: [Futurework] The modern story-tellers
Yes, the writings of scientists have emerged wonderfully. I would also recognize the key role of science fiction writers in this: Azimov, Clarke, Heinlien, Gibson, and more recently Stephenson (sp?) paved the way. The first two are engineers and scientists is their own right, too. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] The modern story-tellers > > > One of the most brilliant media intellectuals in England is Andrew Marr. > This is what he says of the bunch of people I tend to pay attention to > rather than modern artists or philosophers: > > "The most poetic, agonised character I've had on START THE WEEK recently > came on this week. Paul Broks's book INTO THE SILENT LAND is rich with > disturbing images, eerie characters and wistful philosophical reflections. > > "The thing is, he isn't a poet, novelist or philosopher, but a > neuropsychologist. There is a trend here: works by doctors and > scientists, > from Oliver Sacks to Daniel Dennett, Dawkins to Ridley, books about the > brain, or autism, or evolution, are starting to challenge the role of > literature in attempting to describe and probe life's puzzles, curios and > happiness. > > "These people are story-tellers for a science-literate population, whose > influence is as great as Balzac's or Tennyson's once was. And in terms of > sheer prose ability, they are the modern masters." > > [Editor's note: Andrew Marr is host of START THE WEEK, the > leading cultural > magazine program on British radio, a former Editor of THE > INDEPENDENT, and > the present BBC Television Chief Political Correspondent.] > > [KH: The Editor is John Brockman of Edge Foundation] > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > ___ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] Equals? in the middle east
Hi, Ray, This is not your fault. "Gabriel Ash" is a writer whose article was copied to this list. At the end of the article, he supplies his email address and invites comments. But apparently he doesn't welcome your kinds of comments . He is the one who owes an apology to you: not you him. HmmmI think I'll leave his address on this posting, as well. Perhaps he'll get the message and render the apology. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ray Evans > Harrell > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:26 AM > To: Gabriel Ash > Cc: Christoph Reuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry Pollard; > Darryl and Natalia > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Equals? in the middle east > > > Sorry Gabriel, > > I don't know you and would never force you to agree or to participate in > anything you didn't want to. I have know idea how you got on > the list. I > simply replied to the Futurework list.But I will be more > careful in the > future. > > Best > > REH > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Gabriel Ash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Darryl and Natalia" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:12 AM > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Equals? in the middle east > > > > > > > > I will appreciate it if you stopped your cc'ing me your comments till > > the end of times. This is rude, I don't force you to read my articles. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > *** > > Gabriel Ash > > YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States) > > "Alternative News and Views" > > www.YellowTimes.org > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *** > > > > To receive all YellowTimes.org articles via e-mail (one e-mail > > every 2 days containing articles), simply send an e-mail to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:12:02 -0400 > > "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I agree, > > > > > > > > ___ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] RE: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny
Many thanks for the reminder, Keith... > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 6:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny > > > I mentioned the above book on FW soon after it was published in 2000 and > received a pounding because I mentioned the forbidden term "game theory". > Anyhow, I still think it's one of the best books of the last decade. I > recently came across Clinton's assessment of the book, so perhaps this > might just possibly stimulate one or two FWers to read the book. It's now > out as a paperback (Abacus). > > Keith Hudson > -- > NONZERO: THE LOGIC OF HUMAN DESTINY By Robert Wright > > President Clinton's comments on "Nonzero" > > Speaking at the Hay-on-Wye Literary Festival, May, 2001: > Last year I read a book which influenced me greatly by a man named Robert > Wright. Its called Nonzero, and, did you ever read a book where somebody > says what youve been thinking, and you immediately decide the author is a > genius? Weve all done it. Because this person puts something, that > youve been thinking and feeling but could never quite say, in the way you > wish you could have said it. > > Speaking at the anniversary of the Dayton Peace Accords, Nov., 2001, on > C-SPAN: > Last year I read a book that described the way the world works in ways > better than I can, but I completely agree with it The title of this > book is Nonzero. The author is Robert Wright. And if you > havent read it, > I urge you to get it and read it. > > Speaking at the Mayflower Hotel, Washington, DC, Sept., 2000: > There is an astonishing new book out, been out a few months, by a > man named > Robert Wright, called Nonzero -- kind of a weird title unless you're > familiar with game theory. But in game theory, a zero-sum game is one > where, in order for one person to win, somebody has to lose. A > non-zero-sum > game is a game in which you can win and the person you're playing with can > win, as well. And the argument of the book is that, > notwithstanding all the > terrible things that happened in the 20th century -- the abuses of science > by the Nazis, the abuses of organization by the communists, all the things > that continue to be done in the name of religious or political purity -- > essentially, as societies grow more and more connected, and we become more > interdependent, one with the other, we are forced to find more and more > non-zero-sum solutions. That is, ways in which we can all win. > > And that's basically the message I've been trying to preach for > eight years > here...We have to have an expanding idea of who is in our family. > And we in > the United States, because we're so blessed, have particular > responsibilities to people not only within our borders who have been left > behind, but beyond our borders who otherwise will never catch up if we > don't do our part. Because we are all part of the same human family, and > because, actually, life is more and more a non-zero-sum game, so that the > better they do, the better we'll do. (Applause.) > > Interview with Wired magazine, December, 2000: > "But I basically buy the argument of Robert Wright's new book, > Nonzero. . . > . [It's] sort of a reverse social Darwinism: the more complex societies > get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond > community and national borders get, the more people are forced in > their own > interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win-win solutions > instead of win-lose solutions." > > Speaking at the Hay Adams Hotel, Washington, DC, Sept., 2000 > The best book I read in the last few months is a book called Nonzero, by > Robert Wright. He wrote another book a few years ago called The Moral > Animal that was a bestseller. I will oversimplify, at the risk of being > criticized by the author, the argument of the book... As societies grow > more complex in their inter-relation, and more interdependent both within > and beyond their borders, people in positions of authority and citizens at > the grass-roots level are forced to look constantly for more non-zero-sum > solutions, hence the title of the book... It's a very interesting > book, and > not naive. I mean, he he acknowledges, even in the most sort of > cooperative > societies, you've got an election, one person wins the presidency, the > other one doesn't. One person gets to be head of AOL, somebody doesn't. > > But the argument of the book is far more sophisticated. It is that to > succeed, even in positions of leadership, where there is a competition for > the position, the measure of success is not so much whether you got what > you wanted by winning at somebody else's expense, but whether you got what > you wanted because you enabled other people to achieve their dreams and to > do what they want. > > And I think the idea that we are moving toward a world
RE: [Futurework] the odds of war
Numbers are always hard (especially if the base-line hasn't been quantified), but it is clear that Washington is slowly coming to its senses, and that those who have always been skeptical of the Bush admin claims are finding ways to language and channel their opposition. I haven't looked at the Slate estimate, but I would put war with Iraq down around 20% probability, at most. Powell has done a great job, anti-war US activists, too. And we can thank North Korea for their inadvertant help, as well. Perle, Wolfowitz et al must be crying in their milk, or whatever the metaphor is Of course, there is still that nagging probability, so everyone should keep on denouncing the possibility of war and the shabby logic that lies behind it. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] the odds of war > > > > Some nonsense with numbers. But still may be of interest to > some. The odds > of war with Iraq. > > http://slate.msn.com/id/2076318/ > ___ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] the math according to the gubment
Saying that everything is connected to everything is uselsss from an information management point of view. That is the reason that this list was set up: to discuss the future of WORK. Yes, we wander from time to time, but there is always the ambient tug of the subject of this list. So posting ANYTHING you find of interest about ANYTHING to this list is NOT acceptable. Suggesting that we should merely delete your materials is also unacceptable. Some of your postings ARE relevant, and you should self-select those that are and those that aren't. One of the ways we don't 'keep our heads in the sand' is by managing our information flows effectively. I would ask that you do the same. Technology? The factoid that contrails last 30 minutes and the temperatures at which they form is in no way that I can fathom even remotely 'dictating the parameters of work tomorrow', but I'm certainly open any attempt you might make to link the two. Generally, discussion lists are interested in discussion among members, and not wholesale and disproportionate forwarding of at best quasi relevant articles by non-members. Arthur and Sally, perhaps you would care to weigh in on this? Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of eric stewartSent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 12:41 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] the math according to the gubment a) much that is posted here has little to do with the future of work unless you consider that living in the real world, i.e. knowing what is going on, affects EVERYTHING YOU DO...unless you keep your head in the sand b) you don't think that the technological trends of today dictate the parameters of work tomorrow? If you would rather not know this information, let's just ignore each other. Lawrence de Bivort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What does this have to do with the future of work? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of eric stewartSent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:42 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Futurework] the math according to the gubment"Typically contrails can only form at temperatures below negative-76degrees Fahrenheit and at humidity levels of 70 percent or more at highaltitudes, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationmeteorologist Thomas Schlattes. Even in most ideal conditions, a jetcontrail lasts no more than 30 minutes."http://memes.org"Arab Hijacker" Calls From Flight 93 Were Fakedhttp://makeashorterlink.com/?H52812BF2"Arab Hijacker" Calls From Flight 93 Were Fakedhttp://makeashorterlink.com/?H52812BF2 Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
RE: [Futurework] the math according to the gubment
What does this have to do with the future of work? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of eric stewartSent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:42 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Futurework] the math according to the gubment"Typically contrails can only form at temperatures below negative-76degrees Fahrenheit and at humidity levels of 70 percent or more at highaltitudes, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationmeteorologist Thomas Schlattes. Even in most ideal conditions, a jetcontrail lasts no more than 30 minutes."http://memes.org"Arab Hijacker" Calls From Flight 93 Were Fakedhttp://makeashorterlink.com/?H52812BF2
RE: Lucky Duckies
I'm with you, Ray. I grew up in Geneva, Switzerland, and was infused with Calvinism. All in all, I think it was worth it. I was just back there on a combination of visits with friends and work, and the Calvinist ethos is still hale and hearty. Greetings to all, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Evans > Harrell > I guess it was all of that reservation Calvinism that I was around but I > just can't stand waste. Any family that builds seven > mansions in seven > countries, for no other reason than the party seasons, tempts me to think > that they are useless. In fact, the whole idea of Utility in relation to > the super wealthy and the society as a whole makes no sense to me.They > don't grow and the poor don't either for opposite reasons. What is the > purpose of a society having either? > > I'm afraid the meaning of life for me is to be found in growth > and mastery. > Anyone who doesn't do something with their gifts doesn't make sense to me. >
RE: Ice sheets, etc
Good morning, Isn't the current pattern of the north atlantic (including the Gulf Stream-Azores current portions) the result of corriolis (sp?) forces, rather than temperature gradients? Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William B Ward > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 4:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Ice sheets, etc > > > Harry and Keith, > > A somewhat scarier scenario is that the warm currents that flow past > Europe from the south Atlantic exist because of the temperature > differential and a mere change in ambient water temperatures in the north > could cause those currents to stop. Europe is farther north than the US > and the result would be to drop temperatures in western Europe > significantly. > > Bill Ward > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:27:00 -0800 Harry Pollard > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Keith, > > > > About 30 years ago, I recall that I made the point that warming > > could > > decrease the ice-sheet - or diminish it. (Yes, I've been looking at > > this a > > long time.) > > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com >
RE: FW: Negotiating to Succeed or Sabotage?
But Bill, what do you make of the great increase in Israeli-inflicted deaths of Palestinians? Is this also part of the Israeli 'success'? Perhaps some of the commentators you refer to view such deaths as, in fact, an indicator of the failure of the Israeli occupation. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:owner-futurework@;scribe.uwaterloo.ca]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re:FW: Negotiating to Succeed or Sabotage? > > > Karen, > > What was interesting about Jonathan Chait was that it is similar > to havin Tom Hayden offer advice to Richard Perle. Here are a > couple of paragraphs by Chait: > > VOICE: Jonathan Chait, The New Republic > > It's Working (Complete Text) > > There is a virtual consensus in the American media that Israel's > military operation in the West Bank will invariably fail. "Even > as Israeli officials flooded the airwaves Friday to cast the > military operation in Ramallah as a defense against future > terrorist attacks," reports Time, "a 16-year-old Palestinian girl > blew herself up outside a Jerusalem supermarket, killing two > Israelis." An editorial in today's Washington Post condemns > "Ariel Sharon's futile attempt to end terrorist attacks with a > military invasion and confinement of Yasser Arafat." > > A funny thing, though--everybody was so busy talking about the > futility of the Israeli operation that nobody has noticed its > one, unambiguous success: a sharp decline in the suicide > bombings. There hasn't been a suicide bombing since Monday, and > that one injured one person and killed nobody. This suggests that > the assumption underlying all the coverage of the West Bank--that > Sharon's operation is bound to fail--may be entirely wrong. > Indeed, if the Israeli campaign can substantially reduce suicide > bombings, the entire moral calculus underlying it changes. > > -- "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, Why Liberals Should Support the War by Jonathan Chait @ > http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021021&s=chait102102 > > Bill Ward > > > Bill Ward > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 813-295-4957 > > > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. >
RE: A timely book review
I can only second what Bill has said. I sometimes despair that Westerners will ever be able to generate an understanding of the Arab and Muslim (and for that matter, any 'foreign' culture) before they begin forming their conclusions. > I lived for six years under Lebanese, Jordanian, and Israeli rule [my > wife was with me the last five of those years] and have found that much > of what is written is pure fiction. Orientalists, as they are wont to > call themselves, are mostly hermits. They read others works and compound > those errors by repeating and expanding upon them. A lot of the current > Middle Eastern authors were class mates of mine and I know how they have > gotten their info. Reporters of current news on the Middle East hang out > in bars where they are allowed and deem the inebriated person next to > them an expert source, and so on. > > Be careful when reading sources. > > Bill Ward > > The West and the Rest > > Globalization > > and the Terrorist Threat > > By Roger Scruton > > > > ISI Books. 200 pp. $19.95 > > > > Reviewed by Frank Wilson > > SNIP > > The difference can be traced to "the contest between the religious > > and the political forms of social order." In the West, thanks to the > > > > confluence of "two great institutions" - "Roman law, conceived as a > > universal jurisdiction, and Christianity, conceived as a universal > > church" - the contest has been resolved through the "separation of > > religious and secular authority." In the Islamic world, it simply > > has > > not been resolved. I wonder how Bush and his extended crew think the 'conflict' has been resolved? >From this review, I would tend to suggest that the writer knows quite a bit about the West through the mid 1950's and not much about the secular/religuous tensions that have emerged since then; and very little about Islam and the way the secular impulse and the religious one have interacted in the Arab and Muslim worlds. And it is an easy bet that he has not read "Jonah Blank's "Mullahs on the Mainframe." Cheers, Lawry
RE: My speculation
Oh. Well, that's a good reason to invade a country. I guess that means we must invade Chile, VietNam, Colombia, Israel, Palestine, and Russia, too, for my part. Anyone else have a grudge that they want to see Bush jr. avenge for them? Lawry > Even as a left wing Quaker, I hope Bush does occupy southern Iraq. > Saddaam assassinated a personal friend of mine.
RE: More clues where Bush is headed?
Hi, Karen, Can you say more about your thoughts on Barbara Bush's influence on Geroge Jr.? Thanks, Lawry > I agree with your comments about his alleged dyslexia, specifically to the > understanding that it hinders his ability to make independent > judgments and > relies upon others a great deal, particularly forceful and successful men > like Cheney and Rumsfeld. We are also seeing more about the influence of > Barbara Bush on her son, not just the career of the father, that explain > some of the divided policy decisions and lack of leadership from the Oval > Office.
