Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:36:19 +0900
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Biofuel] It's imperialism, stupid
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Hello Tim
Hi Keith:
Keith Addison wrote:
>> Lots of argument about what each person thinks their "unimpeachable"
>> sources of information say.
>
> Who are you quoting please? I can't find that word used in the
> discussions, let alone in that context.
I'm guilty of reading between the lines.
Whether you're reading between the lines or not you're not reading
correctly, and that's not the first time. Your sig says "We do not
see things as they are; we see things as we are," but you tend to
see things that simply aren't there, and not see things that are
there. When it comes down to who said what and there's an archives
of it it's not just a matter of opinion or of filtration through
"different value systems", it's verifiable. Thus:
One group quotes Limbaugh and
the other Chomsky. When either source is question, the advocates get
emotionally defensive. The implication is that both sources are above
reproach, even if statements are made to the contrary (ie, I've checked
on him in case A, B, C, so I'm sure he's fine on D).
It didn't happen. I posted an article by Chomsky and Jerry sneered
at Chomsky. I didn't get defensive or emotional about it (LOL!), I
gave him some information and a couple of links. What he'd said
wasn't true and he was unable to defend his claims.
Someone else, Jill, quoted Limbaugh. When questioned on it she was
unable to respond, there was no "checking" done of Limbaugh in an
attempt to substantiate his views, nothing further was offered in
support of Limbaugh.
You have these impressions of what goes on here, of what people
here think and do, mostly a-priori impressions, just labels really.
Then you do some misreading and end up with "facts" to corroborate
your impressions. You've done it time and again, all very circular.
And tiresome. It's the same with the archive link you can't find
about your view of "justice", the same with your arguments about
evolution. Always the same.
[snip]
> You're talking the language of blame. As recent history has shown
> rather loudly, it's this kind of thinking that lashes out, desperate
> to find someone to punish, oblivious to all else, such as the reasons
> for the attack, the long chains of cause and consequence that have
> brought us all to "London" as you call it, which stretch back
> sometimes to not quite what you might expect. That's what a lynch mob
> does. So we must lash out again, maybe at altogether the wrong target
> again, and set in motion more chains of causes and consequences that
> bring us to more "London's", just as it's brought us to other places
> and dates. It's called sowing dragon's teeth. Osama bin Laden is
> exactly a dragon's tooth.
This is not what I'm advocating at all. I'm stating that the proper
response to a terrorist is no negotiation with or acquiescence to their
demands. By all means we should look to fixing the causes, if it is
legitimate for us to do so.
You ARE talking the language of blame, and, as it's steadily
emerging, you're thinking that way too. Several people have now
mentioned some of the root causes you say we should look to fixing,
but you say we shy from the hard realities, and you talk of
"appeasement".
What happens if our search leads us to understand that the value
system(s) held by the "oppressed" people are the cause of their
oppression and poverty. Does this mean we have the right to work to
change the value systems of the "oppressed"?
You're obviously going to focus on this and blinker out any other
possibilities. We could argue about value systems all week and
never have to look at the real causes. They're glaringly obvious
and horribly numerous, while it's quite hard to find any obvious
manifestation of errant value systems on the part of the "perps"
being a root cause. These are not actions, they're responses. If
you can't see that it can only be because you don't want to. You're
not looking at realities, you're looking at what you might be more
comfortable with.
> Rather than raise a lynch mob it makes much more sense to find out
> just what happened and trace it back to its causes - who, what, where,
> when, why and how (a good reporter answers all those questions in the
> first 25 words). But where there's lots of blame-talk flying around
> raising such questions can get a person accused of attempting to
> justify the crime, being "soft on terrorists".
Will you continue the questions past the events to human value systems,
and their fruit?
You can throw up your smokescreen all by yourself, I won't help
you. Several other list members have now discussed what's at the
root of it, they all say much the same obvious thing, if you
haven't read their messages you should have. By comparison, the
horse you insist on backing is a non-starter, it's got no ground to
run on. It does have one very attractive aspect though - if you can
get that horse to win, or even to run convincingly, then that
removes any responsibility for these atrocities from everyone
except the perps themselves. How convenient: one longstanding and
ongoing set of atrocities can continue without censure while the
response to them has nothing to do with it, it's an entirely
separate issue, a standalone atrocity committed because of the
perps' cultural inadequacies.
Most don't seem to have the stomach for it. They like
to speak of "tolerance" and "love", and shy back from causal links to
the actual values held by the majorities in those societies.
I haven't seen anyone here talking of "tolerance" or "love" in
connection with terrorist acts, but I've seen many of them
discussing the dragon's teeth that breed them.
When you make this kind of statement you allude to the list without
naming it so you can deny it later if you want to. Stop doing that,
say what you mean to say.
> Anyway, how would you make certain that they're the right perps?
Some are caught, some are killed in attempts, some admit to their
complicity, some are caught through intercessory investigation, etc.
> The picture that's emerging in other posts is that none of the perps
> imprisoned were perps anyway, only a andlful have been charged,
> huindreds of others or more were innocent, and the REAL perps remain
> free. So that didn't work very well. Meanwhile there were 3,192 terror
> attacks worldwide last year with 28,433 people wounded, killed or
> kidnapped. So that isn't working very well either.
Better some success and many thousands of lives saved,
And many thousands of other lives ruined, you conveniently forget.
than doing
nothing because we don't have a better plan. I'm all for a better plan.
Right then, let's have a better plan, but until we get one, rather
than doing nothing we'll imprison and torture thousands of innocent
people instead, then they and their families and friends are bound
to love us and stop trying to kill us and telling us to get off
their backs and out of their country. Right. That'll work well, no
dragon's teeth there. Sheesh!
