»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Impeach Bush
| The Alley |
|
Impeach Bush |
|
|
Jaime Fradera Senior Member
since 2000-11-25
Posts 843Where no tyranny is tolerable |
All you people who want to have President Bush impeached and the Bush cabinet prosecuted, by a Sweedish judge in The Hague, for their unspeakable war crimes; What's taking you so long? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 The Sun - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mr. Fradera, I don't understand how I can respond to a question like that with honesty and still offer a response that's at the same time generous and open-hearted. I'm not good at combining these things at this point. The Mahayana Buddhists would point out that his difficulty in feeling compassion would be punishment enough, though it's unlikely he would ever wake up enough to feel that. For myself, I hope that his conversion has given him something of deep and lasting value to sustain him. It's my problem, I believe, that I have not yet been able to sustain compassion for him for any length of time. He certainly doesn't seem to be affected. If I go on much longer, I'm afraid I'll slip into anger, which doesn't help except for the moment. The Democrats are proving are hardly a stern bunch at this point in time and they seem to lack the spine to stand up to the Republican minority for fear of the Filibuster. It seems late in the administration to force the issue over mere high crimes and misdemeanors, potential treason on the part of the vice president and things of that nature, such as the assault on civil liberties and the constitution, not to mention the deaths of a hundred thousand Iraqis and the wounding of an additional unknown number. These things have moved many of the Democrats, but not to effective action. These issues have not moved the Republicans at all, it should be said. It seems their chief motivation for the impeachment of the last president was that he had the gall to desecrate a tobacco product. Any Republican will tell you that you can do most anything except mess with big tobacco, and I guess they felt compelled to prove that. I doubt it was really lying about an affair, since half the Republicans in congress had done the same thing over the years, and for the same reason. To preserve a valued marriage. Democrats too, probably, to be fair. But once Clinton messed with that cigar, I do believe his fate was sealed. You won't see a Republican in Congress, either branch, get anywhere near as stirred up about a genocide as you will about that slur on Big Tobacco. No sir. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough, Bob. Of course they may get a little upset about lying to a grand jury but, as Hillary is proving, lying to the Clintons is more of an art form than of an actual no-no. Besides, using your litmus test, since most if not all Senators have lied in their lifetimes, then that should be no big deal, either, I suppose. The cigar was to slick Wille what the income tax evasion charge was to Capone.  Jaime, in answer to your question, I have it on good authority that is exactly what Jimmy Carter is discussing with Hamas.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
JERUSALEM - Hamas bombers attacked an Israeli-Gaza border crossing under the cover of fog Saturday, detonating two jeeps made to look like Israeli military vehicles and packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives. The twin blasts, just hours before the Jewish Passover holiday, wounded 13 Israeli soldiers in what Hamas said was an attempt to break the nearly yearlong blockade of the territory. Four Hamas assailants died, Israeli officials said. Meanwhile, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with senior Hamas leaders in Damascus, Syria, for a second day to hear their views, defying U.S. and Israeli warnings that doing so would grant the group legitimacy. The U.S. and Israel have labeled Hamas a terrorist organization. Well, maybe the peanut picker hasn't gotten around to discussing it yet. Hamas seem to be busy with other things..... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It is good to see you back, Balladeer. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: The world top politician has always worked like this. And Jimmy Carter is very brave because he can be kidnapped or killed.( i guess that his action is passed/approved by US Government) I consider that it is good intentioned. nobody likes war. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Carter is grandstanding, trying everything he can to do something to reduce the stench of being the worst president of the 20th century. And no, his visit was not approved by our government. Citizens do have certain rights though and one of those is to travel almost anywhere except those few places where it is forbidden. He needs a straight jacket and a rubber room. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
If not sending by US Government, then I think that Mr. Carter's action is heroic without Government providing security. How many enemy organization does US have? How many related offspring are study in US soil? (this sounded scary after 911). How do we know that Mr.Carter was not saying" If you guys stop attacking Israel, we'll let all your children go to Harvard?" When GH Bush Was an Ambassador in Red China, GW Bush was rumored dating a Chinese girl..his first love. Not very long ago, marriage was a critical way to make peace between anything. We all know it and Mr.Carter is not going to have a engagement there, why worry? Wish Peace for the middle east. (if not follow the Bible then follow humanity) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I haven't actually read anything by President Carter, though he has apparently written at length about the middle east. Have either of you, Mr. Fradera, or Balladeer? My understanding of President Carter's role in a number of countries across the world over the last 20 years or more is that he has been invited in to help supervise elections in countries which have fear of electoral fraud. Even in countries where there is little or no trust for anybody, President Carter is widely seen as an honest broker across the globe. Am I wrong in remembering that our current government made use of his services in the Iraqi elections? Calling him names and suggesting he be locked up in a rubber room suggests a study of history may be useful, and not simply from a limited basis. Mr. Carter also suggested that we put a massive amount of american effort into alternative energy research and production, and that we fund it if necessary with a tax on gasoline to increase the gas mileage on cars. I don't know if that would have prevented much of our current imbroglio or not, but it may well have had a positive impact, don't you think? Those who believe Mr. Carter to be the worst president in American history or even in the 20th century could be given a stiff argument by those