Good points Ed.
As for the lack of parental control (and ultimately the lack of
self-control), I think I know what you're getting at; rules in some form
are very necessary, despite our dislike of people curtailing our "freedom"
(although the rules, in the case of "honour" killings (I like to call them
"ego killings") are decidedly less favourable toward women than men).
In our case, the pendulum has swung far too far where permissiveness is
concerned... And I'll let it go at that!!!
As for the "water" analogy, that's a whole discussion in itself. Briefly,
I'm a great admirer of the Americans (I was born and educated in Scotland
and now live in Canada) because they essentially made their own "water" as
a nation; took risks and used their resourcefulness to create the "water"
they now have. But some (many) people are envious of this water - without
regard to the blood, sweat and tears that it took to create it - and would
like to either steal it or spill it on the ground just to satisfy this envy.
P.
At 07:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote:
Philip Winestone wrote:
Tut Tut Ed... The problem is that you believe everyone thinks rationally
and quasi-legally like you do. Most don't.
Good point, Philip. Nevertheless, most people, except the insane, are
rational if the rules of the game are understood. For example, as you note
below, honor killing is very rational if the law is designed to be
implemented by the individual rather than by the state.
And as for: "A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because he
thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the neighbor
takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your friends, you
might think of murder."
You haven't heard of honour killings? More often than not they murder
their own offspring for that very reason. So we're talking certain
levels of sanity here.
Some societies are designed to be self policing. The father has the right
to control his children by any means he thinks necessary. If the child can
not be controlled or will not follow the rules, he/she can be killed. I
don't recommend this approach, but it works better than our system seems
to work in some cases.
And what if I deserve to be treated like dirt because... well...
perhaps I am dirt? Have you never experienced neighbours like that?
Some people just can't get their heads around quantum physics, so they
resort to... mayhem. And as dirt often associates with dirt... well you
get the picture...
Agreed, some people are just plain mean and irrational. We use the state
(courts or police) to control them. Some societies allow the individual to
take action. I have known occasions when I wished this method was used
more often here.
And the water? Well why does dirt (me, remember?) care so much about water?
Water is a analogy for all that makes life possible. If you take my
"water" you make my life impossible and I have nothing to lose by killing you.
Ed
P.
At 03:21 PM 8/14/2006 -0600, you wrote:
I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are
encouraged to believe.
They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see what he
has to say in books such as, "Imperial Hubris." He is the most popular
man in the Muslim world and millions of people have named their sons
after him and, so I think many people agree with him. I think they are
misguided. Millions of Japanese people agreed with the militarists too.
No doubt the majority of the country did, even though it was pretty
obvious after 1938 that they were dragging the nation into Hell.
I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are certain
behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude toward
sex. Some Christians in the US have a similar problem with these
subjects, although they would not suggest the same solution.
However, I don't believe these reasons are the main driving force for
the movement. A sane person does not try to murder his neighbor because
he thinks she is a slut. On the other hand, if, for example, the
neighbor takes all the water, treats you like dirt, and kills your
friends, you might think of murder.
Ed
Of course it could. If the US had launched a massive World War II
style effort to fix the problem starting in 2001, oil would be worth
practically nothing today.
Yes, and if the government gave everyone 1 million dollars, we would
all be rich. But like this silly example, such things will not be done
and if they were, other worse consequences would result.
Such things were done in the past when the nation was in crisis. If FDR
or Lincoln were in charge, this and much more would be done now. I mean
immediately, within a week. They would impose a five dollar emergency
wartime gasoline tax, draft a million men & women to fight the war in
Afghanistan (which we are losing), and ban the use of SUVs. If this is
really a war, as the leaders claim, it is their responsibility to do
such things. Wars are never won by half-measures. The nation would
follow I am sure. As Lincoln put it:
"Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from
us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily,
assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not
'can any of us imagine better?' but, 'can we all do better?' The dogmas
of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion
is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion.
As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must
disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this
administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal
significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. . . .
We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save
it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. . . ."
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/congress.htm
All of that applies as much to the energy/terror crisis today as it did
to the crisis of slavery in December 1862. Then and now, we know what
must be done. We need only summon up the will to *do* it.
And we may yet take action. Don't bet against it! You should never sell
the United States or its people short. The Japanese did in 1941 and
look where it got them. Probably more than any other people on earth,
we are capable of doing extraordinary deeds in a short time. As Edward
Grey put it, the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the
fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate."
The only thing we lack are leaders with guts & vision. Leaders who are
not afraid to demand sacrifices from everyone, not just army
volunteers. In the past, such people have often stepped forth when they
were needed. But it has always been a close call. Lincoln nearly lost
the election and FDR had great difficulty securing the nomination. The
people next in line who would have won if they had lost would have led
the nation into oblivion.
- Jed