RE: 100 jets join attack on Iraq
Kuwait's support for a US strike on Iraq is not new; their embassy in Washington has been asserting, disengenuously, that Bush senior 'only got half the job done.' Kuwait has special reason to see harm come to Saddam Hussein and Iraq, of course, and its position should not be seen as a general Arab one. Lawry
RE: the rat race to the bathroom
I had an experience like this too, Ed. Building huge laminated beams at a Weyerhauser plant in Oregon. Had just finished university and had a great time, lugging lumber around, slinging 30 lb iron tierods around endlessly, and pounding down on the beams with a 60 lb weight until everthing was lined up right. I got into terrific shape real quick, slept every spare moment when I wasn't on the job or courting my wife-to-be. So it was a great summer--that's all it was. BUT I think it would have been a gruesome long-term job, with very little upward mobility or alternatives. The other workers were long-termers, and you could see the go-nowhere reality of it all etched on their faces and dripping in their tones of voice. They put up, barely, with the university kid who was going on to big things. I appreciated their patience and kindness, and do so even more today. Lawry > We thought we had it pretty good. We were > members of a pretty powerful union, the International Woodworkers of > America, which got us a pretty good wage. It was just that, to keep a big > sawmill running (and to keep your job), you had to stay at your machine. > It couldn't have operated otherwise. Besides, I was sixteen or seventeen, > athletic and loaded with testostrone. I had to run between banks of saws > and jump over logs coming at me full speed. I knew I was being > used, but I > was a dumb kid, and did everything I could to out jump or out run anyone > else. > > People have to live through whatever circumstances they are cast into. > After they have lived through them, they can reflect and think on > them, but > while they're living them, that's not easy to do. When I think back to my > sawmill or logger days, I sometimes wonder that I'm still alive. > But I am, > and that's good enough for me. > > I really don't think labour conditions are better now than they were in > 1952. Then, even a dumb kid who dropped out of school could get a > good-paying job. That's not possible now. The job market's changed and > there's far less security. Historically, there's no reason to expect a > steady upward progression. Things are good for a time, then bad > for a time. > It's the human lot. > > Ed > > > Ed Weick wrote: > > > When I was in my teens and a high-school dropout, I spent a > year working > in > > > a large west-coast sawmill that supplied wood to a pulp and > paper mill. > The > > > whole purpose of a sawmill is to take large logs and reduce > and reshape > them > > > to something that could serve a purpose such as construction > or, in the > case > > > of my sawmill, making paper. If you were operating a machine - e.g. a > > > "jumpsaw" - involved in this process, there was no way you could leave > it > > > without causing total chaos. We took scheduled breaks. At ten in the > > > morning, at noon, and at three in the afternoon (and equivalents on > night > > > shift and graveyard shift), the "head sawyer" would simply stop sawing > logs > > > and everyone would go to the lunch room or the washroom, or wherever. > The > > > only other times the system would shut down was if a machine "went > > > mechanical" or if there was a real emergency. There was > simply no other > way > > > of operating. We all understood that. > > > > > > Ed > > > > >
RE: 35-hour week scrapped
Tom, Can you say more about why this is so? > over the longer term shorter > work time enables productivity gains that result in both shorter hours and > higher earnings. I would think that the additional overhead of managing more people, of coordinating among tasks now being performed by a greater number of people, and of a greater benefits per labor/hour would lower productivity, not raise it. Can you say a bit more? Cheers, Lary
RE: Pronounced innocent
In fact, as of yesterday the Swedish government has detained Chatty for an additional two weeks. Unlike Ashcroft, for whom such legal requirements seem irrelevant now that 'we are at war,' the Swedes seem to be following due process. There seems to be zero reason to assert that he has been 1) released, or 2) found innocent. That their justice and military people are saying different things should not alarm us, either: of necessity and culture, the military of any country have one standard, and the justice people another. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of pete > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 3:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pronounced innocent > > > > On Mon, 02 Sep 2002, Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Here's a curious case of a man who has been found innocent even before he > >goes on trial. > > > >Curious indeed. > > > >Kerim Chatty, who arrested by Swedish police as he attempted to board a > >Ryanair with a handgun in his washbag, along with a number of other > >Muslims going to a conference in England. Within an hour or two, it was > >revealed that Chatty, a devout Muslim with "strongly held anti-Western > >view of the world" had spent time in prison with Osama Kassir, > with known > >Al Qaeda links, had learned to fly in America in 1996, was probably > >linked to a five-man terrorist cell, and was almost without doubt going > >to hijack the plane and crash it into a US embassy in Europe. If found > >guilty of hijacking, he would face a sentence of life time imprisonment. > > > >And then, suddenly, the whole sotry changed and he wasn't a suspected > >hikacker any longer! Margaretha Lindroth, Sweden's counter-intelligence > >chief, described all the talk as "blatantly untrue". There was "nothing > >to substantiate" claims originally made by the Swedish Defence > >establishment that he was linked to terrorist groups within fundamental > >Islam. Friends of his have emerged from the woodwork who > described him as > >a nice chap "who probably forgot that he'd left his gun in his washbag" > >when he went to the airport. > > > >What a relief! He's innocent after all. He'll possibly only be charged > >with a minor misdemeanour. How clever of the Swedish authorities to > >establish the true facts of the case so quickly. > > > >How relieved Bush will be that it wasn't an intended Al Qaeda attack at > >all. That means he can carry on talking about wicked Iraq and not mention > >al Qaeda in his next speech. > > Wow, Keith, you really are sliding comfortably into the conspiracy > mindset. Slippery slope, you know :^) >
RE: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain Britain)
Alas, Karen, my liking Kerry is not good news: I have not managed to support a winning candidate in decades. Heck, I still vote for Gene McCarthy from time to time... Lawry > -Original Message- > From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:06 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Harry Pollard > Subject: RE: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain > Britain) > > > Lawry, you are correct that my comments were less about the > strategies both > parties pursued or the legality of the final decision, but more about the > sense of uncertainty that resulted from this unusual event and the > unresolved sense of disenfranchisement that millions of voters felt. > It will be very interesting - and significant - what transpires > at the polls > this November and in 2004, whether 2000 turned off or galvanized more > voters. We will continue to lose our sense of a healthy > democracy if voters > do not return to the polls, and for that we should all be doing our part. > I'm with you so far on Kerry. > Karen > > Karen, hi. I'm not sure that I would call becoming a right-wing > fundamentalist evangelical Christian a 'positive response' to his wife > > > > He was a > mostly failed businessman in his father's field, by his own > account > > stumbling through the first 20 years of his adult life. He responded > > positively to a wife's "ultimatum" to change his life. > > I do think that Harry is essentially right in saying that what transpired > around Bush's election was _legal_. The parties all acted within > their legal > mandates. That does _not_ mean that the wisest of all options > were pursued, > which is what I think you are saying, Karen. > > Of course, the Florida nonsense is a bit of a red herring, regarding the > actual election. Gore blew it badly, for several reasons (which I would > suggest are: failure to treat Clinton honorably; failure to have > confidence > in himself; too respectful a treatment of Bush). He lost it, rather than > Bush won it. > > And now...who will the Democrats nominate??? Kerry, as I understand him > today, would get my vote. > > Cheers, > Lawry > >
RE: An Uncertain Presidency An Uncertain Time (was an Uncertain Britain)
Karen, hi. I'm not sure that I would call becoming a right-wing fundamentalist evangelical Christian a 'positive response' to his wife > He was a > mostly failed businessman in his father's field, by his own account > stumbling through the first 20 years of his adult life. He responded > positively to a wife's "ultimatum" to change his life. I do think that Harry is essentially right in saying that what transpired around Bush's election was _legal_. The parties all acted within their legal mandates. That does _not_ mean that the wisest of all options were pursued, which is what I think you are saying, Karen. Of course, the Florida nonsense is a bit of a red herring, regarding the actual election. Gore blew it badly, for several reasons (which I would suggest are: failure to treat Clinton honorably; failure to have confidence in himself; too respectful a treatment of Bush). He lost it, rather than Bush won it. And now...who will the Democrats nominate??? Kerry, as I understand him today, would get my vote. Cheers, Lawry
RE: The Arts and Reality (was Brain Tutorial)
Good morning, Harry, Keith, Pete, Ray, et al, That must have been quite an interview! Did he by any chance compare 'evolutionary advantages' of sex and brain? That is, homo sapiens (whew, I nearly wrote 'we') could have relatively mediocre sexual capabilities but such a procreational and evolutionary advantage due to our brains and langauge that we emerged nonetheless. I am not sure I would call homo sapiens dominant, at least not until we have shown that we are capable of resolving the massive social problems we are creating for ourselves. I have been chugging away casually at Wilson's ANT tome and am quite impressed with those little critters. Talk about guaranteed minimum wage and collaboration! Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harry Pollard > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:10 PM > To: Ray Evans Harrell; pete; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Arts and Reality (was Brain Tutorial) > > > Ray, > > As you have said, this is a most interesting discussion, but properly you > have entered a demurrer or two. > > As I read, I am reminded of the hundreds of radio interviews I've > completed. Perhaps the best of them was the hour with Desmond Morris, > zoologist and author of the best selling "The Naked Ape". > > He told me the most important advantage we had over other species was our > genitalia. We out bred the rest of the animal kingdom. > > Guess we are a sexy lot and it sure beats a full frontal lobe. > > Harry > ___ > > > Ray wrote: > > >Good, now how old is the supralymbic? And where is it located?Is it > >found in the earliest Cro-Magnon skulls? If the Limbic is the oldest > >what is the rhinic? Is the concept of symetricality in the three, > >constant or is there a left and right in the highest function > that relates > >to language and equates correct action with a duality based in the body? > >In short do you like the right because of something in your > brain and does > >the left seem wrong no matter how much you like socialism? (sorry I > >couldn't resist that) > > > >All of these "higher functions" that even my Western teachers > aspouse seem > >to have been around a long time before the "higher skills like literature > >and math" as described by Keith, or is this brain really a result of the > >last 10,000 years or so.Does a large lobe mean intelligence or does a > >small lobe mean intelligence or does anything mean intelligence in this > >mechanically derived world. Is it intelligent to have ever > built the thing > >in the first place? I love psycho-babble. It seems as good as any > >babble for that matter except real language and there is not > much of that in > >evidence these days. > > > >REH > >- Original Message - > >From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:15 PM > >Subject: Re: The Arts and Reality (was Brain Tutorial) > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Ray Evans Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >I guess I would say a third thing as well.How old is > this that limbic > > > >lobe?Is it found in Cro-Magnon skulls? > > > > > > The limbic system underlies the cortex. It is very ancient, > and goes back > > > to reptiles. In psychobabble slang, a limbic personality is someone > > > who doesn't properly filter and control their emotions, or consider > > > their actions. > > > -PV > > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002 > > ** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > *** > >
RE: The Arts and Reality (was Brain Tutorial)
Youssim would have to be of Arabic or Turkic descent, I would guess. What is a Tsalagi meditation? Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Evans > Harrell > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:48 PM > To: pete; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry Pollard > Subject: Re: The Arts and Reality (was Brain Tutorial) > > > At last.Someone with a sense of humor. You caught the problem I had > with all of my friends in that other psycho-brain field years ago.They > took it all so seriously!.Pribram had a sense of humor and > seemed like a > Leprechaun trickster. I have a lot to say about my sojourn in the > psycho-world but unfortunately their analysis of the rest of the > world seems > just as correct as my complaints about them. Everyone is looking for a > messiah/hero to show them the way on their Journey. Couldn't they just > be satisfied with Mozart? > > I always loved Desmond Morris but my favorite is still Constantine > Stanislavski. The play is the thing and the other day I asked my daughter > who was studying some of our Tsalagi meditations if she had ever read > anything like it and she said yes.It was in her class with a > Stanislavski Master from Russia named Youssim.Now what ethnicity might > you consider that name to be? > > Just took in the movie "Full Frontal" tonight with my wife.It had > everything that scared me about California. > > Thanks for the fun, > > REH > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 10:09 PM > Subject: Re: The Arts and Reality (was Brain Tutorial) > > > > Ray, > > > > As you have said, this is a most interesting discussion, but > properly you > > have entered a demurrer or two. > > > > As I read, I am reminded of the hundreds of radio interviews I've > > completed. Perhaps the best of them was the hour with Desmond Morris, > > zoologist and author of the best selling "The Naked Ape". > > > > He told me the most important advantage we had over other > species was our > > genitalia. We out bred the rest of the animal kingdom. > > > > Guess we are a sexy lot and it sure beats a full frontal lobe. > > > > Harry > > ___ > > > > > > Ray wrote: > > > > >Good, now how old is the supralymbic? And where is it > located?Is it > > >found in the earliest Cro-Magnon skulls? If the Limbic is > the oldest > > >what is the rhinic? Is the concept of symetricality in the three, > > >constant or is there a left and right in the highest function that > relates > > >to language and equates correct action with a duality based in > the body? > > >In short do you like the right because of something in your brain and > does > > >the left seem wrong no matter how much you like socialism? (sorry I > > >couldn't resist that) > > > > > >All of these "higher functions" that even my Western teachers aspouse > seem > > >to have been around a long time before the "higher skills like > literature > > >and math" as described by Keith, or is this brain really a > result of the > > >last 10,000 years or so.Does a large lobe mean > intelligence or does a > > >small lobe mean intelligence or does anything mean intelligence in this > > >mechanically derived world. Is it intelligent to have ever built the > thing > > >in the first place? I love psycho-babble. It seems as > good as any > > >babble for that matter except real language and there is not > much of that > in > > >evidence these days. > > > > > >REH > > >- Original Message - > > >From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:15 PM > > >Subject: Re: The Arts and Reality (was Brain Tutorial) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Ray Evans Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >I guess I would say a third thing as well.How old is this that > limbic > > > > >lobe?Is it found in Cro-Magnon skulls? > > > > > > > > The limbic system underlies the cortex. It is very ancient, and goes > back > > > > to reptiles. In psychobabble slang, a limbic personality is someone > > > > who doesn't properly filter and control their emotions, or consider > > > > their actions. > > > > -PV > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > >Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002 > > > > ** > > Harry Pollard > > Henry George School of LA > > Box 655 > > Tujunga CA 91042 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > > *** > > > > > > > -- > -- > > > > > > > --- >
RE: Brain Tutorial
Greetings Keith and Ray,
NLP does not have any insight on brain structure or functioning, though it
was a latent interest among some of the original NLP developers, e.g Robert
Diltz.
The closest NLP comes to it is a metaphorical model which has no pretensions
to being technically accurate. It is primarily a linguistic model, based on
Korzybski's ever-pertinent semantic observations (see, e.g. SCIENCE AND
SANITY) and on a decision-making model ("TOTE"), which is dated, now.
The TOTE model and its successors have been very useful, in that they
provided a pragmatic map for psycho-cognitive interventions. These models
were created through linguistic probes and questioning of people as to how
they make decisions, what they need to 'change' (therapeutically), etc.
Cheers to all,
Lawry
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:40 AM
> To: Ray Evans Harrell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Brain Tutorial(was RE: Brain is not a holograph)
>
>
> Ray,
>
> At 11:35 19/08/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >Gee Keith, I'm afraid that like your lecture on Music History this goes
> >against just about everything I ever learned about anything,
> now that IS
> >novel.I still like your economics theory better. Do you know
> >anything about NLP?
> >
> >REH
>
> I'm sorry if my answers to Lawry didn't suit. Please tell me precisely
> where I might have misinformed Lawry or anybody else on
> Futurework list. As
> wrote before, I'm very happy to receive criticisms of what I wrote from
> anybody well-versed in neurophysiology or neuroscience on this list.
>
> I don't know anything about NLP apart from it being an acronym for
> Neuro-linguistic Programming. It's never turned up in any of the books
> about the brain that I've read.
>
> Keith
>
>
> (LdeB)
>
> Greetings, Ray and Keith,
> Many thanks for your thoughtful and helpful postings on the idea of the
> holographic brain. I am taking the liberty of replying in this email to
> both of you, and of troubling you with some additional questions based on
> what you describe.
>
> 1) I do understand, Ray, the point you made about each cell containing all
> the 'information' of a person: our DNA is replicated in each of our cells.
> That the cells end up doing different things as the organism forms ( cell
> development) is, as I understand it, still one of the big mysteries in
> biology.
>
>
> The mechanism is known in principle. The devil is in the detail. In any
> particular cell in the body (liver, kidney, brain, etc) only certain genes
> in the DNA are activated. These produce the specific enzymes that are
> necessary in the production of the specific proteins that the
> cell requires.
>
>
> But I think that this passive, activatable coding is not quite the
> same as the coding of an idea, say, in the brain, no? That is,
> the functions
> of the brain are the results of collections of neuronal cells acting
> together, and not contained within a single neuron. Does this make sense?
>
>
> This is true. The components of a neural network in the cortex (the
> "thinking" part -- the outer covering) are not so much individual neurons
> as vertical modules of neurons. These are relatively slim columns of
> neurons from the surface down through the depth of the cortex
> (about 1/10th
> inch). In each module there are several thousand neurons
> belonging to five,
> six or seven distinctly different types of neurons. A message coming into
> the module will be shuffled up and down the module during processing and
> then emerge to pass on to a module in an entirely different part of the
> cortex. As training for a particular task progresses, or as a memory
> becomes consolidated, then the modules involved become increasingly
> specialised, quarantine themselves from the influence of neighbouring
> modules and firm up connections with modules elsewhere in the cortex.
>
>
> 2) Holographs If a holographic plate is shattered, does each
> piece then
> still depict the whole of the original picture, or just a part of
> the whole?
>
>
> Yes -- each small piece recreates a copy of the whole -- though not
> necessarily in as much detail.
>
>
> If brain function is generally resilient and can be restored
> though much of
> the relevant parts of the brain have been destroyed, could it not, instead
> of many duplicated learned act copies, be because the learned act is
> supported by a dense and redundant set of neural pathways?