who would name President Hoover or President Harding for the honor. Much to the dismay of some of my Republican friends, I believe the glory should be bestowed elsewhere. Until we actually have agreed upon criteria for measuring this dubious award, which I doubt we might find, the honor seems only an exercise in pointless venom. As for Hamas, I don't like them. However, nobody asked me if I liked them. Liking somebody is not a necessary precondition for talking to somebody, now, is it? In fact, while talking to your friends may be interesting and fun, there may actually be more useful results that come from talking to people you don't like. Certainly the United States and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist organization. They are also the legally elected government of the Palestinians. That means they are legitimate, in the political sense. They speak for the people, at least for now. Are we supposed to say, "No, they don't." Lest the reason for this be entirely lost, they are very good about supplying medical care, housing and education to the population and there is probably less graft involved with them than with the PLO. They get great local PR. The Israelis don't help their own cause when they blow up buildings and make retaliatory raids. There's a fair amount of collateral damage. Israelis and Palestinians, each uses the damage inflicted by the other to justify the next damage they inflict. Each feels the other has inflicted a series of long ago outrages that justifies the beginning of the conflict. Each side sees no way to forgive the other. This seems to me to be a sort of hell on earth. If we are a democratic country, we have an obligation to deal with them. Are we supposed to say, "No, you don't speak for the people; we'll tell you who speaks for your people." When the old Soviet Union used to do that, we called those Puppet Governments, and we despised them. Before the current state of Israel was recognized as a legitimate government on its own, many of the elements of the current government were called terrorists by Great Britain. By current standards, I suppose the definition fit. Many people were killed. British, Arabs and Jews. The rancor of the settlement of that quarrel was so horrible it has still not been settled. It was the difficulty in carrying out the conversation to a natural and decent conclusion that has landed us in this part of an ongoing quarrel. There is enough bad behavior for everybody to gorge on and still to have leftovers to take home from the party. And I'm talking about their own bad behavior. Not talking doesn't seem to work terribly well. If Carter's willing to act as a fair broker between parties willing to talk, I can contain my disappointment over any success he happens to achieve. How about you? If he fails, what have we lost? The situation is unchanged. And you may remember the negotiations between the Reagan election team and the Iranians prior to the 1980 elections, not sanctioned by the government, that turned out to be the beginning of the "Arms for Hostages" deal. President Reagan first made a speech saying that stories of this deal were absolutely untrue; but in a later speech was forced to admit he knew it was true; had known it at the time he made the first speech, but felt in his heart it couldn't be true, so that was what he went with. President Carter's being honest about what he's doing. Which is pretty much why folks consider him a fair broker and pretty much why a lot of people and governments wouldn't touch the current American government with a ten foot pole. If the current American government were worthy of trust, folks, there probably wouldn't have to be a Jimmy Carter out there, would there? We'd have folks coming to Camp David. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Was Carter worse than Harding or Hoover? I honestly can't say. I lived through Carter but, fortunately, am not old enough to have experienced the other two. I can cite two encyclopedias, however.... Encyclopedia Britannica in full James Earl Carter, Jr. 39th president of the United States (1977–81), who served as the nation's chief executive during a time of serious problems at home and abroad. His perceived inability to deal successfully with those problems led to an overwhelming defeat in his bid for reelection. After leaving office he embarked on a career of diplomacy and advocacy, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2002. Encyclopedia Americana On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states. What are and have been his views on the Middle East? WND Exclusive TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND Carter to Leno: Treatment of Palestinians 'horrible' Jimmy fails to mention onslaught of terrorist attacks against Israelis Posted: December 12, 2006 4:20 am Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily.com Without mentioning the onslaught of attacks by Palestinian terrorists, former President Jimmy Carter told a national audience watching the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" there is "horrible persecution" of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis, and he is urging a return to peace talks between the residents of the embattled region. Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict 'Domination' over Palestinians 'atrocious,' ex-prez tells 'Good Morning America' Posted: November 27, 2006 3:25 pm Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily.com Former President Carter at 2004 Democratic convention In some of the harshest and one-sided language he has used to date, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter called Israeli "domination" over Palestinians "atrocious" in an interview today on ABC's "Good Morning America." Carter said there was "no doubt now that a minority of Israelis are perpetuating apartheid on the people in Palestine, the Palestinian people." Carter called Israel's occupation the "prime cause" of continuing violence in the Middle East. Middle East Quarterly Jimmy Carter's engagement in foreign affairs as a former president is unprecedented in U.S. history. Because he regards the Arab-Israeli conflict as among Washington's most important foreign policy topics, he has written more than two dozen articles and commentaries about the conflict, eight in the past year alone. In these publications, Carter uses his credibility as a former president, Nobel laureate, and key player in the September 1978 Camp David accords and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty to unfold his set of truths and often to criticize U.S. policy. He relishes the role of elder statesman and believes that with his accrued wisdom and experience, he can contribute to solutions. But Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,[1] Carter's twenty-first book and his second to focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, is deficient. He does what no non-fiction author should ever do: He allows