Ray Evans Harrell wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> I believe you are right. What we should remember here is that a country
> the size of two Wisconsins almost did us and the rest of the world in on two
> different occasions and they are still stronger economically than the rest
> of the Europe with Japan being 2nd in the world.
>
> We always make a big deal about how superior the US is but we harvest the
> talent of the rest of the world and we have an unbelievable pool of natural
> resources. Anyone who couldn't do well with such riches just isn't trying.
I have long said that America needs to be judged by different
standards than others:
From those to whom much has been given
Much should be expected.
Indeed, that is the *only* justification -- as ambivalent as it
is -- for the wretched of the earth not tearing us to pieces
whenever they get a chance.
> My fear for the future is that our population is becoming so manipulatable
> and soft in their beings that we won't be able to sustain the time when we
> are not so wealthy. Today our Homeland Security etc. seems more like a
> petulent child incapable of handling real criticism than it does coming from
> the richest and most powerful nation to date. What is it the
> psycho-analists say is the statement of the ID? "I want, WHAT I want
> WHEN I want it" and you had better not get in my way! It is embarrassing
> to consider that coming from my own homeland and family.
Haven't I previously spoken of Bush et Cie. as:
The return of the repressed?
(Clinton, on the other hand, was pure libido -- pleasure principle.
Without an always effective observing ego function. As Hillary
said of him (I have the citation): "He's a hard dog to
keep on the porch.")
It's a shame we can't actually meet face to face some time,
Ray, to find out who each other is and how much we really
agree and where we may really disagree and what we might
have to say to each other -- I am in Chappaqua...).
"Yours in discourse...."
\brad mccormick
>
> Ray Evans Harrell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Failing to make distinctions
>
> > Bush is impatient. He wants to "get Saddam" before
> > he ceased to get off on getting Saddam.
> >
> > THat's speculative.
> >
> > What is not speculative is the way the Bushies are
> > treating the German government officials like children
> > who have sassed and aren't going to get off without
> > grovelling and admitting they had acted bigger than
> > their britches and doing penance and being really sorry
> > and making sure they don't even think of trying it
> > again. Apologizing and offering a ritual
> > sacrifice of the Justice Minister
> > is *not* enough to make up for what the Germans
> > have *done to* Bush! Runsfeld refused to shake the German Defense
> > Minister's hand, etc.
> >
> > So for the first time we have seen the other side
> > of Dubya and
> >
> Condeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
> > s'
> > smiling faces.
> >
> > Will there be more to come?
> >
> > \brad mccormick
> >
> > Karen Watters Cole wrote:
> > >
> > > Arthur, most rational people would agree that Iraq is stalling. The
> > > question remains how far do you go to enforce and then correct a
> dangerous
> > > situation?
> > > I think that Bush should play out the diplomatic string to its
> conclusion.
> > > Like prosecutorial evidence, it will make the difference to the jury at
> > > decision time. If Hussein is foolish enough to make it difficult for
> his
> > > erstwhile Arab supporters to stick with him, then it will be much easier
> for
> > > us in battle and afterwards.
> > >
> > > For now, there does not seem to be much developed about an occupation,
> and
> > > this is worrisome, leaving the Bush and Blair administrations open to
> > > suspicious that they are myopic and jumping from one hotspot to another
> > > without changing the lasting conditions.
> > >
> > > There are parallels in recent history that suit both sides of this
> debate.
> > > How do we tell which are relevant and which are sentimentality at work?
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > Arthur wrote: I sometimes wonder about the on again off again protracted
> > > inspector issues
> > > in Iraq and the comparisons with Japan leading up to Dec 7, 41, with the
> on
> > > again off again negotiations culminating in the attack.
> > >
> > > What is Iraq trying to accomplish? Assuming rationality of course.
> Either
> > > they are developing weapons, in which case negotiate and slow things
> down.
> > > Or they are not, in which case throw open the borders, let the
> inspectors in
> > > and anywhere and everywhere---all of which will lead to removing the
> > > sanctions.
> >
> > --
> > Let your light so shine before men,
> > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
> >
> > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
> >
> > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