>
>
> If a network relevant to a particular task or memory (or part of it) is
> destroyed then it has gone for good. There are no redundant pathways
> waiting to take over. If it's a memory then it will have gone forever. If
> it is a learned task, then it can only be re-learned by new, practical
> learning procedures in which the brain will (with great difficulty in the
> case of an adult) fashion a new network by s
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 and LdeB... (was Re: Beating a dead Burqa)
Chris, May I have your permission to use for a class and a possible book the following from an earlier interchange between us? I can do so with or without specific attribution to you (your choice). Lawry start: - LdB: > I have only > insisted that talking with the people that some so willingly criticize for > their personal and social practices is vital to understanding these > practices -- and should be done before condemning them. CR: Another misrepresentation. Where, please, did I condemn the _wearers_ of burqas ?? If anyone, I condemned their oppressors and the accomplices of them. - (end)
RE: Brain is not a holograph (RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Many thanks for the pointers to Pribram, Ray, and for getting the mental juices rolling on this. It does take me back to an interest I had in earlier years, and which I put aside for other curiosities. And again, thanks for the sharing of information. Best regards, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 6:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Brain is not a holograph (RE: America in decline? (was Re: > What is Economics, Hudson? > > > The > > holographic idea only had flimsy evidence based on earlier > experiments on > > mice and rats which showed that a learned act seemed to be > scattered over > > the most of the perceptual processing areas of the brain, because > excisions > > of cortical tissue had to be very extensive indeed before the > learned act > > finally vanished from the repertoire. It was supposed, therefore, that > > originally there were multiple copies of the learned act scattered over > > large parts of the cortex and, even when very few remained (perhaps even > > only one!), then the full performance of the act could be resurrected in > > rather the same way that a holographic image can be resurrected > from very > > small parts of the whole. However, the mice experiments were > pretty crude. > > I'm way out of my league on this since I haven't done any work in it since > the late seventies and early eighties when I got my certification. > However if you type Karl H. Pribram into Amazon.com you will find > book being > written on it as late as 1994 and I believe there are three > including one of > those expensive types that usually means its too hard for the layman. So > you can find out for yourself.In the early stages they weren't only > talking about brain activity and as recent as last year there was in that > great scientific journal the New York Times Science section an article on > brain neurons found in the gut that weren't just wanderers.I > don't mean > to get into a tete with Keith on this since he obviously has a > lot more time > to donate to it than I but it was in the NYTimes and it did fit with my > experience. > > > > Parts of the learned act are indeed to be found in different > parts of the > > brain but only specialised aspects of it, and if a few of those > parts are > > excised then the other parts can still associate together and > perform the > > act (albeit less skilfully). Had the experimenters excised certain other > > very precise areas of the brain -- namely the motor strip that gathers > > together and synthesises all the specialised aspects of the act and > > instructs the muscles to perform the act as an integrated whole -- then > the > > learned act could not be performed at all. Indeed, over time, > because the > > specialised parts of the original memory of the learned act could never > > again "complete the circuit", as it were, the synapses would weaken and > the > > neuronal cells that were dedicated to the particular act would die from > > disuse. > > > > Here's another example based on the "grannie cell" approach. You and I > will > > have multiple instances of the concept of tomato scattered all over our > > cortex, each with varying proportions of perceptual speciality and at > > different levels of processing according to the inputs that are usually > > involved when faced with a tomato and eating it or even throwing it at > your > > least favourite politician (visual, taste, tactility, etc.) However, it > > would be possible that if either of us had a small stroke in a > > microscopically small area of the Wernicke's areas of the brain (perhaps > > only involving two or three cells perhaps) then the ability to utter the > > word "tomato" will have gone for good. You would be able to > remember that > a > > tomato was pleasant to eat. You would be able to choose a tomato from a > > pile of other fruit when asked to. But if you were asked the name of a > > tomato sitting on a plate in front of you would not be able to > answer. You > > would not even "know" the answer. You would shake your head in > puzzlement > > as though you'd never seen one before. However, if you were then > > instructed: "Pick up the tomato from the plate", you would be able to do > so > > instantly. (This is similar to experiences that occur to tens > of thousands > > of people every year when they have had minor strokes so it is not a > > fanciful example.) So this example is an attempt to describe the > phenomenon > > that some thought was holographic. > > Does the description of a unique synapse mean that the map for the human > being is not contained on a micro-level? I don't know, its not > my area of > expertise. On the other hand there are junction models found in > all kinds > of systems. I have no doubt that in the future there will be > some kind of > "miracle" healing of what Keith describes. It would have been won
RE: Telecom
Greetings, Arthur, Thanks for this article-- I had a flash as I was reading it. This seems so much more than a matter of even many individual executives pumping their stock to the public while selling it themselves. It seems to me that we also have to see this as a societal event. The stock went up, really, because millions of people bought into the patterns of thinking that supported the phenomenon of buying stock at PE ratios that had seemed absurd only a few years before. I was with a technology company in the mid to late '70s, and put a number of very promising technologies into our R&D portfolio. Seeing the potential, and the revenues soar as we brought technology to the market, brokers started recommending us and the public buying. Our PE went into the 40s and we were all freaked out, feeling that while we loved the company and what we were accomplishing, that the PE was simply 'too' high and could not be justified on financial grounds. But stock buyers weren't looking to real value from us, at that point; they were gambling that someone else would show up and buy the stock for even more. It really was gambling, more than prudent investment, and it occurred because of a mass hallucination on the part of the stock-buying public. Has anyone on this list seen a book about mass hallucination and fiancial bubbles? (Sorry, I don't have the book to hand here.) It went into detail into a number of financial bubbles. The one that struck me the most was that of the Dutch tulip bulbs; for some reason first the Dutch and then more generally other Europeans began speculating on tulip bulbs. Different varieties could command greater prices, and a stock market developed for the sale and purchase of investments in bulbs. An industry emerged, focusing on developing new variants, and offering them for shares in the market. And then the bubble burst, and the price of the bulbs plummeted, creating large financial losses to those who had put somethimes fortunes into bulbs. The thing that struck me was how little people had to think about when considering a bulb investment: there was nothing mysterious about the product, or even speculative about the true value (that of a pretty flower). It wasn't like the current rash of arcane IT technological capabilities that only specialists can truly understand or appreciate. Yet, there were the supposedly stable and sensible Dutch pouring fortunes into...bulbs. It seems that maybe the telecom dot.com bubble was akin to the Dutch bulb bubble, a mass hallucination, a case of doing it because 'everyone' else seemed to be, a fear of getting left behind. It is scary to think how easily this happened, how 'everyone' joined the rush to dot.com riches. One can imagine it happening in areas in which the feedback is not as conclusive, in the end, as the dot.com and Dutch bulb bubbles, in areas of political, cultural, or religious belief. And if the feedback is ambiguous at best, how then can we know whether we haven't signed up in a bubble? Guaranteed wage, we are reminded was one of the driving questions for the establishment of this list: might we be in a bubble that precludes us from thinking about this and other kinds of issues clearly? I wish I had a guaranteed bubble-pricker handy. Best regards, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: FW: Telecom > > > > > > Dialing for Dollars: Before Telecom Industry Sank, Insiders > Sold Billions > > in Stock --- As They Cashed Out Shares, Many Executives Touted Sector's > > Growth Potential --- Mr. Galluccio's New Winery > > All told, it is one the largest transfers of wealth from > investors -- big > > and small -- in American history. Hundreds of telecom executives, almost > > uniformly bullish, sold at least some portion of their stock and made > > hundreds of millions of dollars, while many investors took huge, > > unprecedented losses. It dwarfs the much more highly publicized Internet > > boom and bust. And the economic and personal damage in jobs lost and > > bankruptcies is far worse. > > > > By Dennis K. Berman > > 12 August 2002 > > The Wall Street Journal > > > > These days, Vincent Galluccio spends most afternoons at the wheel of a > > tractor, overseeing his $5.2 million Long Island vineyard, Galluccio > > Family Winery. Just two years ago, Mr. Galluccio was one of thousands of > > executives overseeing a different product: telecommunications. > > Mr. Galluccio, 57 years old, was a top European executive of Metromedia > > Fiber Networks Inc., a high-flying White Plains, N.Y., telecom-network > > builder. As Metromedia's value soared to its peak of $31 billion, Mr. > > Galluccio began selling small amounts of shares. Leaving the company in > > 2000, he liquidated all of his holdings, for a total of about > $27 million. > > He used the proceeds to buy the 160-acre
Re: Beating a dead horse
Well, Chris, > your name-calling style _belies_ your self-proclaimed interpersonal and > communication skills. If you would have these skills indeed, you > could have > expressed criticism of me _without_ resorting to insults and personal > humiliation. Don't think of it as insult and personal humiliation; think of it as mere technical description. > Concerning your comments on "the [sic!] Swiss": It's so generous that > you don't extend your vilifications of me to all my fellow citizens. > But if you indeed have "dozens of close Swiss friends", I do wonder > why you were so uninformed about the history of Geneva and Switzerland > and about the Swiss health-care system. Perhaps that was just another > unfounded boast of yours. Well, uh, yes of course; everyone's Swiss friends would have nothing better to do than discuss the Swiss health care system and old Genevese history. But we see again your penchant for making assertions about things of which you are ignorant, instead of asking for information and then arriving at an informed judgment. So I will respond as I did before: if anyone wishes to know how I calculated that I've had dozens of close Swiss friends and hundreds of casual ones, please query me off-list and I'll be happy to explain how it came about, as well as describe the amount of time I've spent in Switzerland, my activities there, and the rough number of times I have been there. You will readily be able then to judge whether my description of Swiss friends, etc., is accurate or not. But we'll leave Chris in the dark about this as well, not that he'll spend much time wondering about what he would have heard had he only asked before leaping to his conclusions. > Considering your style, it may indeed be best to ignore you. I agree. Please do so! > Fortunately there are others on this list who actually have to say > something (and happen to assess my intelligence differently). I haven't challenged your IQ Chris. I only wish you would use it more competently. And I am glad that you have found some friends here on the 'Net. Again, good luck to you. Lawry
RE: Brain is not a holograph (RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Greetings, Ray and Keith,
Many thanks for your thoughtful and helpful postings on the idea of the
holographic brain. I am taking the liberty of replying in this email to
both of you, and of troubling you with some additional questions based on
what you describe.
1) I do understand, Ray, the point you made about each cell containing all
the 'information' of a person: our DNA is replicated in each of our cells.
That the cells end up doing different things as the organism forms ( cell
development) is, as I understand it, still one of the big mysteries in
biology. But I think that this passive, activatable coding is not quite the
same as the coding of an idea, say, in the brain, no? That is, the functions
of the brain are the results of collections of neuronal cells acting
together, and not contained within a single neuron. Does this make sense?
2) Holographs If a holographic plate is shattered, does each piece then
still depict the whole of the original picture, or just a part of the whole?
If brain function is generally resilient and can be restored though much of
the relevant parts of the brain have been destroyed, could it not, instead
of many duplicated learned act copies, be because the learned act is
supported by a dense and redundant set of neural pathways? If many of the
neurons are destroyed, this restoration might be ensured by the undamaged
neurons in the original network, with only a bit of re-learning, and, if
necessary, re-growing of some of the messing neurons. It would be very
interesting to compare the recovery rates of brain-damaged individuals to
the time it takes new pathways to be adopted by learned acts that have been
damaged, and the growth of new neurons where the original redundancy was not
adequate.
These are just speculations of course, based on your notes. I am very
interested in what your thoughts are on this.
3) If synapses deteriorate with lack of use, might the opposite not also be
true: and if this is so, might it not be possible that carrying out mental
exercises would actually strengthen specific brain functionings? Gosh!
Might it be possible to train two entirely independent neural networks to do
the same thing, but locate them in different parts of the brain, so that if
one part were damaged, the remaining network would be able to carry on the
functioning, unimpeded? If a person 'can't make up their mind' about
something, might among the reasons for this be that indeed a person has
developed to independent neural nets for the same function, but that they
are just sufficiently different that in some number of cases, they end up in
conflict with each other? More speculation, I know...your thoughts?
4) On this matter of Wernicke's areas and the sensory channel that is being
activated to handle a thought ("tomato"): are you saying that in Wernicke's
areas cells carry out sensory specific operations (visual/tactile/auditory,
etc.)? And that a few cells destruction might cut off a given channel's
access to the thought?
If this is an adequate summary, how does the idea of synesthesia fit in, in
which experience or memory of a thing in one channel triggers a fuller
experience of it in other channels? For example: If I ask you now to
"imagine walking down a street in a quiet village, and you pass by the open
door of a bakery"
What is happening here, in Wernicke's areas, if anything?
5) I can well imagine that functions of analysis and thinking are
distributed throughout the body and that the 'brain is human and limbs are
servants' model is lacking. Why does this seem to make immediate sense to
me? In information technology, we are coming to realize that dispersed
decision-making centers, meshed together through redundant networks, may be
the superior design, in terms of speed of action, local wisdom, overall
wisdom, repair, and resilience to outside damage or attack. So it may be
that the human or other organisms, faced with the need for all of these for
hundreds of millions of years, have 'figured it out' (and I do NOT mean this
teleologically!) through the processes of evolution, and adopted this kind
of architecture for our organic information systems.
6) That our understanding of the brain and human functioning is in a very
young stage is obvious, if frustrating. I have personal experience of this.
One of the areas that I have been trained in is NLP. I was able to improve
on it in some areas that were critical to me, and in the course of doing
this pushed the limit of research pretty aggressively in some the advanced
courses that I taught. In one class, challenged by one of the students, I
was able to cure him of his substantial and debilitating arthritis (elbows
and knees). He and I have stayed in close contact over the 17-18 years that
have passed since then, and he has had zero reoccurrence. Now, the amazing
thing to me is that this worked at all. I had winged an approach after he
offered curing this as a challenge to me. All I did, literally, w
RE: America in decline? (was Re: What is Economics, Hudson?
Greetings, Keith, I agree with Ray's "Wow!" I must have missed the fling -- could you take a couple of minutes to summarize what Probram's 'holographic' model suggested? Apologies for not already having some acquaintance with it -- my library is a couple of thousand miles from here. Thanks, Lawry
Beating a dead horse
Chris pursues his one-way drive to silliness... I indicated in my last email to you Chris that I had made the judgement that you are not worth spending time and effort on. You cannot learn, and, IMO, you contribute little. Your presence on this list -- open to all -- simply does not compel me to interact with you. Just to be sure, I want members of this list to know that I have nothing against the Swiss, and do not view Chris as a 'typical' Swiss. I have spent much enjoyable and useful time in Switzerland and have over the years had literally dozens of close Swiss friends and hundreds of casual acquaintances. I can safely say that none of them have displayed the kind of insularity, hubris, and unjustified self-certainty that Chris demonstrates here so consistently and relentlessly. To my non-European colleagues on this list, I hope you will not judge the Swiss people or the country by what Chris demonstrates. Now then, Chris, you asked me for the information on how to contact people. I did not and will not send it to you because, frankly, I don't think you have the interpersonal or communication skills or the curiosity to pursue it without insult to and time-wasting for anyone who is different from you. As I offered generally to members of this list, I have indeed responded to everyone who queried me for this information (except Chris), and have had several interesting and productive follow-up exchanges off-list. (If, as I said in an earlier email, you have contacted me for this and I have not responded, please email me again. I have temporarily changed computers and location and have some emails that were downloaded to the previous one, nor readable from here.) To pick up on a secondary bit of nonsense from Chris, below, this is not about "making" people talk. It is about mutual dialogue and learning, and about establishing the trust and respect that is needed to achieve those. (I suspect that Chris is the only one who did not understand this.) I remain happy to share my thoughts on how to contact and interact with people who are 'different' (even 'threatening'!) with anyone who emails me about this. I propose Chris, that we just ignore each other. That way, we both and all other members of this list will save time. Good luck to you, Chris. Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christoph > Reuss > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 7:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 and LdeB... (was Re: Beating a > dead Burqa) > > > Lawry de Bivort wrote: > > I have only > > insisted that talking with the people that some so willingly > criticize for > > their personal and social practices is vital to understanding these > > practices -- and should be done before condemning them. > > Another misrepresentation. Where, please, did I condemn the _wearers_ > of burqas ?? If anyone, I condemned their oppressors and the accomplices > of them. > > > > It is so sad that the common reaction to being presented with > different PoVs > > is to attack, deny, or seek to get rid of the irritant. > > That's what Lawry is doing to me on this list. So sad indeed. > > > Btw I note that Lawry de Bivort, contrary to his announcement on the list, > did not provide the "how-to" about asking burqa-wearers to me (although I > took his offer). Seems he promises a bit too much. (What a cheap excuse > that the how-to be "individual-, motive-, communication skill-, > and location- > specific" -- why not simply tell what _he_ did to make them talk?) > > Chris > >
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 and LdeB... (was Re: Beating a dead Burqa)
Greetings, Brad,
Many thanks for your email, and the many helpful observations you make.