ideology or opinion to get in the way of facts. While Carter says that he wrote the book to educate and provoke debate, the narrative aims its attack toward Israel, Israeli politicians, and Israel's supporters. It contains egregious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his desired ends, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions. Falsehoods, when repeated and backed by the prestige of Carter's credentials, can comprise an erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and policymaking. Rather than bring peace, they can further fuel hostilities, encourage retrenchment, and hamper peacemaking. "Certainly the United States and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist organization. " - BobK Perhaps that has something to do with their suicide bombers, thousands of missile launches into civilian neighborhoods, and things like that, ya think? Yes, they are elected - so was Hitler, Castro, Milosovich and Hussein. If you can point out one instance of a Jewish suicide bomber, a suicide children's training camp, initial missile attacks and bombings not retalitory conducted by Israel, i would be happy to see it. Good luck. " If Carter's willing to act as a fair broker between parties willing to talk, I can contain my disappointment over any success he happens to achieve" - BobK If you think Hamas is willing to talk, there is a lot of swampland down here I can let you have for a song. Hamas is interested in having Jimmy come by to give them a little credibility that they are not the terrorist organization they are. Why would they not want to have an ex-president on their side who has publicly proclaimed that Israel is the real bad guy? Let's wait and see what success he has, shall we? I hope it's more than he had with the Iranians during the hostage crisis in his presidency and more than he had when he decide to visit Castro over governmental objections. Besides, he gave Michael Moore a bearhug and a seat next to him at the DNC....that says enough to me |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
From the reading of Truman(biography) and Kissinger( biography) I know that US Government has a very "balanced" policy toward middle east. There are oil, the tortured Jews in WW2, the opinion of Many US Christian (relevant to election) to consider. (interestingly not the opinion of US Jews) Do you think that Israel is not able to solve all by the support of US? But, it is simply not allowed to "win". Think of the fate of the Third army of Egypt. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Carter's distrust of the U.S. Jewish community and other supporters of Israel runs deep. According to former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Carter's feelings on Israel were always ambivalent. On the one hand, he felt Israel was being intransigent; on the other, he genuinely had an attachment to the country as the ‘land of the Bible.'"[8] In a 1991 research interview with Carter for my book Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace,[9] Carter recollected that: [Vice president] Fritz Mondale was much more deeply immersed in the Jewish organization leadership than I was. That was an alien world to me. They [American Jews] didn't support me during the presidential campaign [that] had been predicated greatly upon Jewish money ... Almost all of them were supportive of Scoop Jackson—Scoop Jackson was their spokesman … their hero. So I was looked upon as an alien challenger to their own candidate. You know, I don't mean unanimously but ... overwhelmingly. So I didn't feel obligated to them or to labor unions and so forth. Fritz … was committed to Israel … It was an act just like breathing to him—it wasn't like breathing to me. So I was willing to break the shell more than he was.[10] The gap between many American Jews and Carter grew during his presidency as Carter increased pressure on Jerusalem. In the 1980 general election, Carter received a lower proportion of Jewish votes than any Democratic presidential candidate since 1920. http://www.meforum.org/article/1633 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, I'm afraid I'll have to try to deal with your admirable posting over a period of time because it deserves a more thoughtful response than I can muster on the spot here. A few off the cuff things, though. The point is not whether the Israelis initiated a bomb blast or a rocket attack. What I see or you see doesn't matter here. What matters is what the Israelis and the Palestinians see. (The Christian Science Monitor has generally good coverage of the conflict and is worth looking at sometimes, by the way.) Each of them sees the other as having started each particular incident or as having provoked it in some fashion. I made that point in my previous pasting. You aren't obligated to agree to it, but I suspect that you might imagine if you think about it that it makes more sense than one party simply thinking that they're evil and for no reason wants to commit atrocities upon the nice folks across the street. I mentioned in my posting that I didn't like Hamas particularly. I don't know if I said that they were a terrorist organization. I did say that many elements of the current government of Israel were terrorists, having belonged to the Stern gang and some of the other far out branches of the Jewish independence movement of the 1940s. I would say that many of the Hamas people are the same sort of terrorists. How they would work out after a peace settlement would be interesting to see. So, yes Hamas is an organization that supports terrorism. Did you also look at some of the other activities Hamas supports? They're helping directly in ways that nobody else seems to be. As the old commercial used to say, "Stop! Certs is a candy mint AND a breath mint!" And so it may be with Hamas. They didn't get elected on fear. Also many people believe that being a Jew and being a Zionist are the same thing. This is not always the case. Many Jews are not Zionists and some of them live in Israel. Carter probably did more for the resolution of Arab Israeli hostilities than any American President before or since. The concords between Egypt and Israel are still holding thanks to the 1978 Camp David Accords. Why would I see an incident of a Jewish suicide bomber. Muslims have a long tradition of martyrdom and seeking it out and Jews do not. Martyrdom seems to look for them, doesn't it? I do remember A Jewish Major attacking a group of muslims in prayer at the tomb of Abraham a few years back and killing upwards of 30 folks. Perhaps I have things switched around. Best for Now, BobK. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
