Re: Hope for the US - 2004

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 19 April 2003 12:57, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> > i wish i understood what you were trying to say, but you offered no
> > actual opinion just a clever soundbite. i'm left not understanding what
> > it is you
>
>   Yeah, well, I couldn't resist. :-) Not to mention I really don't have
> time to respond right now, as much as I'd like to.

ah, i see... for me this is a very serious matter and one that does not go 
hand-in-hand with light chin wagging. perhaps in some years when humanity is 
safely through this evil time in the history of global politics i'll be able 
to read levity on the matter and treat it as such. until then, i take it with 
tremendous seriousness. =/

>   I do disagree with Mr. Dean's politics in general, which was what I was
> responding to.

i'm not familiar enough with Dean's politics to comment on this, but the 
article was mostly about the Bush Doctrine. there was some discussion of 
various domestic economic plans towards the end that are probably socialist 
in nature, but it wasn't the meat of the article...

> I need to look over the article closer to formulate a full
> response to his criticisms of the "Bush Doctrine" specifically.

i look forward to it...

>   The idea of preemptive strike, if you can believe it, does worry me. I

i should hope it does, and i'm glad to hear it does.

> blogged about this the other day. I don't think Iraq must set a precedent,
> but if it does, I would be very concerned. 

it already has. the USA is leveraging the lesson of Iraq in its dealings with 
Syria, and is openly saying so. i've heard many times on various news shows 
and from the mouths of various politicos that the war in Iraq is already 
paying dividends in the Middle East, specifically Syria, as the US can make 
demands and have them met.

> Like many, including some in my
> own party, I do not support an attack on Syria. Neither does President
> Bush, it would seem, since reports from the Guardian suggest that the White
> House nixed the Pentagon's plans.

why do you think he did that? in a later email Dennis talked about 
motivations, and i think in this case motivations are important. was the idea 
quashed because the idea of First Strike War is deemed bad, or just 
unnecessary in light of what would be accomplished versus the global backlash 
of another war on the heels of Iraq?

> > government and humanity are not TV dinners you can pop in the microwave
> > and have come out piping hot and nutritious in 5 minutes.
>
>   Since when do TV dinners pop out nutritious? ;-)

heh ... you got me on that one ;-)

> > is it because they feel they don't need to explain themselves to the rest
> > of the world? that they have an open license to do as they will,
> > including the raping of our planet and fellow humans?
>
>   I don't think we are doing that, if you didn't guess.

i guessed as much, and in light of all the evidence i think that's choosing to 
turn a blind eye and a deaf ear.

> And while your reference to humans is hard to guess all that you could be
> referencing, I

humans as in "human beings". the ones that are starving, the ones we put in 
jeopardy around the world by our consumption, our polluting, our willingness 
to back despotic regimes, our willingness to pass despotic laws governing 
thought and freedom, etc, etc... 

there were worse times in history when it comes to human rights, but we are 
capable of much better than we are doing right now.

there haven't been worse times environmentally.

and we're betting it all by creating a large global community that is 
inextricably intertwined with itself.

> can address the comment on the planet directly.

> I think the U.S. is responsible enough already.

really? how so? how is the American government and American corporations 
"responsible enough"? 

and i'm not interested in comparisons with other parts of the world where 
people are bad and evil too, for two reasons:

 a) the USA has a greater role in today's world than virtually anyone else.
 b) everyone needs to be held to higher standards; the failures of others are 
no excuse for your own.

i'm interested in absolute "this is what is happening, this is why that's 
enough"

>   I'm in Teddy Roosevelt's camp on this: I'm a conservationist, not a
> preservationist. Most of the left-wingers in the democratic party move
> towards the preservationist side of things, and that, IMO, is just as bad
> as not worrying at all.

this isn't about preservation, it's about survival. or is there seriously a 
group of intelligent people who feel our planet is doing just fine under the 
current polution load and that humanity is doing just fine under the various 
forms of tyranny and oppression that we are encouraging?

note that i'm not an American, and yet i use the term "we".

> > perhaps there are other reasons that i'm just missing. but i'd really
> > like to know, because i'm completely mystified. if the doors are closed
> > to reasoning, there are only so many other doors left to choose from.
>
>   Ah, there are unlimited doors of foolishness. ;-)

heh.. indeed.. i think i've been through more than a few of them myself. =)

- -- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE: The 'K' is for 'kick ass'
http://www.kde.org       http://promo.kde.org/3.1/feature_guide.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+ogaS1rcusafx20MRAoPyAJ4kspUt2+qdT/EdExr8GGS6WloNgwCeJAtR
6rSj3mQdp+jxrv/m2G7VVwk=
=EmyN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.