> There is no a priori reason not to believe that at least some
> burqa wearers genuinely like it.
Yes, exactly!
> This can be a "reaction formation": Valorizing what one
> is stuck with anyway. It can be lemming-mind. It can be
> a symptom of ignorance that there are any alternatives, i.e.,
> that "it" is anything at all (Burqa as analog to the
> proverbial fish not noticing its water -- I call this
> "categorial deprivation", as opposed to
> "em,pirical deprivation", where one knows there
> is something good which one does not have). And, last but
> not least, it can be "functional": If you are a [wo]man who
> wants to escape (or enter) Taliban territory, a burqa may
> be a good disguise.
I think there is a further and even more compelling category of reasons,
beyond all the somewhat negative reasons you list here (varieties of
igornance and pragmatism): it is, simply -- modesty. Many traditional
cultures value modesty highly, including some in the west, and wear
varieties of clothing and personal behavior to manifest that value.
I think that the prevalence of such practices of modesty may actually be
increasing; anecdotally it is clear that in the last decade or so, some
women who live in countries where they can pretty much, culutrally, wear
anything they want to, have chosen to dress modestly. Black Muslim women in
the US come readily to mind. I wonder to what extent, if this is even a
modest trend, it may be a reaction to the parallel growing trend in American
girls to sluttish dress, e.g. Britney Spears (sp?) and her imitators.
>
> I cite as an analogy male circumcision here in the
> enlightened west (sorry, please capitalize
> the preceding words...). Many men apparently think they
> are better off for it. Some may have no idea anything
> was done to them at all. Many
> do it to their sons so that their sons "won't look different
> in the locker room" (they could, of course, instead,
> question the appropriateness of persons being subjected to
> locker room public nudity!). Etc.
>
> If you want to see how much we live in a free marketplace of
> ideas, try telling the parents of a jewish newborn male
> that they should not genitally mutilate their baby.
> And here, Lawry, I've actually talked to these people.
This is an issue that I am completely new to, Brad -- so you are light-years
ahead of me. I appreciate your discussion and thought-provoking PoV... And
as you will know, I appreciate deeply the fact that you have discussed this
with folks who are doing it. Such discussion does not mean that we have to
in the end agree with those who enagge in practices that we question, but
that we have had such probing discussion is a form of intellectual 'due
diligence', without which we bring misunderstanding and ignorance upon our
selves.
Isn't male circumcision practised now generally by non-Jews, too?
> Some of them have gotten to expect this offensive rudeness
> out of me, so before I tell them, they tell me they already
> know what I am going to say. One replied: "But the
> grandparents are religious and it is very important to them"
> (as if it was the grandparents' foreskins that were at
> issue!). It's a BRIS!!!
> And the persons saying this may have elite PhDs even!
Education does not seem to be an automatic defense against ignorance or
habit, does it?
Over the last year or so, I have had many intensive disussions with
American, European and Israeli Jews about Jewish practices. A common thread
is that the practices as seen as part of maintaining and reaffirming Jewish
identity, and that this has a lot to do with the Holocaust experience
specifically and anti-Jewish oppression generally. The preservation of
identity is valued so highly that it at times overrides other values, and
leads to actions that seem to be at variance with other values that we
associate with Jewish tradition.
> I have been told of one jewish couple who did not mutilate
> their son, but I have not had the pleasure of speaking
> with *them*!
>
> So, Lawry, now that I think about it, I don't have to
> "apologize" to you for not having personally talked
> with any burqa wearers.
I have not asked or even thought about such an apology, Brad. I have only
insisted that talking with the people that some so willingly criticize for
their personal and social practices is vital to understanding these
practices -- and should be done before condemning them. And it would seem
from what you describe here that you do so, too
> I've talked with jewish
> parents of male children, and, as one would say in
> mathematics, they are in the same "remainder class"
> ("congruence class", etc.). Yes, I've taken an
> oar to persons who have never heard of the sea* (albeit
> I've not yet had the courage to do this at work, but
> I am prepared to very politely and self-effacingly
> broach the subject with
RE: What is Economics, Hudson?
Hi, Karen, I just came from the bookstore: Coulter's rant is on sale, 50% off. "We just want to unload it," said the clerk, who then added "I can take some more off if you want it." But instead I bought for friends two second copies of Armstrong's THE BATTLE FOR GOD, and Barber's JIHAD VS MCWORLD. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Watters > Cole > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson > Cc: Ed Weick; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: What is Economics, Hudson? > > > Cousin, I won't comment on your lengthy remarks re: Hudson Economics, but > surely you don't think Ann Coulter got to the top of the best seller list > without the artifice of friends and assorted vested cronies purchasing in > lump orders? I wonder how many copies the American Spectator and > hate radio > biggies purchased? > I saw her on the Phil Donohue show and she absolutely stumbled in her > stunned inability to counter his debate of her book. She has been > exposed as > a fraud, me thinks. > Also, I read the sad story last year of an author who personally purchased > his own book in quantity via Amazon, using his own credit card, and then > reselling the books later. I think they call that the Darth Vader play in > Enronitis, but in his case it was unnecessary greed (unlike Ann > Coulter) to > push an otherwise interesting book above its naturally rising sales. > Yes, greed and novelty, there is unfortunately that link too. > Karen > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray > Evans Harrell > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson > Cc: Ed Weick; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What is Economics, Hudson? > > (snip) Not because I didn't like it, in fact I loved it. I > would say that > this is my favorite post of Keith's of all time. I would give > you a Nobel > for it but it would have to be shared with the James Burke and > his wonderful > "Connections" television program.Here in the US we are really > more about > what I would call a contrary security blanket.In the rest of > the world I > would assume that expertise would be applauded and that you would go to an > expert to solve a problem in the area that they were expert > within.Here > in the US there is a twist to all of this that must be understood > if you are > to understand why things are done the way they are.But let you finish > first. You said: > > > Just one final comment. Apart from a relatively few extra genes than > > chimps, the supremely significant development of the human > species was the > > vast enlargement of the frontal lobes of the cortex (our vertical > > foreheads). They are *huge* compared with those of other primates. The > > primary purpose of the frontal lobes is to deal with novel perceptions. > The > > frontal lobes have an avidity for novelty. Even while most of the > > population of the world may continue to suffer poverty and extreme > > deprivation, the economies of the developing countries of the world will > > continue to be primarily motivated by the emergence of novelties and not > by > > the suffering of the rest of the world. And that's a fact that Messrs > > Samuelson, Norhaus. Mankiw, Baumol and Binder don't address and never > > discuss. > > Unlike the part I snipped, I think this is just a little too cute. In > short I am not going to say much about it except that it ignores too much > and endangers your thesis by elevating a biological story that is too glib > even for an artist.As you said wonderfully earlier in this post (the > snipped part) the definition could be applied to too many other > areas for it > to work seriously in this one. For example it could explain the Coliseum > murders in Rome or the invention of Opera but the real answer is more > interesting and complicated than that. > > But let me go back to the "novelty" or James Burke "connections" theory of > motivation.In America it is not so much about "novelty" except in the > very idle rich, but about what Americans call "security". Homeland > Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc. This > could produce a > very Anal retentive population that would get little done and could become > murderous in its defensiveness. Yes, I know that HAS happened > but there > is another side to all of this that stops it to some degree. I > would call > it the "law of reaction." You may not defend yourself until something > has already happened.For example, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the > World Trade Center on the Mega side but on the Mini side you may not look > for someone until you have found a body, or in medicine you may not begin > prevention until you have discovered cancer.The excuse to > this ignoring > of prevention is usually economic.
RE: Free Trade of the Americas
If this is the same Bob Zoellick that I am thinking of (and it sounds like it is), he is VERY good. Smart, energetic, open to new ideas. I'll double check when I get back to my office. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Watters ColeSent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:07 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: FW: Free Trade of the Americas MALLABY: A Go-Go Approach to Globalization @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44034-2002Aug4.html “People talk about the Bush administration's divided foreign policy, with unilateralists at the Pentagon battling diplomats at State. But the Bush team also is split on international economic policy. On one side, you've got tortured sideline-sitters at the Treasury, who criticize emerging-market bailouts while approving them, who criticize development aid while promising to expand it. On the other side you've got U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, who practices an amazing brand of turbo-activism. … The Bush economic team is mostly reactive; it has led on the bad tax cut and on precious little else. Its promise of extra development aid, made after months of griping about it, was forced by the March summit on development in Monterrey, Mexico, and by the fear that the United States would look miserly if others increased their aid budgets. The administration pleads that it had to consider aid's effectiveness before calling for an increase. But everybody knows that aid effectiveness is crucial. By droning on about it, the administration was delaying needed aid expansion and reinventing the wheel. …Having defied all the pessimists (whose ranks I've joined, at some points), Zoellick is moving into overdrive. Armed with trade promotion authority, he can target three goals: He can press ahead with global trade talks, he can pursue regional pacts such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas or he can go after bilateral free-trade deals. Which goal will be Zoellick's priority? The answer is obvious. All three. Maybe this is lunacy. Zoellick heads a small agency that is overworked already; aspiring to a Free Trade Area of the Americas seems like a hopeless long shot given the anti-American populism that is sweeping the region. But when America leads, things happen; and American leadership in one set of trade talks creates momentum in the rest. If the Central Americans want their own trade deal with Zoellick, they'll have to support his drive for regional and global trade pacts; if Asians see progress in Zoellick's Latin American discussions, they'll want a World Trade Organization deal for fear of being left behind. This vision is certainly ambitious; say nay if you want. But remember that Zoellick's naysayers haven't fared well recently.” SAMUELSON: Can Brazil be saved? @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15032-2002Aug13.html
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!)
Greetings, Salvador > Burkas are a cultural artifacts associated with tradition, not a taliban > idea, and it makes even more dificult for these Muslim women to choose. We > must aware to avoid a very common confusion: a cultural product is not > necessarily good by itself. And freedom of choice, at least in > this kind of > issues, should not be restricted by tradition of culture. I think you are going directly to the heart of the matter, here. Culture is, if anything, a common set of assumptions, values, and uncodified 'rules' about how people should act. Freedom of choice can exist within a culture, and simply means that a culture allows certain degrees of freedom on certain issues, but prohibits choices that lie outside that range. If one is part of a culture, one will tend to think that the degrees of freedom that it allows are proper, and that those who go beyond are 'wrong.' As a member of a culture, we often brans those who live in other cultures where other ranges of freedom are adopted as 'wrong', or 'barbaric,' or 'ignorant.' An example: what do you think would happen if you (or I!) were to walk naked into our local supermarket? Church? Police station? It is only a cultural assumption and its cocification that 'says' this is 'wrong.' Yet, will anyone assert that no culture should stand in the way of an individual's freedom to make and implement such a choice. We have comparable cultural assumptins (which act in part as the blinders I have been referring to in my past posts) with regard to work, employment, income, and societal responsibility. The burka discussion was a handy way of getting at the central point > > > I have no doubt those people, who think they do Afghani women a favor by > > trying to 'liberate' them from the outside mean well. But some disasters > > are wrought by the well meaning. No doubt the communist regime meant to > > do well for the equality of male and female by abolishing the dowry > > practice; only it wasn't accepted by the majority of the population that > > just wasn't ready for it, it was considered an attack on their culture, > > tradition and religion and it directly led to the anti-Soviet uprising > > and the real start of the war. > Of course nobody has the right to impose others what he/she > considers "good" > (americans and catholics tend to forget it, as history clearly shows), > except when there are serious threats like illness or violations to human > rights (like selling the daughters). I agree with Jan and also with Karen > Watters, who said that change must be gradual. This is another discussion, and a major one: just how fast can change be brought to a culture, and how can it be best done, and what are the skills required to do so? I'm not sure this is within the scope of this list, but if anyone is up for it, so am I. > > So maybe some things need time. If you want to force them, they > > boomerang back and have the opposite effect, as the taliban repression > > could never have happened without the communist meddling in the first > > place. I hope this opinion doesn't make me a bad human rights activist? > > > > Jan Matthieu > > As Karen said, it's a question between fundamentalism (archaism?) and > modernism. Clothing is not a trivial issue, it is an individual > manifestation of identity and belonging but also a display of > social traits, > practices and customs. Freedom to manage our own personal appearance is a > right associated with modernism. If it is good for me, I should > defend this > right for anybody else. > > By the way, my own "portable prison", five days a week, is a jacket and a > tie. At least I have some degree of freedom choosing colors. I was wondering when someone might bring up the male tie! I saw a gallery of protraits of US presidents, recently. They did NOT look comfortable in their garb... I agree with Karen's suggestion that the issue may be between 'modernizing' culture and an 'archaic' one, but, oh, how to describe such different cultures without being self-serving, and 'too-certain.' > Greetings from the rainy, cloudy and fresh Mexico City. > > Salvador Sanchez And greetings from sunny, refreshing and high-altitude Colorado! Lawry
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: SOME Women love the burka!)
Well said, Jan. Can you say a bit more about the dowry matter in Afghanistan? Did it become a major issue for the Taliban, the way modesty and the burka did? It is probably too early to tell, but do you have any sense of whether the removal of the Taliban affected dowry practices. I suspect, by the way, that not only did dowry pre-date the Taliban, but it predated Islam as well. I can't, off-hand, think of any culture in which a dowry of some sort or another (sometimes paid from the female to the male side, and sometimes from the male to the female side) hasn't been customary, if only at a symbolic level. Best regards, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jan matthieu > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:49 AM > To: 'Christoph Reuss'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) > > > I wonder if not having to wear a burka can be considered a human right. > In any case, as was repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, burka's were > the normal attire of countryside women in large parts of Afghanistan, > especially Pashtunistan. Women wore it before the Soviet invasion, > during and after, but it was not legally prescribed. Taliban enforced it > on all women, but now they have gone, this doesn't have to mean all > women would nor should take them off, and the fact women are still > wearing them has no connection to the possible remaining influence of > the taliban. > I have no doubt those people, who think they do Afghani women a favor by > trying to 'liberate' them from the outside mean well. But some disasters > are wrought by the well meaning. No doubt the communist regime meant to > do well for the equality of male and female by abolishing the dowry > practice; only it wasn't accepted by the majority of the population that > just wasn't ready for it, it was considered an attack on their culture, > tradition and religion and it directly led to the anti-Soviet uprising > and the real start of the war. > So maybe some things need time. If you want to force them, they > boomerang back and have the opposite effect, as the taliban repression > could never have happened without the communist meddling in the first > place. I hope this opinion doesn't make me a bad human rights activist? > > Jan Matthieu > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Namens Christoph Reuss > Verzonden: donderdag 15 augustus 2002 16:14 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) > > > Lawry de Bivort wrote: > > You reveak your ignorance, Chris: not permitted to talk to a burka'ed > > woman? This shows how little you know... > > Are you saying that sources like the following are wrong ? > > http://www.purpleberets.org/international_gender_apartheid.html > > "Afghan women > ... > * Are forbidden to ... talk or shake hands with men outside their > families. ... > * Are forbidden to laugh or talk loudly. (No stranger should hear a >woman's voice.)" > > > > As I said, if anyone wants any advice on > > how to do this, I would provide it. > > Why don't you simply provide it, instead of spouting empty polemics and > playing childish games of "I know but I don't tell you". Simply say > what you know, and try to reduce your polemics-to-facts ratio. > > > > What hubris to assert that you, the great Chris, merely need to make > > up your mind to know everything, and that the poor fools whose > > experience you seek to interpret or explain are too ignorant to be > > even worth-while asking! It is not so much your ignorance I find > > appalling, Chris, but your steadfast determination to learn nothing. > > Worse than empty polemics, you have to resort to misrepresenting my > case, in order to make your alleged point. Actually, I did NOT suggest > that the 'objects' of social studies shouldn't be asked. What I > suggested was to take backgrounds and victimological knowledge into > account when assessing their replies. > > Your replies to my suggestion show _your_ "determination to learn > nothing". > > Worse, by choosing to remain ignorant about the backgrounds (and even > attacking those who reveal these backgrounds), you end up being > accomplice to the oppressors of Muslim women. > > Chris > (a "white western male" who thinks that human rights should apply to > non-white non-western females too) > > >
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!)