Mr.Carter may have different opinion on The issue on Israel. But I indeed had read some very manipulated data of middle east injured and death in Time magazine. War is not allowed in there. So, the only thing one can do is to make peace. This is two sides work. If there is not Hamas. there will be kamas. only when all are wiped out but wait a minute, we don't want the whole middles east Arab to unit to fight. So, It is good to have some one who have hope for peace. And If God allows. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Seoulair, from the understanding I get from the devoutly religious, God does not allow or disallow. He grants free will and lets us silly humans sleep (or die) in the beds of our own making. I doubt that a God would be "allowing" millions to die in Darfur and other places of hunger and planned extermination...and yet they do, don't they? Bob, I'm off to work but I'll respond later. With a little research I believe I can show time lines where attacks by Hamas were initiated, not as retaliation, but by their own initiative. I believe I can also show that an organization that sets up suicide bomber training camps for women and children and then sends them out to bomb civilians can be labeled a terrorist organization without much imagination and without going back to the 1940's to try to paint Israel with the same brush. Have a good Monday  |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: I absolutely agree. But many times people do it in god's/God's names. And many believe it. [This message has been edited by Seoulair (04-21-2008 12:06 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough...but doing something in God's name has little to do with the statement "and if God allows", I believe. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
It is my belief. Peace is esp related to God. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
And middle east problem does have a history... I think that if one day, when American Indian wants every non-Indian out of their land, I shall beg Mr.Carter kind by millions. In his biography, he helped a country to avoid a civil-war. (while Reagen wanted to overthrow the old government (it was voted out later peacefully) [This message has been edited by Seoulair (04-21-2008 05:57 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear balladeer, I'll see if I can't find you some Christian Science Monitor coverage on the subject. It really is special. They don't pretend that either side is populated with saints and the catch the particular circular nuttiness of the murderous conflict wonderfully well. And they've done it for years. I'll start with this one and dig further. If you check them out yourself, they're about the most objective coverage I've found. Maybe you'll agree, maybe not. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0327/p09s02-coop.html By the way, I asked if either you or Mr. Fradera had read anything by President Carter himself, not secondary sources about him. It always feels to me a little bit more dignified to say that somebody belongs in a rubber room if you're not simply going on the word of people who don't like him. A thirty year commitment to peace, and a willingness to put himself in harm's way to achieve it with a well thought out method of how to achieve it that's supported by enough of the world to get the man the Nobel peace prize in 2002 (not 1978, when the camp David accords were signed)would seem to suggest the rubber room bit would not be useful. This link is to a book review that gives a thumbnail sketch of the history of Hamas: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p15s02-bogn.html?page=1 Here are some recent thoughts from Israel that reflect on Carter's mission there now. As a nod to the C.S.M.s objectivity, you'll notice that some of the concerns mentioned there are a reflection of your own, some are a little broader. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0422/p07s01-wome.html And here is one last reference, more editorial, asking whether the world should talk with Hamas. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0325/p01s05-usfp.html?page=1 None of them are very long. The first probably has the most meat to it. You don't have to do research point out to me that the Palestinians always do something to start stuff. You miss the point. A couple, actually. 1) The Palestinians don't agree with you. 2) News sources in other countries print information we don't get here. Folks in France and Germany and the U.K. frequently disagree with us not simply because they aren't American and they don't appreciate our splendor, but because they get different video feeds than we do and their print stories say different things. 3) We tend to assume we have the most unfettered press in the world and they can and do report everything. I will be kind and say I do not believe this to be the case, and most especially in the case of middle eastern affairs. BobK. [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-21-2008 05:10 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Bob, I haven't read any of Carter's books, nor do I plan to spend money on them to do so. What I stated above were direct quotes from him. [Vice president] Fritz Mondale was much more deeply immersed in the Jewish organization leadership than I was. That was an alien world to me. They [American Jews] didn't support me during the presidential campaign [that] had been predicated greatly upon Jewish money ... Almost all of them were supportive of Scoop Jackson Scoop Jackson was their spokesman their hero. So I was looked upon as an alien challenger to their own candidate. You know, I don't mean unanimously but ... overwhelmingly. So I didn't feel obligated to them or to labor unions and so forth. Fritz was committed to Israel It was an act just like breathing to him it wasn't like breathing to me. So I was willing to break the shell more than he was.[10] Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter called Israeli "domination" over Palestinians "atrocious" in an interview today on ABC's "Good Morning America." Carter said there was "no doubt now that a minority of Israelis are perpetuating apartheid on the people in Palestine, the Palestinian people." If those quotes represent his feelings and writings, I'll stick with my Superman comics. As far as the Nobel Prize is concerned, Gore has one, too....so much for the importance of the award. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
