Oh fuddle duddle... The notion of a self-made nation is an ego trip like the self-made man.
Harry Philip Winestone wrote: > 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 >>> > >