Arthur, I'll follow-up with you off-line. In case I missed any response to my offer in the flurry of emails these last couple of days, please email me directly regarding how to get in touch with real people (Muslim women and Hassidic Jews mentioned specically), if we are not already in such discussion. Best regards, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) > > > I am with Chris on this one. > > So, Lawry how does one approach a burka'd woman or chassidic male and ask > about how they see themselves and their approach to life?? > > arthur > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) > > > Lawry de Bivort wrote: > > You reveak your ignorance, Chris: not permitted to talk to a burka'ed > woman? > > This shows how little you know... > > Are you saying that sources like the following are wrong ? > > http://www.purpleberets.org/international_gender_apartheid.html > > "Afghan women > ... > * Are forbidden to ... talk or shake hands with men outside > their families. > ... > * Are forbidden to laugh or talk loudly. (No stranger should hear a >woman's voice.)" > > > > As I said, if anyone wants any advice on > > how to do this, I would provide it. > > Why don't you simply provide it, instead of spouting empty polemics and > playing childish games of "I know but I don't tell you". Simply say > what you know, and try to reduce your polemics-to-facts ratio. > > > > What hubris to assert that you, the great Chris, merely need to make up > your > > mind to know everything, and that the poor fools whose > experience you seek > > to interpret or explain are too ignorant to be even worth-while > asking! It > > is not so much your ignorance I find appalling, Chris, but your > steadfast > > determination to learn nothing. > > Worse than empty polemics, you have to resort to misrepresenting my case, > in order to make your alleged point. Actually, I did NOT suggest that the > 'objects' of social studies shouldn't be asked. What I suggested was to > take backgrounds and victimological knowledge into account when assessing > their replies. > > Your replies to my suggestion show _your_ "determination to learn > nothing". > > Worse, by choosing to remain ignorant about the backgrounds (and even > attacking those who reveal these backgrounds), you end up being accomplice > to the oppressors of Muslim women. > > Chris > (a "white western male" who thinks that human rights should apply to > non-white non-western females too) >
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!)
Chris, > Lawry de Bivort wrote: > > You reveak your ignorance, Chris: not permitted to talk to a > burka'ed woman? > > This shows how little you know... > > Are you saying that sources like the following are wrong ? > > http://www.purpleberets.org/international_gender_apartheid.html > > "Afghan women > ... > * Are forbidden to ... talk or shake hands with men outside > their families. > ... > * Are forbidden to laugh or talk loudly. (No stranger should hear a >woman's voice.)" I haven't looked at this site, but the substance of the quotes I assume you took from it are, as they pertain to Muslim women, wrong. > > As I said, if anyone wants any advice on > > how to do this, I would provide it. > > Why don't you simply provide it, Because it will be individual-, motive-, communication skill-, and location- specific. I have discussed this with the two members of this list who have privately queried me, and will do so with anyone else who is interested. > instead of spouting empty polemics and > playing childish games of "I know but I don't tell you". Please re-read my emails on this before posting such nonsense. > Simply say > what you know, and try to reduce your polemics-to-facts ratio. Polemic, Chris, is a one-sided exagerrated often political rant. You are the only one on this list who actually does use a polemic style. What you are referring to, in my writing, is not polemic but direct criticism -- of you. This may to you be a distinction without a difference. Tough. > > What hubris to assert that you, the great Chris, merely need to > make up your > > mind to know everything, and that the poor fools whose > experience you seek > > to interpret or explain are too ignorant to be even worth-while > asking! It > > is not so much your ignorance I find appalling, Chris, but your > steadfast > > determination to learn nothing. > > Worse than empty polemics, you have to resort to misrepresenting my case, > in order to make your alleged point. Actually, I did NOT suggest that the > 'objects' of social studies shouldn't be asked. What I suggested was to > take backgrounds and victimological knowledge into account when assessing > their replies. Then, I repeat, why don't you start actually asking the people upon whom you pass such easy and ignorant judgement? After you have done so, you then can use your vast knowledge of 'victimology' to your heart's content. As I said some months ago, Chris, I do not wish to spend any of my time trying to educate you. I engage in this otherwise silly conversation with you as it illustrates the theme that I am discussing: cultural blinders and the hubris of certainty. I believe the point has been amply demonstrated, and anticipate further discussion with you only if you manage to say something new AND intersting.
RE: Next 11 September
Many thanks for this posting and the article, Karen. The neoconservatives that would have us attack Iraq may think that it will demonstrate US power, and that that is a good enough reason to attack Iraq. The several points that they IMO miss are: 1)That no one doubts the magnitude of US power, so, if it ever did, it does not need further demonstration. 2) People oppose the US in part because of the magnitude of our power; it is uncomfortable being a mouse and sleeping next to a tossing elephant. Any more demosntration on our part, and we'll have a Brutus-like response to Bush's Caesar. 3) Our preoccupation with Iraq elevates SH's stature, rather than diminsihes him. SH has gained much prestige due to the US's attention. I suspect, but certainly could not prove, that if we ignored SH (but for discreet and unannounced external controls on his access to certain technologies) his stature would diminish and his hold on Iraq would be more susceptible to challenge. Unfortunately, the interference of the US tends to undermine the credibility of those who in Iraq would reject SH. But, as I said, this is speculation on my part. Best regards, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Watters > Cole > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 5:02 PM > To: William B Ward; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Next 11 September > > > FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, the struggle within the Bush administration > is getting > more attention than Karen Hughes ever wanted it to get: see snippet below > from > http://www.stratfor.com/fib/fib_view.php?ID=205737 > > I also heard an insightful comment on National Public Radio (Talk of the > Nation, I think) about most Americans' perception of the Saudis as our > friends/allies vs enemies: for many Americans the only memory of > the Saudis > is as our very cooperative allies during Desert Storm a decade > ago; however, > their motives and interests are different today, obviously, because Kuwait > has not been occupied again and there is not immediate fear that SH can or > is interested in taking control of a neighbor's oil production. > > It's obvious to everyone on this list, at least, that much has > changed in 10 > years and the same conditions and political environment no longer > are there, > but to the average voter the assumption remains that SA is still one of > America's best friends in the ME. Thus, a PR campaign to justify > ambitious > and hastily made plans, and that's why so much of this appears fragmented > and poorly researched, regardless of 9/11 as a pivotal marker > that "changed > everything". You can use that only so much. Pearl Harbor didn't change the > agenda, conditions and action in Japan's warfare in the Pacific all it did > was change our response. > > Likewise, 9/11 didn't change the history, decades of violence and attempts > at peace and their failure, or the sociopolitical culture that > greeted Bush > & Cheney on 9/12. We are in the process of mythmaking, just as the Gulf of > Tonkin "incident" justified Johnson accelerating US activity in SE Asia. > 9/11 is being used as an excuse, not a justification. Identifying WMD and > the threat of their use is justification for regime change, not > speculation > and conjecture or wishful thinking. > > However, historians are kept busy writing books about just such decisions > and calls to war for far sillier reasons. - Karen > The Iraq Obsession: Summary > 14 August 2002 > Opposition to a U.S. attack on Iraq is increasingly being voiced > internationally and within Washington. Despite the divisions it > is causing, > the Bush administration is not abandoning its strategy because it sees a > successful campaign against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as a prime way to > shatter the psychological advantage within the Islamist movement and > demonstrate U.S. power. > > Analysis > > The diplomatic and political walls began to close in on the Bush > administration's Iraq policy last week. First, German Chancellor Gerhard > Schroeder very publicly announced something Berlin had been > saying privately > for years: The German government wants no part in any invasion of > Iraq. Then > Republican House majority leader Dick Armey said he saw little > justification > for an Iraqi operation. > > Schroeder's stance may be mainly a political ploy aimed at Germany's Sept. > 22 elections as he currently is trailing conservative challenger Edmund > Stoiber, who has taken a more pro-U.S. military stance. But > Washington must > still take seriously the opposition to an Iraq campaign within the German > government and populace. Germany is a key staging area for U.S. forces. > There are pre-positioned equipment and forces based in the country that > undoubtedly would be needed for any attack. Depending on the opposition, > U.S. bases in Germany might not be available for use. > > The statement from Armey also means that in addition to expected > opposition > from liberals, Bush
RE: Lawrence de Bivort
Now we're getting somewhere! > And while I was not forced to wear a Burqa, I was threatened > with parental disownment if I did not get a haircut.
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!)
Greetings, Salvador,
Many thanks for your email. I only wish I spoke Spanish as well as you
speak English!
> I am not an English speaking person, as I guess you know. My knowledge of
> your language is very limited. That's why I am curious about the
> meaning of
> an expresion you use recurrently and (I guess) in a pejorative sense:
> western male.
I don't mean 'western male' in a pejorative sense, but in a descriptive one,
and, yes, I was criticizing western males on the point of their cultural and
cognitive certainties re. Muslim practices. Of course, that is a
generalization and there are many western males who do not hold to such
certainties, especially when they are questioned.
> I thought that Lawrence is a male name but I may be wrong.
> Excuse me for asking, but are ayou a female? Because "western male" sounds
> to me as a feminist adjective. Only curiosity.
Yes, I am a western male and so was referring broadly to a group that I
belong to. I was raised in Europe, live in the US, am limited to four
languages, and don't travel or read as much as I should.
> By the way, are there significant differences between western males and
> eastern males, or western females, in terms of certainty? Is the answer a
> certainty itself?
I focused on western males because we were talking a Muslim and female
practices of dress. I do suspect that on other issues, we would find
western females, and eastern males and females full of their own (blind and
ignorant) certainties. I suupose that it is an age-old practice of all
cultures to assert how right they are and how wrong everyone else is. It
just saddens me to see this unfortunate pattern repeat itself here on this
wonderful Internet. I have just come from a three-day seminar with a dozen
founders of personal computers, the Internet, and the World-Wide Web. Their
hope has been that these technologies would enable us to build a better
world. It is dispiriting to find medieval hubris creeping in, even here.
> I think more or less the same way as Christoph Reuss regarding nuns habit
> and choice. And I am also a western male.
And what is your thought and experience with covered Muslim women? If it is
possible for nuns to choose their concealing clothing (and Catholic women
generally to do so when they enter a church), might it not also be the case
that Muslim women make such a choice?
> Another anecdotical contribution: the neighbourhood where I live in Mexico
> City is the most important jewish gettho in the country and I see a lot of
> hassidic (hope it's well written) kids playing football o riding bikes
> dressed in their gloomy (from my point of view, of course) black
> suits, with
> their old fashioned gangster-style black hats and the curls. Many
> times I've
> seen these kids watching non jewish kids (as my son, 14 yo) dressed as
> normal (statistical meaning) young people: soccer shirts
> (Manchester United,
> Roma or, much better, Real Madrid), pants or jeans, sport shoes... and I
> think that they would gladly change if they had the freedom to do that. Of
> course I may be wrong, it's a hunch not a (western male)
> certainty. But this
> "uniform", as long as you can not choose how to dress, seems to me
> comparable to the burkas, ("portable prisons", what a good expression).
> If you tell me that these kids choose to dress that way I won't
> say nothing,
> but I doubt it.
Salvador, I invite you to re-read your own description of these Hassidic
kids. "Gangster-style" blackhats? If, as I believe is the case, Hassidic
practices predate Chicago gansters by several centuries, might it not be
more fair and more accurate, to accuse gangsters of wearing Hassidic-style
hats? You see what I am getting at, of course
> I haven't ask because it's not easy at all to speak with
> these people when you are not one of them.
You might be surprised over how easy and how rewarding it might be to talk
with Hassidics about their practices. I think that you (or anyone else) who
did so might come away with a greater understanding of another culture, and
of how the world works. As with the case of Muslim women, I can suggest a
couple of ways that you could do this, if you wish to have any suggestions.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone reading our corrspendence here decided to
approach members of the cultural group that seems most strange to them, and
to sit down and explore each other's worlds?
> You can also argue that the
> clothes my son wear are also a uniform, and it's true, but he can at least
> choose the color of his shirt and his hairdressing.
> Burkas has many forms and are closer than we use to accept.
I am missing your meaning here: Burkas are closer than we use to accept?
I am delighted that you are on this list, and hope you will participate as
much as you wish to.
Best regards,
Lawry
RE: Women love the burka! (The annals of cross-dressing, etc.)
Brad, with all due respect, don't you think this single and limited contact falls a little short of 'in all fairness to the Muslim religion'? > In all fairness to the Muslim religion, I once met a > woman who was a diplomat assigned to the United Nations, > from Syria, who was Moslem but could just as well > have been a world citizen from any other > "background". > But it is better than not having any personal contact. Best regards, Lawry
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!)
You reveak your ignorance, Chris: not permitted to talk to a burka'ed woman? This shows how little you know... As I said, if anyone wants any advice on how to do this, I would provide it. I realized that some might feel intimidated by the possibility of doing so, but it is not at all difficult. You don't even ask how to do it, but simply dismiss the possibility. This suggests to me that you don't really want to. Of course, as a person with your over-weaning self-certainty, any suggestion that you actually make an inquiry about facts is bound to fall on deaf ears. But we have seen you do this at other times, so I don't think anyone will be surprised. What hubris to assert that you, the great Chris, merely need to make up your mind to know everything, and that the poor fools whose experience you seek to interpret or explain are too ignorant to be even worth-while asking! It is not so much your ignorance I find appalling, Chris, but your steadfast determination to learn nothing. You are right about one thing: there IS more to social science than asking people questions, but you don't even get to that first, elementary and essential step; lucky you, you already know all the answers. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christoph > Reuss > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) > > > Lawry, you have completely missed my point: That there's much more to > social science than simply asking victims whether they _feel_ victimized. > That's like asking a SUV driver whether he feels safe, and when Bubba says > Yea, then conclude that SUVs _are_ safe. It just ain't that > simple, Lawry. > If it was, we could abolish social science -- after all, any roadsweeper > can go around asking people how they feel. > > Your repeated question whether I ever talked to a nun (yes I did) shows > that you didn't understand the concept of self-selection either. > > Btw, your "advice" to _ask_ burka'ed Muslim women, is a bit funny. > Don't you know that they aren't allowed to talk to male foreigners? > Heaven forbid! (Hmmm... this opens the question what kind of women > you were talking with) > > Chris > >
RE: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Greetings, Harry,
All the reasons as possible causes of the shift in Saudi economic fortunes
obtain, Harry. Revenues did not grow as forecast, public development
projects were launched as if money was infinite, and 'skimming' sucked a lot
of money into private hands and out of the country.
But the first effect of the approach to wealth distirbution was that it
produced aqn under-motivated and under-skilled workforce, along the lines
that Keith has been suggesting and that I explained in an email a few days
ago. Fortunately, there is a small but very well educated, smart and honest
group of 'new Saudis' who can help reset things for the country, tackling
the many problems we have been discussing here. The US, and others, should
be gently supporting these leaders.
Cheers,
Lawry
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:06 AM
> To: Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
>
>
> Keith,
>
> My impression has been that in the past, the Saudis have provided
> much, or
> all, of the living costs for their people from oil revenue. Now, it has
> changed, and their welfare state is not so nearly accommodating. This may
> be why the mob is mumbling.
>
> If this is so, why?
>
> Maybe their oil revenues are down - but can't imagine that.
>
> Are the thousands of princes salting away more in the land of
> cuckoo clocks
> and chocolate?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> Keith wrote:
>
> >Hi Lawry,
> >
> >On this bright and sunny morning I'll return to the tail-end of your
> >posting (without re-naming the thread this time!) because it contains a
> >couple of very important points.
> >
> >1.
> >According to Prof Bernard Lewis ("What went wrong?"), the principal enemy
> >of fundamentalist Islam in most countries is *not* other religions,
> >zionism, communism or even western imperialism(!) but secularism
> itself and
> >its associated schools and universities. I found this difficult
> to believe,
> >but thinking about the direction in which fundamentalist Christianity
> >appears to be rapidly heading in western countries (with its denial of
> >scientific facts in biology, for example) then I won't argue with one of
> >the world's authorities on Islam.
> >
> >Wahhabism must therefore share considerable blame for the
> economic decline
> >of Saudi Arabia in that its type of religious education, which dominates
> >the vast majority of schools (except presumably of the private
> schools for
> >the rich in Riyadh) excludes any form of practical education
> and, in fact,
> >produces a state of mind quite early in a boy's life that causes him to
> >abjure any sort of technical education even if it were available later.
> >(Therefore all work in private non-oil industry and the retail trade is
> >carried out by foreignors.) I've mentioned that only 2% of graduates
> >(themselves a minority of the youth population) are qualified in
> >engineering and suchlike. Presumably, this has been "allowed"
> in a sort of
> >unconscious manner (by the Wahhibist clerics) in order to produce just
> >enough technically trained Saudis who can supervise their oil industry.
> >
> >2.
> >The second important point is that, as you say, all Saudi men (and in
> >several other oil-rich Gulf states) don't need to work because
> they receive
> >an income, health services, etc. from the state. This complete dependency
> >on the state, negating the need for practical education and the faintest
> >spark of enterprise, is now a great danger for these countries. It is a
> >"pure" example of what happens when the welfare state is predominant. In
> >effect, it is crippling the culture of any such country for at least a
> >couple of generations to come, even if radical reform were to
> start taking
> >place immediately.