I looked up the link you provided, Sir Balladeer. and I don't think that is a fair article titled with "my problems with " The whole thing can be talked in the way of politics, religion, personal opinion, or personal character. It was many European countries where Jews got prosecuted but why middles east has to be the place to pay? because there has God promised land. But who exactly got God calling? when Britain did not even want to give up the Arab oil interest? And why there is no peace for the last 60 years? Mr.Carter went there with hope of peace which is good for both side. Why he has to get criticized? We, human really can't wait to the end of the world if those blood from many years killing and war were not enough to fill our heart. Seriously. [This message has been edited by Seoulair (04-21-2008 08:26 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Seoulair, What did you think unfair? I can't get my connection going with CSM right now so I'm not sure what you mean.BobK. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, I can quote people out of context as well. The reason I asked the question was to see if either of us had gotten enough of a first person context to make an informed judgement. If you haven't read those unexcerpted, the answer for you is "No." You have read those portions of Carter that somebody with a point to prove wanted you to read. Those would be what he or she felt would prove his point and show Carter in a poor light. Neither you nor I know enough about Carter firsthand to be able to make a judgement on such a basis. I told you when I asked that I hadn't read him either. This doesn't mean I haven't read nice things people have said about him. They don't substitute very well for a direct assessment, either. As for the Nobel, I felt the same way about it for a while after they gave it to Kissinger. Both Gore and Carter earned it, too. You don't have to like the politician or the person who earned it, Balladeer, it's not a beauty pageant, or you would have gotten it years ago. I mourn that oversight as much as France and Great Britain do, not to mention your many fans here, in the united States. Nor did I imagine anything could ever lure you away from the Superman comics. I ask only that you consider a couple of the articles from the Christian Science Monitor, some of which you will find in at least partial agreement with you. Other of which will provide you with information you may not have. Habitat for Humanity, another of the Carter supported organizations is an extraordinary organization that spends much of its time and money here in the U.S. They get low cost loans from banks. They have a list of people who want homes who are willing to contribute labor to building the homes of others. There are also volunteers who pitch in as well with money and labor. They build the homes in marginal neighborhood, bring the quality of the neighborhood up, give people the pride of home ownership, have a very high mortgage repayment rate and are an all around terrific idea. Carter and his wife are out there swinging hammers with everybody else. I do want Israel is make it as a country. A single state solution will not work because the Jews will be outnumbered in very short order. If the Palestinians are to have their own State, they must have trust in their neighbors not to steal their land. Israel has been sending settlers in to settle land on the west bank for many years now and they are not good about bringing these people back into the area where they agreed Israeli boundaries ended. Do the Israelis see this as reasonable? Many of them do, yes. They think, some of them, that the land was given to them by God and the discussion ought to end there. Others think that the land is needed as a buffer zone to keep other Arab states and some Palestinians out of easy rocket and mortar range of the cities of the Israeli heartland. This probably made more sense twenty years ago than it does today, if not because of geopolitical changes, then because of advances in military hardware make such a buffer zone insufficient protection. The only plausible solution is serious negotiations, and serious negotiations mean each side listening to the other seriously. Frankly, I believe each side needs to be asked to imagine living together in peace in, say, five years time with all the major issues settled. Then they need to answer this difficult question. What will you be doing differently? No answers contingent on what the other guy does first permitted. Just, What will YOU be doing differently? I think Carter's got as good a chance as anybody of asking that question. Frankly I don't give a hoot who does. I'm more interested in listening to the answers, should anybody care to give some. [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-21-2008 10:53 PM).] |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
Dear Bob K, I was talk to Balladeer. I should add a comma. sorry for the confusion....Sir Balladeer will pick up a laugh . |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
quote: And I seem to recall that Arafat did too. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mr. Fradera, Back to your original question: quote: I think that sufficient actual news coverage and publication of what these people actually did would be an excellent start. I'm not sure how well revenge works in the end. But understanding and responsibility can be pretty amazing. It can change peoples lives. It is enormously difficult. I wish I were good at it. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: "through three administration Carter always consulted Washington and provided written reports of his trip. Baker knew U.S interests would be served because Carter would not hesitate to expose any irregularities if they occurred." page 495 Jimmy Carter by peter G.Bourne |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You have read those portions of Carter that somebody with a point to prove wanted you to read. Those would be what he or she felt would prove his point and show Carter in a poor light. Regardless of the motive, they are Carter's quoted words. The encyclopedia Americana was not based on someone's prejudice. It consisted of actual figures showing how Carter's presidency sabotaged the economy during his tenure. Carter has my admiration and applause for the work he has done with Habitat for Humanity. He is much better at something like that than trying to run a country or negotiate with dictators and terrorists. I have not ignored your CSM links and promise to peruse them as soon as I have time. As you can see from the time of this post, I'm getting home rather late and tomorrow will not be much better but I look forward to reading them. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I know, Balladeer. I think it's remarkable you're as tolerant as you are, actually. Not that I think I'm so off the wall, but that our views are so widely divergent so often. Thanks for the effort. BobK. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, You do leave me puzzled as to why Gore doesn't deserve a Peace Prize. You cite his name and expect me to understand immediately, when I guess when actually I don't. Also I just noticed that the reason you stated for maintaining your current restricted view of Carter is that you didn't want to spend the money on buying the book. There are of course people I wouldn't want to support with the money it takes to buy one of their books, though I do confess to buying two of Rush Limbaugh's books because I wanted to see what he had to say. I suspect you were so steamed about Carter that the library skipped your mind. You might not want to read him at all really, and simply be happy with the partial information you have now. There can be things more important in a guy's life, and you'd have every right in the world to draw that line here. I suspect what you'd find is a guy who fits some of your early calls and doesn't fit others; a mixed bag, like most of us. This one seems to me to have a pretty strong commitment to peace and human rights, and he was the first president to make human rights a fixture in U.S. foreign policy. Also he was the first U.S. president to be attacked by a rabbit, whom I am sure was an agent of the massive right wing conspiracy. Didn't want you to think I was getting too rational there, Balladeer, though there's probably little danger of that, what with me reminding you of The Russell Crowe movie. Good book, too. My best, BobK. