Chris, I'm not saying that disasters are a good thing. All I'm saying is that we learn from them and modify our behaviour. Most certainly, I'm not saying that the Holocaust was a good thing. It was a thing of great evil. But can we not use it to keep reminding us that people must never again be treated the way its victims were?
Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Reuss" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 8:24 AM Subject: [Futurework] Glorifying disasters (was Re: Restoring the oldeconomic model) Ed Weick wrote: > But wait, I may be forgetting something. The current oil disaster in the > Gulf or Mexico came under discussion at a luncheon today. Rather timidly, > I ventured that the disaster was a good thing. As expected, I was > immediately pounced on and asked to explain. What I said was that when it > comes to major changes in the way we go about things, a major driver is > the catastrophe that result from hitting some kind of wall. A wall has > been hit in the Gulf of Mexico and we will have to do things differently > when it comes to deep water offshore drilling. This is the classic excuse of quacks for their malpractice: "The patient has to get worse before he can get better." Do we want quackery in politics? As the French saying goes: "Gouverner, c'est prévoir." Good governance avoids disasters, and indeed, the Gulf oil spill is a classic example of bad governance -- both before and after the disaster began. When safety regulations are abolished in the name of "Free Trade" and corporate sell-out, such a disaster is the logical outcome. How cynical, then, to suggest that disasters would be necessary to improve policies! Responsible policy could have perfectly (and easily) avoided it. Anyone who holds Ed's opinion is totally unfit for any government or other position of responsibility, because this is a recipe for disaster. It's bad enough to be too incompetent to avoid disasters, but the concept that disasters are necessary for improvements, actively begs for disasters -- although they are unnecessary. > It's an argument I've used before, pointing out that there probably > wouldn't > be a Jewish homeland, Israel, unless six million Jews had died during WWII How surprising to learn here that the Holocaust was a good thing after all. Looking at the collaboration of zionists (including Soros himself) with nazis, one really gets the impression that they think so. Judging from the results, it looks like the best thing that could happen to the zionist cause (giving Israel a moral justification, infinite funding and enough immigration) -- but what does this tell about zionism? Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