> >
> >(I am not against the idea of the welfare state in principle in the west.
> >It's a matter of where to draw the line. It is quite clear in all western
> >countries that the verdict of the last century [from the
> political left and
> >right] is that the welfare state has proceeded too far, and that it now
> >needs to recede somewhat if sufficient enterprise [for economic renewal]
> >and self-responsibility [for lower crime rates] are to be maintained.)
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >(LdB)
> >
> >Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have
> >tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil
> >revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of
> the country,
> >and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on
> >the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of
> their own. This
> >is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is
> a very hard
> >nut to crack. Saudi over-spending has left them in debt, and so
> this pattern
> >is
RE: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Greetings, Robert, I am interested in your further ideas for a 'new plan.' Can you explore that a bit for us? It is entirely true that one's economic viability in the US now rests on the ability to do several things, and to learn fast. This implies a quite different cognitive and cultural model than the ones taught by traditional parents and in traditional schools. But the indicators that this would become the case are several decades old, and, personally, it is difficult for me to find a lot of sympathy for those who still haven't figured it out. Some sympathy, but not a lot. I hope you'll follow-up on your posting. Best regards, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:55 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countriesIf I may be so bold as to jump into this discourse. It does seem obvious that we are on the verge of financial disaster here in the US. There is no decent safety net to take up the slack. As areas of the country are reeling from the collapse of the telecoms, the airways, and previously the dot. coms, one has to wonder only when, not if, the entire retail sector and housing sector will follow suit following in the footsteps of the most unlucky areas to date. Talented folk put out of work, with negative home equity, have a difficult time relocating and many wonder why bother, since the next remote employer may soon join the list of has been financial wonders.The crisis of faith has become systemic. The best and the brightest are finding that they are dispensible when they get a little age and bright, younger, eager replacements are waiting for jobs at a fraction of their older , but far from old, colleague's salaries.So doing the "right thing" , ie becoming educated and finding a good job, has turned out to be a reciept for economic ruin for thousands of techies. As long as the bottom line is the yardstick upon which all is measured, there cannever be a bit of security or safety for American families.The disillusioned are more than ready to go where angels feared to tread just a few years ago. Many good plans could be implimented, but the propensity of the human ego to endlessly modify usually makes any workable plan impotent .We need a workable plan that can be accepted and we need some great orators and statesmen to disseminate. Robert
RE: Three strikes and you're out ( was Re: Waco economics)
Hello, Keith. I think the Bush steely-eyed, lean-over-the-lecturn-talk-tough posture is running thin, and probably impresses the mullahs of Wall Street no more than it does those in the rest of the world > -Original Message- > From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 10:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Three strikes and you're out ( was Re: Waco economics) > > > Lawry, > > At 11:31 14/08/02 -0700, you wrote: > >Awaiting the lifting of the metaphorical veil so present on our list, I > >pause to ask if anyone else on this list has noticed the odd congruity > >between Bush's Rovish economic 'conference' and the place it is > being held, > >Waco? > > > >Cheers, > >Lawry > > I'd noticed. I've also noticed that whenever Bush talks about the economy, > the Dow Jones promptly heads southwards. Today is the third time it's > happened. He'd better not speak too often in the future or we'll all be in > deep stoop. > > Keith > -- > -- > -- > > Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!)
Well, Arthur, it is that assumption, precisely, that I am challenging. How would you know you don't have to talk to any of them? How in the world can you be so certain, except by simply (and possibly blindly) 'being certain'. It is, I would suggest, an untested and hence unmerited certainty. If you are willing to pay attention to her eyes (and read so much into them!) why not go a step further and actually, gulp, converse with the/a real person? Why, why, why have western males become so certain of their certainty? It boggles my mind how much that is fundamental importance we western males don't know, and don't know that we don't know. What in the world do you do with the Muslim women in the US (and I assume Canada) who are deciding now to cover themselves, or even wear a veil? Or have you decided that they are all being forced to do so, or are simply stupid and deluded? I do think you can only figure this out by asking Why so resist the idea of doing so? By the way, it occurred to me that many of those on this list might not know _how_ to go about having such talks. If this is the case, please let me know and I'll give you a couple of easy-to-implement ideas. Best regards, Lawry > The issue is choice. I really don't have to TALK to a burda'ed > Muslim woman > to know that they lack choice.
RE: Waco economics
True believers, and also the place of the infamous deaths of Koreish (sp?)'s followers (incl. many children) at the hands of an over-zealous FBI and Alcohol/Tobacco/Firearms department. And then we have the delicious linguistic coincidence of Waco and 'whacky' The New York Times website has an article on the 'conference.' Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Waco economics > > > The place for "true believers??" > > -Original Message- > From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 2:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Waco economics > > > Awaiting the lifting of the metaphorical veil so present on our list, I > pause to ask if anyone else on this list has noticed the odd congruity > between Bush's Rovish economic 'conference' and the place it is > being held, > Waco? > > Cheers, > Lawry >
Waco economics
Awaiting the lifting of the metaphorical veil so present on our list, I pause to ask if anyone else on this list has noticed the odd congruity between Bush's Rovish economic 'conference' and the place it is being held, Waco? Cheers, Lawry
RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!)
Well,it is a delight to see another white western male so knowledgeable about these matters. So, to my rapidly expanding list of questionees, I ask Chris: Have YOU EVER talked with a veiled/covered/burka'ed Muslim women about these matters? And, have you ever talked with a Catholic covered woman, nun (or monk, for that matter) about these matters? If the answer is 'no,' Chris, I suggest you do so before pronouncing yourself with such absolutist vehemance on these matters. I know that you have a penchant for denying the validity of what anyone says (including Muslim women) that contradicts your firmly-held views of the world, but your dismissal of what the very people you are making your judgments about say about their own experience of life, is risable. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christoph > Reuss > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 7:40 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) > > > Lawry deBivort wrote: > > Have you ever asked a nun or a catholic woman whether they feel > oppressed > > when they wear 'habit' or cover themselves? > > Becoming a nun or being/remaining a catholic is a _choice_. > Getting born in Afghanistan is _not_ a choice (and staying there often > isn't a choice either). > So the former group is much more likely to like their dressing code. > In statistics it's called self-selection. > > > > Barbara Walters did a special on women in Saudi Arabia, and > focused, as she > > would, on the veil. Among the five women she interviewed, several were > > pro-veil. But this is just another anecdote... > > Few victims want to admit that they are being victimized, > especially if they > have been brainwashed all their life, and if they know that their > statement > is public (and can be heard by their oppressors, who then might > take action > against the "whistleblowers"). Some sort of "Stockholm syndrome"... > > So, when "several were pro-veil", does that mean that they _really_like_ > the burqa (which BTW is much more than a veil) ? Of course not! > > Chris > >
RE: Women love the burka!
Good morning, Keith, I will ask you, Keith, the same question I asked Brad (and which I am still hoping he will answer): Have you EVER talked with a veiled/covered/burka'ed (sp?) Muslim woman about this? And another question: Have either of you ever tried one on? Have you ever asked a nun or a catholic woman whether they feel oppressed when they wear 'habit' or cover themselves? Somehow, I wouldn't much trust the casual personal opinion of white Western males on this (including my own, if I were unable to answer the above questions affirmatively). Barbara Walters did a special on women in Saudi Arabia, and focused, as she would, on the veil. Among the five women she interviewed, several were pro-veil. But this is just another anecdote... Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brad McCormick, Ed.D. > Subject: Women love the burka! > > > I must return to your original posting (Re: SA and Work in oil-rich > countries) on a point I overlooked in my previous replies. > > I could hardly believe my eyes when I read your comment on burkas! > > At 11:35 13/08/02 -0700, you wrote: > > Nothing wrong with burkas, Keith -- except that the Western feminist > movement has labelled them oppressive. I haven't heard any feminist say > 'Ops, maybe we were wrong. Maybe our Afghani sisters really DO like to > wear burkas, in the same way that we Western women have our own clothing > habits, rules and taboos. Hm," our enlightened feminist would go on to > say, "I wonder what our Afghani sisters say about our high-heels, our > display of skin, our make-up, our tight-clothing.is it possible that > they don't see, whith all these things, how advanced and sophisticated we > western women are???" > > > The burka is a total denial of one of the basic characteristics of > humankind -- the need to communicate and socialise. > > Do the Afghan (Saudi Arabian) women like to wear burkas? Of course they > don't! Brad is quite right. He expressed the situation superbly when he > wrote: "Burqas are the outward and visible sign of portable imprisonment." > > I have seen at least three TV documentaries where western journalists have > interviewed Afghan women in their homes. The latter expressed themselves > bitterly. However, it is an unfortunate fact that since the "deliverance" > of Afghanis from the yoke of the Taliban (doubtful -- it's highly > likely to > resurge) very few women are to be seen outdoors without their burkas > because fundamentalism still reigns. Only the most intelligent, > well-educated minority of women have the courage to do so at present. > > Changing the subject slightly and reverting to Saudi Arabia, > here's a story > that was recently printed in the NYT: > > "An acquaintance here in Saudi Arabia told me his story: He was > touring the > countryside by car and got slightly lost. He saw a car down the road and > approached it to ask directions, but each time he drew near, the car sped > away. Eventually he caught up to it, the car pulled over, and a terrified > driver jumped out to flee: it was a Saudi woman dressed like a man. In a > country where it is illegal for women to drive, that's the only way for a > lady to get behind the wheel." > > The benign way that we in the west tolerate the servitude of hundreds of > millions of women in Islamic countries is shameful. Hindu practices in > India are just as bad. The practice of Suttee (wives throwing themselves, > or being thrown) onto the funeral pyre of their husbands is still > practised. > > Keith > > > -- > -- > > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: Women love the burka!
I must ask you, does the story from the NYT sound truly plausible to you? Or a littlecontrived? > > "An acquaintance here in Saudi Arabia told me his story: He was > touring the > countryside by car and got slightly lost. He saw a car down the road and > approached it to ask directions, but each time he drew near, the car sped > away. Eventually he caught up to it, the car pulled over, and a terrified > driver jumped out to flee: it was a Saudi woman dressed like a man. In a > country where it is illegal for women to drive, that's the only way for a > lady to get behind the wheel." Cheers, Lawry
SA and Work in oil-rich countries
It is a sad reality that due to its political nature there is in Washington both 'analysis' and 'spin'. The latter seeks to look like the former, but its purpose is to affect policy. Truth and balance are not a necessary component of spin: it is part of the mammoth lobbying effort that permeates Washington. Lobbyists are, at best, one sided, but to politicians who are largely ignorant of substantive issues and not too particular about procedural or substantive integrity, effective lobbyists can sometimes take on quasi-staff roles with the politicians. The Saudi presentation was in the spin category, a collaboration between Perle et al, and the presenter. It's utility lies in the impact has on the thinking of policy-makers. Officially, Perle is not a policy-maker; he issuccessful only through influence, so leaking a presentation whose credibility he builds up by having it preseneted to his advisory group is the only way he can move Washington opinion against the Saudis. WHY he and the other neo-conservatives would do so is another matter. > The comment that can be made here is that the Muslim countries of the > Middle East are as different from one another as, say, west European > countries still are, despite almost parallel industrial develoment for a > century or more. Yes, this is absolutely correct. But understanding these vital differences requires study and understanding, something that the 'instant experts' who eagerly follow governmental interest from crisis to crisis are short on. You cannotr imagine the number of heretofore unknown 'experts' on terrorism have descended on Washington, eager to receive contracts! The Middle East field is now deluged with these charlatans; they learn enough to acquire a bit of a vocabulary, and sniff out some patron to serve. Those who are good at self-promotion and energetic enough can end up with considerable influence. If the government seems to be following naive and incoherent policy, you now know why. > However, I think most scholars would agree that the common feature of them > all is that, for subtle reasons that no-one has yet adequately > explained or > agreed upon, the Muslim Empire -- highly civilised, liberal, prosperous, > inventive, with great trading routes from Spain through to Asia -- started > retreating 500 years or so ago and has subsequently reacted with > increasing > anger against western civilisation rather than being able to reform (with > the possible exception of Turkey -- where the secularisation brought about > by Kemal Ataturk is now in some danger even after half a century of being > implanted). Yes, this question has been the subject of several books, recently, and some of them are pretty good. In part, it is simply a matter of why empires come and go -- nothing specific to Islam, and in part it has its unique Islamic components. This is a subject that I would love to discuss further, but I think it may radically exceed the scope of this list... > The reaction in most instances has taken the form of falling back to an > intensely puritanical form of Islam as the only way of retaining their > dignity and self-respect. We've seen this fairly recently in the case of > the rapid rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- which, I suggest, is far > from being defeated (I notice, most women are still wearing burkas!) Nothing wrong with burkas, Keith -- except that the Western feminist movement has labelled them oppressive. I haven't heard any feminist say 'Ops, maybe we were wrong. Maybe our Afghani sisters really DO like to wear burkas, in the same way that we Western women have our own clothing habits, rules and taboos. Hm," our enlightened feminist would go on to say, "I wonder what our Afghani sisters say about our high-heels, our display of skin, our make-up, our tight-clothing.is it possible that they don't see, whith all these things, how advanced and sophisticated we western women are???" > This is particularly so in Saudi Arabia where, indeed, the present Saudi > royal family came to power by mounting a jihad in 1902 with the assistance > of the Wahhabi sect, and have been indebted to them ever since. 1922 perhaps? It wasn't a jihad -- it was a tribal war vs. the Hashemites. The Saudi tribe WAS Wahhabi -- they didn't do it with the assistance of such a 'sect'-- it is simply a desert tribal Arabian school of Islam. And, yes, Wahhabism is a strong social and moral force in Saudi Arabia, and does stand in variance to modernizing -- meaning, for better or worse -- westernizing forces Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the country, and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own. This is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This
RE: Next 11 September
Hi, Keith, The "RAND Report" isn't a RAND report. Rather the presentation that you are referring to is by a short-term French 'analyst' who is working out of RAND. I don't have a great opinion of RAND's political analysis generally, finding it sadly superficial and commercial, but in all fairness to RAND, I don't think we can blame the organization for this one-person show. I see the presentation (made to Perle's advisory group) as being part of the concerted effort to demonize Saudi Arabia. Can you say more about the 'bonded labor'? Are these workers who are brought in by Saudi employers for fixed periods and who out of their earnings have to pay off the cost of their tranportation? I know of this pattern in South America. Is this what you are referring to? I know Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries for the last 3-4 decades via visits, academic study, participation in several projects there, and being part of the community of US-based Middle Eastern specialists, but Saudi Arabia after the 1930s has not been a focus of any of my studies, so I do not consider myself an expert on it. Your description of the British who are in jail caught me by surprise; I hadn't realized that they had been there so long or under the conditions you describe. There is an incongruence here; it has no been a Saudi pattern to treat foreigners the way you describe, and so I am wondering whether there might not be more to the story than we know? > At 12:51 12/08/02 -0700, you wrote: > >Gosh, Keith. I know quite a few Saudi Arabians, and quite a bit > about Saudi > >Arabia, and have none of the senses that you describe. None. As you say: " We'll have to wait and see." > > >Too many Europeans > >and Americans travel to other cultures with the attitude they can do > >anything they damn well please, and then howl with outrage when they are > >arrested for (usually egregiously) breaking the laws. > > Well, that's one way of putting it, I suppose, but I still think that if > the Saudi royal family and many of their rich businessmen who buy up > expensive properties in the west (such as some beautiful country estates > round here) and seek to live like us, then one might expect that > they would > do their best to bring their country out of abysmal medievalism, > start some > schools to teach skills to their young men, endow a few universities, give > their womenfolk ordinary citizens' rights and generally treat their fellow > Saudis with reasonable decency. I agree in general -- there is considerable hypocrisy in all this. Specifically, with regrd to universities, many such HAVE been endowed and boast some pretty well-equipped and staffed faculties. Generally, I think, some of the negative conditions you refer to stem not from the Saudi government but from religious fundamentalists so seek to impose their views on the general population. Here isn the US, we are also seeing a rise in religious fundamentlism, and are already, in the form of lowered standards of civil rights and judicial processes,among other things, suffering the effects. I believe it will take some years for America to clean-up this social pollution, for the "war on terrorism" has proven a wonderful camouflage for those who hold these fundamentalist and neo-conservative views. Cheers, Lawry
RE: #241: Pipes invitation to DC lunch event on Aug 14
Please be aware that Pipes is a rabid anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, along neo-Zabotinsky Revisionist lines. ANY 'study' that he is involved in will be oriented to this agenda and is suspect. Pipes, when it comes to US understanding of the Middle East and the formation of policy, is an influential part of the problem. I have seen him in action several times and read a number of his writings, so this is not a single-data-point off the cuff assessment. Nor, of course, is the National Press Club -- which groups with a message rent to give themselves an audience) -- the place where a legitimate academic group would report on a study they had concluded. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:15 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: FW: #241: Pipes invitation to DC lunch event on Aug 14 Those in the Washington DC area with time and interest. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 8:33 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: #241: Pipes invitation to DC lunch event on Aug 14 Daniel Pipes invites you to an event: SUBJECT:Immigration from the Middle East, a discussion centering on two new reports: 1) Daniel Pipes and Khalid Durán, Muslim Immigrants in the United States. The authors review the socio-economic characteristics of Muslim immigrants and show why this cultural interaction is so fraught with implications. 2) Steven Camarota, "Immigrants from the Middle East in the U.S.-2000: A Profile of the Foreign-Born Population From Pakistan to Morocco." This first study to examine the size, growth, and characteristics of this population using data just released by the Census Bureau examines the rapid growth in the Middle Eastern population and the change from predominantly Christian to predominantly Muslim, as well as projecting future immigration.SPONSOR:Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), http://www.cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. It is not affiliated with any group.PARTICIPANTS:Daniel Pipes, director, Middle East Forum;Steven Camarota, research director, CIS; andPeter Skerry, government professor, Claremont McKenna CollegeDATE & TIME:August 14, 2002, at 12 noonLOCATION:Murrow RoomNational Press Club14th and F Street NWWashington, DCRSVP to:John Keeley at 202-466-8185 or[EMAIL PROTECTED] orhttp://www.cis.org To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go to http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/dplist Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings approximately twice per week. To receive television alerts, event invitations, lecture summaries, and news releases from the Middle East Forum, please sign up for the MEFnews mailing list at: http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/mefnews Please note: these do not duplicate the DPlist mailings (such as this one). Also, you are invited to visit the MEF site at: http://www.meforum.org