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BobK...puzzled about why Gore doesn't deserve the Peace prize? Oh, let me count the ways... Gore is a fake. He has little interest in global warming, as evidenced by his own lifestyle, except as a vehicle to further his own image and fortune. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303525,00.html http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070222b.html You can follow the above links to find all of the errors in An Inconvenient Truth, no, not errors but intentional misleading information. Also, in a coincidence, I heard on the news today that the footage Gore used of Antartica was not really of Antartica at all but were instead movie footages taken from the movie The Day After Tomorrow. So I looked it up...... http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth Gore Used Fictional Video to Illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’ . By Noel Sheppard | April 22, 2008 - 09:53 ET It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria. On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow."] Adding delicious insult to injury, this was presented by one of ABC's foremost global warming alarmists Sam Champion during Friday's "20/20": SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS) (Voiceover) Al Gore's 2006 documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth," makes the same point with actual video of ice shelves calving. Which shots have more impact? AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT) And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you'd see it's 700 feet tall. They are so majestic. SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS) (Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of "The Day After Tomorrow." KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR) Yeah, that's, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there. SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS) (Voiceover) Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming. Apparently, ABC tried to get a comment from Gore concerning the matter, but none was forthcoming: Gore will also not allow reporters to cover his speeches on global warming, for which he is paid and average of $175,000.00 per presentation. One reporter had reported that Gore was using the speeches to promote companies dealing with alternative energy methods in which Gore had a stake in, making him basically a stock hawker whose personal stock holdings would go up if stock activity heightened. After this report was made public, all reporters were banned from future presentations. I could go on and on but you can do it yourself with Google. There is plenty of information available to ease your puzzlement. Gore does not deserve the millions he has made from exploiting a global warming scare and he certainly did not deserve a Nobel prize. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Bob, I've had little desire to read Carter's works. My "partial information" was living my heyday (30's) during his presidency, as I suspect you did, too. Politics did not concern me in the slightest but I considered Carter a joke as a president even then, as did many, a joke that was not easy to laugh at if you were in the unemployment line along with the extremely large percentage of other Americans. The only thing he did right was to get out after one term. Btw, it is fitting that he would be attacked by a rabbit. There are few things on this planet so timid a rabbit would attack them. Apparently Carter was one of them |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
Gore did not start the warning crusade of Globe warming. He merely take advantage of his fame to make it more known to the world. I do not see anything wrong with it. He was lucky that he got Nobel Price. (many scientists should have shared) As for Mr.Carter, he really deserved it. Good or bad president, different generation will have different saying. My old neighbor, a republican, wanting to fly confederate flag on his porch is a very kind, decent man and 80 something. He told me that he didn't like Truman when he lived under Truman's time. But decades later after he read Truman's Biography, his opinion changed. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, It's late and I've just gotten a chance to look at your above posting. Thanks for responding. Mr. Milloy, the junk science consultant for Fox news, I'm sorry to say, was the first article I was able to check. His accusations to me felt like a put-up job frankly, but I didn't want to dismiss them simply because of that. I looked him up in wikipedia and found that while Fox still employs him is apparently in the employ of others as well. You may not wish to look at the whole unpleasant article, made worse by the objectivity of it all. In checking out Kevin Mooney's stuff I found that he had a series of articles about global warming, all debunking it with the exception of one, full of outrage. That one was a response to the suggestion from the Union of Concerned Scientists that there be some sort of congressional oversight to the debate, and that the debate be limited to people who had actual scientific evidence to back them up, as evidenced by having articles published in peer reviewed journals. This notion Mr. Mooney could not tolerate. A new era of McCarthyism, he thunders, etcetera. I don't think so. It means that actual fringe loonies who don't have the research to get their views considered on the basis of the facts collected, shouldn't have their views considered as though they were as well researched as the data of those people who have. Science has to do with consideration of the facts, and your opinion is worth squat without them. Mr. Mooney knows this, and he knows where most of the facts are to be found. If only facts that have been well established from peer reviewed journals were admissible for consideration, his end of the global warming debate would be sunk. If Mr. Gore did use a computer generated shot instead of actual footage, that was silly of him, and I suppose he will have some 'splanin' to do. I'll wait for his explanation a bit. As a writer, you do editing all the time, as I do, and you know that if you