> Anyway, the Brits are coping with it, as one would expect, they're
> tough and level-headed folk. *They* know that there's a hell of a lot
> more to London than just "London".
And I'm very thankful for their stedfastness through it all.
... without acknowledging what more they might know about "London".
I was talking to an Englishman today, the first one I've met since
the attack. We had a biodiesel seminar here and he attended, along
with an Australian and a dozen Japanese. He had to leave a bit
early to catch his train so I took him to the station. In the car
he was talking about biofuels and world development issues, and
soon started talking about "London". Shocking and horrible and so
on yes, but on the other hand, he said, only about 50 people were
killed, how does that compare with all the people we're killing in
Iraq?
What else can we expect, in other words. If I'd been sceptical
about any links between the two things he'd have blasted me with
facts. But I also know those facts. His view of it does not consist
in leaving whole big bits of the picture out, nor does mine, but
yours does.
> What do you think of Spain's response to "Madrid"?
It's been a while, but my assessment at the time was that I would never
have "rolled over" like they did. However, there is a large Muslim
population in Spain, so I would expect it was the politically expedient
thing to do. Not the right thing.
Case rests. Except for this, from your reply to Todd:
> Personally? Were I of Arab descent? I'd be mad as hell. And knowing
> how easily it is for humans to be impatient and act or react rather
> than wait for a slow, bureaucratic, greedy internatiionally intwined
> monster to even begin to deliberate what it might destroy or
> compromise with its next bite, it's not a far reach to understand
> where the underpinnings of all this originate from.
Ah, thanks Todd. There's a good quote to answer Keith's question...
>> There is nothing that can justify these actions,
>
> Who wants to justify them?
This sounds like a justification to me. Is that a fair statement?
My asking you who wants to justify it, since you quite obviously
expect someone here to do so, though nobody had, nor ever did
before, is itself justifying it? You're telling me that I'm
justifying it? I do hope you can manage to rumble up a satisfactory
explanation for this preposterous statement, and we'll do without
your usual presuppositions and prevarications while you're at it,
if you please, Mr Brodie. A clear and straightforward answer will
do, or a clear and straightforward retraction.
Keith Addison
Hello Tim
Garth & Kim Travis wrote:
Greetings Robert,
Wouldn't it be nice if we could just trade passports, then I
could vote against the nonsense that is going on in the states.
Actually, when I was in France back in the 1980s, everyone
assumed I was American because my French is so poor and All
Canadians spoke french. At least that is what the Canadian
propaganda stated. That and southern Albertans tend to have a
bit of a drawl, after all, it is Texas North, isn't it? Most
people, even here is Texas are surprised to find out I am
Canadian. I always thought that identifying with a country was
kind of silly.
It's silly with respect to how fluid a country actually can be
(in terms of what it is). The Canada I grew up in and loved no
longer exists, and hasn't for the last 15 years. What has been
foisted on us is awful, and I find myself without a country.
Welcome!
However, the values that made Canada great are largely still
present in the USA, so here I am. I don't find the loss of
Canada silly, and I don't find my growing identification with the
USA silly.
Oops.
One only needs to watch what results when something as valuable
as Canada is destroyed through neglect, apathy, sarcasm,
self-interest and greed.
As my father said to me, "I grew up when Canada was free. It was sublime".
"The true north strong and free" indeed. I suspect the reason
Canada didn't support the US action in the gulf was more out of
the fear of not being able to defend ourselves than any moral
stand.
I find it fascinating that virtually nothing has been said in
this forum about London.
But you just did. Thankyou.
Lots of argument about what each person thinks their
"unimpeachable" sources of information say.
Who are you quoting please? I can't find that word used in the
discussions, let alone in that context.
Nothing about the current event that demonstrates the face of
this evil, and the nature of the value systems that executed
these actions.
Nothing about all the dominoes toppled elsewhere that brought us
all to this either.
There is nothing that can justify these actions,
Who wants to justify them?
nor nothing that would cause me to ever sit at a table to
negiotiate anything other than an unconditional surrender and the
incarceration/ execution of the perps.
You're talking the language of blame. As recent history has shown
rather loudly, it's this kind of thinking that lashes out,
desperate to find someone to punish, oblivious to all else, such
as the reasons for the attack, the long chains of cause and
consequence that have brought us all to "London" as you call it,
which stretch back sometimes to not quite what you might expect.
That's what a lynch mob does. So we must lash out again, maybe at
altogether the wrong target again, and set in motion more chains
of causes and consequences that bring us to more "London's", just
as it's brought us to other places and dates. It's called sowing
dragon's teeth. Osama bin Laden is exactly a dragon's tooth.
Rather than raise a lynch mob it makes much more sense to find out
just what happened and trace it back to its causes - who, what,
where, when, why and how (a good reporter answers all those
questions in the first 25 words). But where there's lots of
blame-talk flying around raising such questions can get a person
accused of attempting to justify the crime, being "soft on
terrorists".
Anyway, how would you make certain that they're the right perps?
The picture that's emerging in other posts is that none of the
perps imprisoned were perps anyway, only a andlful have been
charged, huindreds of others or more were innocent, and the REAL
perps remain free. So that didn't work very well. Meanwhile there
were 3,192 terror attacks worldwide last year with 28,433 people
wounded, killed or kidnapped. So that isn't working very well
either.
Anyway, the Brits are coping with it, as one would expect, they're
tough and level-headed folk. *They* know that there's a hell of a
lot more to London than just "London".
What do you think of Spain's response to "Madrid"?
Best wishes
Keith
"You can never solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that
created the problem in the first place"
- Albert Einstein.
Best regards... Tim
--
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.