RE: Next 11 September
Gosh, Keith. I know quite a few Saudi Arabians, and quite a bit about Saudi Arabia, and have none of the senses that you describe. None. Perhaps you are falling prey to the increasingly engineered anti-Saudi rant that the media is carrying? My impression of Saudis is that of friendliness to the US and to Americans, self-interest but restraint on oil sales, zero promotion of terrorism, and honest struggles with issues of modernity and traditional values. What different points of view we have! But I think mine is the one generally held by people who really know the country and its people, not the least of which includes US Ambassadors, scholars, expats who have worked in the country, and general experts on the Middle East. I am as always intrigued with your scenarios, skeptical over the amount of centralized planning and coordination that they posit. But mostly I hope that you remember that they are _only_ scenarios, and that reality may be quite different. Re. the Brits who have been arrested for setting up a distribution network for booze they distilled in their bathtubs (not just a small case of smuggling in a whiskey bottle or two!) my guess is that if they had apologized and showed public contrition, they would be on an airplane out of there pretty quickly. I don't know much about the case, and don't know who they were working for, but I would guess that their companies had given them briefings on what was expected of them and their behavior in Saudi Arabia (SOP for expats) so they can't claim innocent ignorance. Too many Europeans and Americans travel to other cultures with the attitude they can do anything they damn well please, and then howl with outrage when they are arrested for (usually egregiously) breaking the laws. Best regards, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:04 AM > To: William B Ward > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Next 11 September > > > Bill, > > At 09:08 12/08/02 -0400, you wrote: > >Keith, > > > >While the scenarios you mention may all occur, I feel that you are > >imputing too much logic to the Bush contingent. My guess is that they are > >simply trying to put the squeeze on Sa'ud and trying to help out a few > >Congress people for the November elections. I bet you will see a change > >in the polemics once the elections are over. > > I hardly think so. The Saudis have been a thorn in the flesh of the > Americans for too many years. For example, as swing producer in OPEC, SA > has been able to manipulate oil prices for the last 20 years. Also, what > about the many American deaths in recent years organised by > terrorists paid > for and organised out of SA? The authorities made no attempt to arrest the > network even though they must know exactly who they are. (In the case of > the most recent bombing, the Saudis have arrested a few Englishmen as > terrorists even though all that they appear to have done is to organise a > little whiskey smuggling!) The most the Saudis have done was to banish > Osama bin Laden, but they didn't stop huge quantities of funds being > funnelled to him from SA. > > In diplomatic terms, America has been treated with something akin to open > contempt by the Saudis in the last 20 years but haven't responded in a > heavy-handed way because of the importance of oil supplies to the US and > Europe. But 11 September finally pushed America too far. (The ploy of > somehow making Saddam Hussein the scapegoat must have been the personal > contribution of Bush senior!) > > As for the logic of the Bush contingent I'll grant you that the President > himself is not over-endowed in the greymatter department, but the people > behind him (such as Wolfowitz) are certainly very bright kiddies indeed. > I'm not normally a conspiracy-theory supporter but my guess is that the > Carlyle group, Bush senior, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and > specialist advisors > in the State department (and a few progressive Saudi Arabians) have been > thinking about the Islamic fundamentalist problem intensely for two or > three years now given the state of King Fahd's health. 11 September > catalysed their ideas. > > You may be right but I'd lay odds of 10:1 on that my scenario is going to > be nearer the mark. The polemics can't simply change on Bush's say-so > because the underlying problems will still be there. By the time the > November elections come along, I think Gulf War II will have already > started and getting into its stride. (And by this I mean a much wider > affair than merely anti-Iraq. ) . > > Keith > > > -- > -- > -- > > Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV/World War III
Democracy requires more than free speech, don't you think, Arthur? Agreed, the Grinberg piece was a good provocative challenge. I'll check on him via Google, as you suggest. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 8:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV/World War III > > > A search on Google on Lev Grinberg shows the really open nature of Israeli > society. Free speech is apparently held as a strong value. Democracy in > action. > > arthur cordell > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV/World War III > > > http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0207busharon.html > > The BUSHARON Global War > > By Lev Grinberg July 8, 2002 > (Dr. Lev Grinberg is a political analyst and a >senior lecturer at Ben-Gurion University, Israel.) > > President George Bush's June 24th speech outlining U.S. policy > toward Israel and Palestine intensified the plight of the peace > supporters in Israel, and in the entire Middle East. Since 1977, > residents had been accustomed to American presidents playing the > role of "fair mediators"--pressuring Israel to restrain violence > and to negotiate with its neighbors. Jimmy Carter mediated between > Begin and Sadat; Ronald Reagan brought Israel and the PLO to a > first cease-fire pact in 1981, and stopped Sharon before occupying > Beirut in 1982. George Bush Senior coerced Shamir into the Madrid > Peace Conference after the Gulf War, and Bill Clinton was best man > to Rabin and Arafat. Then, and all of a sudden, comes a president > who not only doesn't mediate but also unilaterally supports > Sharon. This is not only confusing to the Israeli "peace camp," > but places the Palestinian leadership in an awkward position, not > to mention the rest of the Arab states. In March the Arab League > accepted a brave peace plan, initiated by Saudi Arabia, and > President Bush dismissed it out of hand. > > George Bush did not present a peace plan, but instead, in the > subtext, we can understand who his allies are in his war plans. > During the past half a year Bush stands at Sharon's side and spurs > him onwards on his aggressive policies. The obvious question is: > Why did Bush quit playing the "fair mediator" between Israel and > its neighbors? The explanation I suggest here is very simple: Bush > is planning to launch an attack on Iraq, and in recent months he > has come to the conclusion that, for the purpose of this war > Sharon is a more reliable and worthwhile ally than the moderate > Arab states. Bush doesn't care too much about peace between Israel > and Palestine, nor is he all that bothered by the millions of > Palestinians living under curfew in intolerable and inhuman > conditions, and neither is he really concerned about the Israeli > casualties caused by the despaired suicide bombers. "Let them > bleed" was the Bush administration's motto early on in its reign, > until it became politically incorrect on 9/11. And yet, as long as > the Bush administration continues in its plans to attack Iraq, we, > Palestinians and Israelis, will continue to bleed. > > What makes so clear that Bush is mainly concerned with his war > plans? It is a matter of timing. In his speech Bush suggests the > establishment of a Palestinian state within three years, focusing > in the meantime on replacing Arafat and installing a new, > democratic, uncorrupted, transparent, and efficient Palestinian > administration during the coming year and a half. This means the > Palestinian state will be established only AFTER the war against > Iraq, if at all. Bush wants a strong and deterring Israel during > the attack on Iraq, first of all because Saddam Hussein might bomb > Tel-Aviv, as he did in 1991, and then Sharon will surely join the > war. Second, because "America's enemies" throughout the Arab world > might awaken during such a war. Israel's job would then be to > deter, and eventually fight, Washington's enemies within its "area > of influence:" the Occupied Territories, Lebanon, Syria, and > Jordan. > > How did this full understanding between Bush and Sharon > crystallize? It has developed smoothly since 9/11. Immediately > after the attack on the Twin Towers Sharon tried to get on the > "War-On-Terrorism" bandwagon, declaring that "Arafat is our Bin > Laden." This position was firmly rejected by the U.S. > administration, mainly because they were planning an attack on > Afghanistan, and did not want to endanger the expected cooperation > with the pro-American Arab states. However, during the war in > Afghanistan, the Bush administration was disappointed with the > positions of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. After the end of the war and > the demolition
RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV
I am getting deluged with articles like this. I _think_ it is coming from the neoconservative ignorati, and has something to do with their perspectives that we (the West) are in a (military) clash of cultures with Islam. Of course, this is nonsense, but it doesn give them a sense of beiung engaged in a heroic, God-pleasing conflict. Sad. And dangerous. It is generous of Kissinger to suggest that Bush's mania might create a problem for us in India, but in fact Kissinger underestimates the problems that the Bush 'doctrine' has already caused us, and they will be all the greater when the administration starts to act on the notion that what we want, we take, and the world be damned. Lawry > -Original Message- > From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:23 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV > > > Jan, Keith, Lawry et al: What does it mean to you that articles like this > are appearing in the mainstream press? > Also, did you see Henry Kissinger's piece relaying the history of the 1648 > Treat of Westphalia, establishing "the principle of nonintervention in the > domestic affairs of other states" to illustrate how revolutionary the Bush > doctrine may be and why it is necessary (WMD)? His Eminence suggests that > Europe will grudgingly support Bush, if at all, but that "the most > interesting, and potentially fateful, reaction, may well be India's, which > will be tempted to apply the new principle of pre-emption against > akistan." - Karen > > Beyond Baghdad: [PARA]Expanding Target List[PARA]Washington looks at > overhauling the Islamic and Arab world[PARA][PARA][PARA][PARA]Iranian > President Mohammed Khatami's efforts at reform have been hindered by the > unelected mullahs who dominate public life > > By Roy Gutman and John Barry > NEWSWEEK > > Aug. 19 issue - While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq's Saddam > Hussein, the Bush administration is already looking for other targets. > President Bush has called for the ouster of Palestinian leader > Yasir Arafat. > Now some in the administration-and allies at D.C. think tanks-are eyeing > Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior British official put > it: "Everyone > wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." > > ... Richard Perle, chairman of Bush's Defense Policy Board, > recently invited > a controversial French scholar to brief the outside advisers on > "taking the > Saudi out of Arabia." When word leaked to the press, the Bush > administration strongly denied it wanted to oust the Saudi royal regime. > Still, some insiders continue to whisper about the possibility. Syria and > even Egypt are now under discussion in neoconservative circles, along with > North Korea and Burma." > > ...Tony Blair, the only foreign leader who might join in a U.S.-led > intervention in Iraq, is asking tough questions. "He wants to know a lot > more about what the administration's real agenda is," says a top > Blair aide. > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/792516.asp > > > > > >
RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV
Greetings all, and an early good morning. I'm coming up for air, upon which I blame any nonsense that may ensue: There are profound differences between the situation now and that that prevailed in WWI. 1. SH had occupied Kuwait. 2. Lots countries wanted, each of their reasons, to undo that occupation. 3. Some of these contributed substantially to the Gulf I effort: Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, UK, Iran, et al. None of these conditions obtain now. SH is accused of seeking to develop chemical/biological/nuclear weapons of "mass destruction" -- (whatever that means). But this is ALL that is known: a. In the aftermath of Gulf I we know that SH had developed (and used) chemical weapons. We have zero evidence that he has developed or was seeking to develop nuclear or bio weapons. b. Iraq ejected the UN weapons inspection teams, and before that obstructed their inspection processes. What does this add up to? Not much, and certainly no casus belli. Given the lack of casus belli, and in distinction to Gulf I, many will oppose any attack we make on Iraq as unwarranted. They will also view the Bush 'doctrine' that lies behind it (unlimited and un-vetted preemptive strikes at 'suspected' sources of terrorism), as a potential threat to _any_ country that has a quarrel with the US. The countries and peoples who will see any Gulf II in this way are not limited to Muslim countries, but to any country that is starting to see the US as a bully, out of control. They don't have to love SH to feel this way; they simply have to fear the US or believe that the US has gone 'too far.' This is the first time in US history that I can think of where the US government has simply targeted another country because we don't like it. So, why do we do so? One of the many interesting things about Bush and SH, is that it is a rivalry that seems almost entirely personal, and one that is being exploited by others for their own purposes. Only two other countries are urging Bush on: Kuwait and Israel. Odd, isn't it? Even Tony Blair is backing off. Kuwait is pushing Bush on by asserting that the US did only 'half the job' in Gulf I. This is, of course, nonsense; US objectives were to expel Iraq from Kuwait, and that was achieved 100%. Kuwait _does_ have continuing issues with Iraq, some major, but it is nonsense and ill-behooves Kuwait to be asserting that we didn't get the job done, or did not do enough. To this I would say, If Kuwaiti-Iraqi relations deteriorate to the point where US interests are threatened, then we will consider taking action, but we are not is the business of righting all the world's wrongs, and have no interest in further pursuing a vendetta against Kuwait's antagonists. Israel is pushing Bush to attack Iraq because Israel believes that Iraq is not the greatest threat to general Israel security. But Israel's security problems and peace-making skills are such that they will always have enemies, and will always be trying to sic the US on them. To this I would say: the US has done more than enough to protect Israel, and it is time for Israel to do what it has to do to become a 'normal' country and settle the issues that now bring it under such ferocious attack. The US is not interested in further sacrifices of US lives and resources to maintain Israel in its present un-viable posture. There are many things we _can_ do to help Israel, without putting US standing in the world in jeopardy. So, where does that leave us on SH, himself? What many people fail to understand is that Gulf I and our subsequent posture toward SH has served to _build_ -- not minimize -- his stature in Iraq and the Middle East. The US increasingly is viewed as a bully, and SH as one of the few who has the courage to stand up to us. How ironic! SH is one of the least admirable people around, and here we turn him into a heroic figure. In my view, we should do three things regarding SH: 1. Announce that our policy is severe, immediate and non-negotiable retribution against any uses of internationally banned weaponry (CBN) by Iraq. We should make this a general policy, not focused solely on Iraq, but on any country that might use such weapons. Work with other countries generally to limit the spread of CBN-related technology. 2. Ignore SH. Don't criticize him publicly, cease the embargo, and allow the peoples of the world to focus of SH and his policies and actions, rather than on Bush-and-SH. Allow those who wish to bring him down to work to do so without the burden of being viewed as the US's pawns. 3. Remind the Israelis privately that if they want to 'get' SH, they know how to do it better than anyone else, and have the assets in place to do so. Cheers, Lawry > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Watters > Cole > Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:16 AM > To: Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV (was Re: Kenneth Lay in > handcuffs? > > >
RE: Chief Dan George
Thanks for posting this, Brian. I'm temporarily living in southwest Colorado and Ute culture is infused in the region. Especially at a time like this (Sept.11, Bush's "war on terrorism" and the bombing of Afghanistan) these perspectives and sentiments are very welcome. Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brian McAndrewsSent: Friday, January 04, 2002 3:09 PMTo: futurework-scribe.uwaterloo.caSubject: Chief Dan GeorgeI use the following essay written by Dan George with some of my classes. I ask them to agree or disagree with what George 'sees'. It always leads to some rich conversation.Brian McAndrewsChief Dan George, the son of a tribal chief, was born on July 24, 1899, on Burrard Reserve No.3 (Burrard Inlet) on Vancouver’s north shore (British Columbia, Canada) and given the native name of “Geswanouth Slahoot”(Thunder coming up over the land from the water)but known in English as Dan Slaholt. Dan succeded his father as chief after he passed away. "Chief" Dan George was a real chief of the Squamish Band of Burrard Inlet, British Columbia from 1961 to 1963. ---By Dan GeorgeThis then was the culture I was born into and for some years the only one I really knew or tasted. This is why I find it hard to accept many of the things I see around me. I see people living in smoke houses hundreds of times bigger than the one I knew. But the people in one apartment do not even know the people in the next and care less about them. It is also difficult for me to understand the deep hate that exists among people. It is hard to understand a culture that justifies the killing of millions in past wars and is at this very moment preparing bombs to kill even greater numbers. It is hard for me to understand a culture that spends more on wars and weapons to kill, than it does on education and welfare to help and develop.It is hard for me to understand a culture that not only hates and fights his brothers but even attacks nature and abuses her. I see my white brothers going about blotting out nature from his cities. I see him strip the hills bare, leaving ugly wounds on the face of mountains. I see him tearing things from the bosom of mother earth as though she were a monster, who refused to share her treasures with him. I see him throw poison in the waters, indifferent to the life he kills there; and he chokes the air with deadly fumes. My white brother does many things well for he is more clever than my people but I wonder if he knows how to love well. I wonder if he has ever really learned to love at all. Perhaps he only loves the things that are his own but never learned to love the things that are outside and beyond him. And this is, of course, not love at all, for man must love all creation or he will love none of it. Man must love fully or he will become the lowest of the animals. It is the power to love that makes him the greatest of them all . . . for he alone of all animals is capable of love. Love is something you and I must have. We must have it because our spirit feeds upon it. We must have it because without it we become weak and faint. Without love our self-esteem weakens. Without it our courage fails. Without love we can no longer look out confidently at the world. Instead we turn inwardly and begin to feed upon our own personalities and little by little we destroy ourselves. You and I need the strength and joy that comes from knowing that we are loved. With it we are creative. With it we march tirelessly. With it, and with it alone, we are able to sacrifice for others. There have been times when we all wanted so desperately to feel a re-assuring hand upon us. . . there have been lonely times when we so wanted a strong arm around us. . . I cannot tell you how deeply I miss my wife’s presence when I return from a trip. Her love was my greatest joy, my strength, my greatest blessing. I am afraid my culture has little to offer yours. But my culture did prize friendship and companionship. It did not look on privacy as a thing to be clung to, for privacy builds up walls and walls promote distrust. My culture lived in big family communities, and from infancy people learned to live with others. My culture did not price the hoarding of private possessions, in fact, to hoard was a shameful thing to do among my people. The Indian looked on all things in nature as belonging to him and he expected to share them with others and to take only what he needed. Everyone likes to give as well as receive. No one wishes only to receive all the time. We have taken much from your culture. . . I wish you had taken something from our culture. . . for there were some beautiful and good things in it. Soon it
RE: Harry and me
> In short, most of the "progressive" political ideas of the last 50 years > patently haven't worked. Modern society has become much too > complex for the > relatively crude political systems that we have today. I believe > that we're > at a critical juncture in human history. There have been several such so > far when the old certainties suddenly vanished. The first period of which > we have documentary records was around 500BC when the Psalmist in > the Bible > cried out "O Lord, why has Thou forsaken me!" At around the same time the > Greeks forced Socrates to drink hemlock because they were not yet ready to > face new ideas. > > The Reformation was another such juncture. The Enlightenment was another. > As well as a great flux of ideas, both turning points were accompanied by > great social distress. I believe that we're in another such period. I agree completely with this, Keith. And I don't think we will find the vision or the answers we need in the old formulations of left and right, etc., or divisive advocacy. I have been examining what I think of as the biggest and most important questions, that have to do with the evolution of our own species. I'm trying to a get a book about this pushed out the door. I don't know that there is any forum for discussion of this on the web, and part of what I plan to do is set up such a site/lists, etc. The goal, back to your point, is to influence in healthy ways the choices made at this turning point. Lawry
RE: not so fast!
The problem with reliance on free markets is that techniques of persuasion can be used to get those participating in the free markets to skew their choices away from would otherwise be considered 'good.' E.g. consumer choices can be skewed toward excessive acquisition via advertising, or away from long-term benefits, or social responsibility, or healthy choices, or their children's well-being, etc. etc. Whole societies can be entrained into poor choices (e.g. US actions in Afghanistan), while nominally operating under free-market philosophy. Now, I am not even getting into the matters of monopolies, market fixing collusion, etc. Personally, I benefit quite a bit from free-markets, but I would never view them as assurances of personal or social well-being, or anything that I would equate with social justice or smart development. Indeed, I view free markets as antithetical to smart development. When commercialism and material acquisition become the driving forces behind free markets, the social future of our species comes into risk. But that's a larger issue. Lawry > -Original Message- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:45 PM > To: Keith Hudson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: not so fast! > > > Keith, > > Four points! > > First, we have plenty of everything that is needed. However, we are > behaving so badly we cannot help but get into severe trouble. As I > mentioned, when the cow patties are used for fuel instead of > fertilizer, we > have passed a point of no return - or at least a point where recovery may > be Herculean. > > Second, in many areas, we have deprived ourselves of the free > market which > can make better decisions, more quickly, than any government planner, and > do so impartially. > > Third, where the free market doesn't work - such as with land - measures > must be taken to make the price mechanism do the job. Sidestepping the > price mechanism'sfailure can bring us nothing but grief. Converting > common interests - such as the oceans into price-mechanism controlled > situations. Contract and competition will do a better job for us all, > whether it be whales or elephants than any governmental dictate. (Compare > Kenya and Botswana before the world ivory ban!) > > Fourth, the crucial need is power. If we have power, we can turn > ashes into > coal - salt water into drinking water, or do anything else that is > necessary. We will need to go to nuclear power or coal sooner, or later. > With an operating market, as non-renewable fuels become more > expensive, so > will solar, hydro-thermal, wind, and other "powers" become more > attractive. > At the moment, these power sources are not very practical except > in special > circumstances. > > The price mechanism can handle water. I believe the toilets in the UK are > mostly "wash-down" - a system that uses, I believe, 10-12 > Imperial gallons > of water with each flush. My toilets, and the toilets of tens of > thousands > (and maybe millions) of Southern Californians are "low-flush" - using 1.6 > American gallons per flush. > > The saving in England if the conversion were made would amount to a > trillion, or two, gallons a year for every 5 million families (if my > calculations on the back of an envelope are correct). Anyway, the > point is > that there are savings in water that can be made without getting too > esoteric about it. > > However, government planners are more inclined to use stand-pipes > on every > corner, adding an inconvenience to every housewife's day. It's the way > they think. > > We have plenty of wilderness in the world. Across the road from me is a > 1,000 square mile national park. If that isn't enough, another park 2,000 > square miles in area adjoins the first. I'm about 25 minutes from the > skyscrapers of Los Angeles. > > I walked in Dorset from Wareham to Swanage - some 12 - 15 miles. I went > along paths through deciduous forests and over hills. I came over > the brow > of a hill and looked down on Corfe Castle. I imagined archers up there > picking off the guards on the battlements. > > I had a great Cottage Pie at Corfe - not good for walking. Then continued > across fields until I finally got to Swanage. > > In summertime on a wonderful English summer day, I didn't meet a single > walker on the paths, even though I passed at one point within > half-mile of > a trailer camp. > > I've walked 11 miles across the South Downs, perhaps 20 miles from > Buckingham Palace and never more than a mile from the main > London-Brighton > Rd. and encountered less than a dozen walkers. > > I have a feeling we make wilderness too much of an issue. > > If we had half our present world population, hunger and deprivation would > still be with us, for population isn't the problem. > > Harry > > -- > -- > > Keith wrote: > > >Hi Harry, > > > >I buy a great deal of
RE: Yet more fires
Good question... Boredom? A feeling that the future has been set for them by the adults, who have different values, without consulting the kids? A desire for true attention? Anger at the cloying web of rules that surround kids? A feeling of value-lessness that comes from constant exposure to commercialism? Perhaps the real cultural criminals are the intrusive commercialisers, the complacent parents, the absent or preoccupied parents, the boring and unthinking robotic adults... To call it all criminal vandalism is only to indicate how we adults label the behaviors, but our labels don't help us to understand what lies behind the behaviors. Thoughts? Lawry > -Original Message- From Keith Hudson > My son's house is now in danger of being burned to the ground by yet > another outbreak of new fires a lot closer to the centre of Sydney, so > FutureWorkers must excuse my concern. > > The police have arrested 15 teenagers and young adults, but consider that > many more have been involved. No doubt the first few fires had natural > causes such as lightning strikes, but the tally of well over 100 more must > bespeak human origins in most of the subsequent ones -- as, indeed, the > authorities believe. > > At the risk of being attacked again, I want to ask a question: "In a > civilised country such as Australia, what could provoke such criminality?" > > Just what explanation can anybody have other than there is > obviously such a > lack of any feeling of responsibility and community among what seems to be > a significiant number of young males? According to orthodox sociology > theory, this is something that simply could not happen in one of the most > prosperous countries in the world with the most generous welfare state. > > Keith Hudson > > > > __ > Writers used to write because they had something to say; now > they write in > order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow > _ > Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _
RE: Very gentle reminder to Ed (was Re: community and money
One element to put into the equation, for the US at least, is that beginning in the early 70s, a growing feminist movement embraced the right and desirability of women to work, and indeed tens of millions of women entered the work force, and I believe now constitute a majority of college undergraduate students. This was done not of necessity (leaving single mothers aside) but because of desire to not be 'cooped up' at home, to develop their own intellectual and professional interests. Thus couples developed a very high income potential, and many fell into the trap of spending it all on 'stuff' or in bad high risk/high return investments. Fueled by this cash-rich wealth, housing took off and these young couples signed into big mortgages which turned into big burdens for many. So, at least for the US, I don't think the situation is one in which a single adult cannot support a family. Rather, women decided they wanted in on the professional life and, fueled by an up-market advertising blitz, the two income family began to think of their expenditure rate as normal and necessary. It was a trap set for them, but one into which they willingly walked. That second income could easily have been put into savings and investments, and life-styles maintained modestly. And we haven't even begun to discuss the impact all this has had on raising children Lawry On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't say that the 50 and 60s were a time of ease. Just that one income households were able to do or accomplish what a 2 income household now needs. Housing, car, food, etc. all were accessible to the middle income one worker household with 2.1 children. Land values have clearly risen and we have much more stuff around us. There must be something more. arthur -Original Message-From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 6:06 PMTo: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Very gentle reminder to Ed (was Re: community and money I don't recall the 1950s and 1960s being a time of ease. The paradigm we were operating under was that husbands were supposed to provide and women were supposed to stay home and look after the kids. My first wife and I operated that way very early in my career, and it was not easy. We lived in rented housing, bought used cars, and made do with what we had. Things changed quite radically during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Women entered the labour force en masse. I suspect that, along with a rising number of double incomes, expectations rose quite dramatically. I would suggest that we may now be into a situation in which the things that define us as being successful have expanded considerably in comparison with the things that defined us forty or fifty years ago. Or, to put it another way, the bundle of goods and services that we must buy to make us feel good as members of our society has become larger and more complex. It includes all of the things that we bought forty or fifty years ago, plus ever so many things that were not, such as vacations abroad, computers, and entertainment centres. Incomes went further then because, essentially, there were fewer things to buy or that we felt we had to buy. That's one way of explaining it. Another way would be in terms of costs-of-living having risen more rapidly than incomes and thus falling real incomes, but I don't think that is the case. Or, at least, I don't think that's been the most important factor. Ed Weick Visit my rebuilt website at:http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/ - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 3:38 PM Subject: RE: Very gentle reminder to Ed (was Re: community and money My father in law could support a family of 2 kids and wife, afford a new house and car---all at a middle class salary level. This in the 1950's. Today, well you know. Two earners in the family and running faster and faster to keep up. So what happened in the last 40 to 50 years or so. It is it just the entry to the labour force of women thereby driving up land values (over to you Harry, to spell out what we should have done with the land tax that didn't happen). Or was it something else. How did we go from relative ease in the late 50's to keen, lean and mean in the late 90's and early 2000's.? Why do we need two wage earner households to more or less accomplish what a one wage earner household accomplished in the 1950s and early
RE: Argentina down and out
Greetings, Ray, Good point. So, the sensory channel we use has a lot to do with the type of information that can be transmitted. Words are great for some forms of information (e.g. distinctions, specification, identification of alternatives). Visuals are great for big picture information, dynamic flows and compartmentalization. Tonal sounds are great for mood (? this is one of your areas of expertise -- what do you think?) and kinesthetics (touch and feel) are great for final decision making (something 'feels right' or doesn't). Happy new year to you, too, Ray. Lawry -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 6:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry Pollard Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Argentina down and out Happy New Year Larry, Good to read your voice. You raise an interesting point about visual forms.I know experts who believe that prose words are incapable of making us truly understand what is happening in complicated situations. They feel that a good flow chart is worth a thousand words. Well, its good to hear from you again. Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lawrence de Bivort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: RE: Argentina down and out > Leaving Argentina aside for a moment, all living systems do have a set of > functions in common, and it can be very useful to compare the operation of > one system to that of another. JG Miller, in LIVING SYSTEMS, argues > persuasively that cells, organs, organisms, organizations and societies all > have these functions in common. For example, they have boundary, > nutritional, energy, informational systems in common. S Beer also developed > models based on the commonality of functions among living systems. In my own > work, I have examined the fractal nestings of living systems within larger > ones and the interactions among them. These approaches have proved highly > useful in the analysis of individuals, families, organizations, societies > and nations. > > Living systems analysis may well be a tool that Argentineans could use to > diagnose their situation and determine the necessary courses of action to > recovery. > > Lawry de Bivort > > > > Harry Pollard said: > > Countries are not like people who may need to rest. The are bunches of > people who unfortunately rely on politicians and their obedient economists > to run the economy. > > Never could there be a finer prescription for disaster. I said that not > only do economists not know why economies are staggering into recession - > they don't even know why there was a boom. > > There isn't much point Arthur to anthropomorphizing countries > >
RE: Happy New Europe?
I just had the pleasure of spending ten days in France (Paris and the Loire) and was surprised by the goodwill shown by the French toward conversion to the Euro. Everyone I asked (maybe two dozen people) expected it to work and expressed confidence that they personally wouldn't have any problems. Even the few who were having problems (e.g. in taking credit cards and working out the conversion equivalences) seemed to do so with good will. There were maxims printed everywhere: "The Euro--it's like before, but better." The only people who seem to have been put out were the many currency exchange kiosks and branch offices in Paris, most of which now seem to have closed their currency operations. Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 12:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Happy New Europe? The reason why I think that the Euro will ultimately fail is that cultural differences within Europe will maintain the existing economic disparities between regions, and the continuation of a European-wide bank rate by the European Central Bank will only exacerbate tensions. A year ago it was decided that existing currencies would be incinerated and melted down immediately after the institution of the Euro. Six months ago it was decided that this would happen after two months. Today, I understand that at least two countries to my knowledge, Germany and Spain (and probably others), will allow "indefinite" further use of national currencies in parallel with the Euro. For two months? Six months? Whether the Euro will become the de facto currency of Europe in the next few months is still uncertain. What is certain, however, is that the majority of intra-European (and external) trade will continue to be carried out in US$s as now, even if Euros are quoted on their invoices. What is also certain (though I cannot prove this) is that the Treasury Departments of all EC countries will not incinerate and melt down their national currencies for a very long time to come in case they are suddenly needed in the case of a collapse of the Euro. I think the matter of currencies might be very similar to languages. Most peoples of the world will maintain their own currencies but will increasingly use a world currency (the US$) both for trade and tourism. Whether the Euro will survive as a "national" currency is still unknown -- I doubt it. It won't be a happy Europe in 2002, but it will be a very interesting one. Keith Hudson __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Disappearing forests
Harry: "There is a way out - an effective way out that will solve the immediate problem and provide a long term solution. However, nowhere in the voluminous literature of the Malthusians can I find the obvious solution - though FW members should know because I have alluded to it before in posts." Harry, for those of us who have not seen your earlier postings, can you describe this 'way out'? Thanks Happy new year to all! Lawry
RE: Argentina down and out
Leaving Argentina aside for a moment, all living systems do have a set of functions in common, and it can be very useful to compare the operation of one system to that of another. JG Miller, in LIVING SYSTEMS, argues persuasively that cells, organs, organisms, organizations and societies all have these functions in common. For example, they have boundary, nutritional, energy, informational systems in common. S Beer also developed models based on the commonality of functions among living systems. In my own work, I have examined the fractal nestings of living systems within larger ones and the interactions among them. These approaches have proved highly useful in the analysis of individuals, families, organizations, societies and nations. Living systems analysis may well be a tool that Argentineans could use to diagnose their situation and determine the necessary courses of action to recovery. Lawry de Bivort Harry Pollard said: Countries are not like people who may need to rest. The are bunches of people who unfortunately rely on politicians and their obedient economists to run the economy. Never could there be a finer prescription for disaster. I said that not only do economists not know why economies are staggering into recession - they don't even know why there was a boom. There isn't much point Arthur to anthropomorphizing countries