know something isn't right you can edit around it, change the focus a bit and nobody will ever know the difference. Seems odd to me too. Gore has been at this environmental stuff for a very long time. He's been writing books about it and people have been ignoring him or making fun of him about it for much if not most of that time. He's been called a dreamer and a fool for his stubborn convictions about this stuff. If he's made investments that put some of his money were his mouth is in the face of a substantial number of people telling him he's an idiot for doing so and the investments look like they may well be paying off because he was right and because he worked hard, it hardly seems terribly conservative to hold that against him. It seems to me he saw a need, it was a visionary need, and he helped people understand how filling that need would help them. I have no idea how accurate the stories are about his profiting from all this are, but if they are true, I don't see that he's hurt anybody by it. Even the current administration now acknowledges the reality of global warming. They simply don't seem to want to spend any money to do anything about it. I don't know how much Mr. Gore gets from presenting his Global warming presentation. It's sort of a rock-star show, I figure, and I can't afford those anyway. What were they charging for the latest big rock presentation, Balladeer? I've always felt outraged by that sort of stuff as well. I used to fume when I heard that James Dickey used to get $2500.00 a reading back in 1970, too. What did I know? I wish you $175,000 a reading, too. And if Gore was able to generate this much attention to something he's been working on for 17 years and harvesting mostly a rich crop of scorn and mockery out of, then I still wish him well. The prize was not a cool million, I hear, but a million and a half, and he split it with a team of 10 environmental scientists. They got their part for the science, he got his part for the publicity campaign. That's the way I understand it. If Gore has made millions, and I don't know that he has, it doesn't seem to be at anybody's expense and it's been by doing good and working his tail off in the face of some bitter ad hominim attacks. He seems happy, and I would like that kind of happiness for you and me. He hasn't appeared to inflict pain on anybody that I can see. I'm glad he got the Nobel. I think the awareness of the mess the planet's in gives us a better chance of doing stuff to get out of it. I feel I owe him something for that. I'm grateful. Why should I begrudge him that? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BobK, with all due respect, it appears you hedge your words a bit by taking factual statements and making them conditional if they conflict in any way. If Mr. Gore did use a computer generated shot instead of actual footage, There is no if here. The people who actually generated the footage for the movie have verified it. If he's made investments that put some of his money were his mouth is in the face of a substantial number of people telling him he's an idiot for doing so and the investments look like they may well be paying off because he was right and because he worked hard, it hardly seems terribly conservative to hold that against him. There is no if here. His investments are a matter of record, unlike anyone calling him an idiot for buying such stock. There have been many such scandals over the years of people doing mass mailings, flyers, etc, touting stocks they are involved in to get the prices up before dumping them. What he is doing is nothing new. Why would he ban all reporters from being present if all is so above board? I have no idea how accurate the stories are about his profiting from all this are, but if they are true, It would be easy enough to know. It's all there in Google. I would have printed the links but I considered them unnecessary over a point so well known. If they are true, Bob? If Gore has made millions, and I don't know that he has, I find that hard to believe, Bob, for someone as informed as you keep yourself. You may not wish to acknowledge it but I doubt that there is actually an "if" in your mind here. Making facts conditional does not make them anything less than factual, regardless of whatever ostrich-like tendencies people employ. Even the current administration now acknowledges the reality of global warming. No one in recent history has ever doubted it. The doubt lies in Gore's fantasy world of what will happen and the fact that it is all because of what humans are doing to it. It would appear, Bob, that, rather than acknowlege certain factual findings, you prefer to use excuses for dismissing them or lessining their value. I do not mean that in an unkind way but, based on your responding comments in this thread I can see it no other way. You excuse direct quotes from Carter relating to Israel's part in the Middle East crisis by pointing out the writer of the article didn't like Carter, as if that changes everything. You ignore the fact that a British judge demands that students forced to watch An Inconvenient Truth be told of all of the film's misrepresentations. Perhaps the judge was a closet Republican? You completely disregard all of the factual misrepresentations of the second link, like smow caps covering New York City in our lifetime, Tidal waves burying Florida, seals drowning because thay have to swim too far to find food, etc, etc, etc. Perhaps you consider them little more than creative spurts of imagination. If Gore has made millions, and I don't know that he has, it doesn't seem to be at anybody's expense and it's been by doing good and working his tail off in the face of some bitter ad hominim attacks. Not at anyone's expense is an interesting and, I'm afraid, short-sighted view. It has already cost us and when the "green" movement goes into full swing, you will get the opportunity to see just how much it really will cost us. If we and PIP are still around when that happens, I'll be happy to point them out to you. As far as Gore working his tail off, have you seen pictures of him lately? The tail is alive, well and flourishing and there is a rumor that he sweats gravy....but I don't want to be catty about it. 'm glad he got the Nobel. Ok by me, Bob. If you applaud a man who creates a false documentary with false facts and footage, invests in alternative energy stocks which he then get paid to steer other investors to, which increase the value of his own holdings while, at the same time, uses more personal energy than 50 households, which he explains away by buying carbon credits which he pays himself for....then bless you. You are a con man's dream. In actual fact, though, you are way too smart to be any con man's mark. I believe the simple fact is that your party preference put you on his side and you will defend his actions, no matter what they may be. We all do that, don';t we?. That's what makes conversations like these so frustrating and difficult to resolve. In Gore's case, however, I can honestly say that, if the man were a Republican, I would still find his actions, deceptions and scare tactics deplorable and I would not consider myself demeaning the Republican Party by doing so.....only him. He may have the Nobel prize but he will never have the no-bull prize...that's a fact. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: Those comments were mainly on a technical of illustration....illustration of an event. It should be allowed if the data is not manipulated. Those news expressed that they care not if the global warming was true or not, but Gore used the wrong way to illustrate it. that was it. But a wrong illustration does not prove that Global warming was not here. That picture is not the singe data that scientist have. Mr.Gore, (many does not want him to be president, does not want to be a Noble winner ) is proved to be a valued man by half American.(there were voting data) And I think that he is quite handsome. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, Yes. The folks you quote make a point of attacking what they call "liberal press," while not defining what they mean by that. They even include that bit of information in their blurb on their google entries. "Correcting Liberal Bias," I think they call it. I'm not clear what they're willing to do to hard information to do so. Attitude toward fact seems questionable, hence the "if-then" constructions. I did get to source you sent me to about the Gore film, and I'm still trying to find where they got their material from. I'm sure it's out there and I'll keep at it. But I won't take it simply on their say so because I saw their other article about the british judge and THAT one I was able to check out: http://mediamatters.org/items/200802130001?f=s_search Media Matters is a little bit more objective than your guys, so you can see where the story came from, but you can see the serious twisting and smearing that went on for the story to be printed in the form that you presented it. I'm sure you didn't realize that when you used the article to make your point. I'll stay on top and keep after this stuff. I don't want to convert you, and I'm not trying here, Balladeer, it's simply that there's a lot of stuff going on that we may be able to change going on in the world. We may be able to help each other out. Is that so terrible? Respectfully yours, BobK. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BobK, the articles fromthe CSM really caused me to do some very deep self-soul searching. I'll try to put my thoughts down in some sort of rational order without contradicting myself too many times but it may not be easy. Like the old Indian saying, "Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his mocassins", one has to try to be objective in one's viewing and criticisms of another's actions. All we can do is say what we would do (or hope we would do) under similar circumstances. As many know, I am a devotee of Ayn Rand, not because she showed me how and what to think but because she showed me that there are actually others out there with the same thoughts and feelings I have always had. You can believe me that I had had doubts about that before reading her work. She had two philosophies that fit into this topic, I believe, the first being "Never give an undeserved moral sanction". Hamas is a terrorist group. I doubt you will find anyone who disputes that. They introduced the warfare of suicide bombing in 1994, they train women and children to blow up other women and children, they support for life the families of suicide bombers and they kidnap and murder at their whim. Are they duly elected? Yes, but take a closer look at that fact. They have support because they have taken care of the poor, the majority of the Palestinian populace. Upon closer inspection, however, one finds, and it has been well-documented, that their support and aid went only to people who pledged their allegiance to hamas. Anyone who didn't was out. Food and medical treatment goes to followers and no one else. Small wonder that they had so many supporters. As the CSM pointed out, the denial of foreign aid to the Palestinians only made hamas stronger and the populace more dependant on them. So hamas has money and power. What don't they have? They don't have a moral sanction. They don't have anyone to say they are NOT a terrorist group. Does that matter to them? You can bet your sweet bippy it does. They want the undeserved legitimacy - they need it. It doesn't matter a hoot that they know they don't deserve it. They are the rapist who is demanding that his victim say "I love you" while he is forcing himself on her. They are the street thug who says "You are going to loan me all of your money, aren't you?" as he holds a knife to your throat. They need the pretence. That's why they welcome Jimmy Carter. An ex-president of the United States negotiating with them makes them more than a terrorist group. It gives them the legitimacy they crave. Israel and the United States will not give them that undeserved legitimacy.....Jimmy Carter will. They have their moral sanction through him. (Ayn Rand would not like Jimmy Carter). Is that a good thing or a bad thing or just a necessary thing? Not dealing with hamas seems to do little good and yet dealing with them gives them and undeserved position.....and the jury would still be out whether or not dealing with them would do any good in the end, anyway. So what's the answer? I don't have it. If one feels negotiations with a terrorist group is necessary, then I would think the negotiations should involve concerned parties, like the countries in the Middle East. What has Carter to offer? He has the backing of no government, he has no power to do anything aside from offering them free peanuts for the rest of their lives. They will use him as a puppet, nothing more. It is always good to stand up for one's ideals....but to what point? Which of us would actually stand up and say "Give me liberty or give me death" today? Which of us would sign the Declaration of Independence, knowing that our lands would be taken from us and we would die in poverty, which is exactly what happened to the original signers? I'd like to think I would follow through with these high ideals....but would I? I don't honestly know. The Three Musketeers were fictional characters and their "All for one and one for all" cry was from the imagination of the author, nothing more. I would like to say I would never give an undeserved moral sanction to anyone and yet I am not living on the West Bank, starving. Ayn Rand's second point is much tougher..."Black is black and white is white and gray is evil." In other words, any compromise that deals with mixing bad with good is bad. Since the world runs on compromise that would be a toughie to follow, I know. It would take a degree of high idealism which doesn't exist today. We can find small traces of it when we declare we do not negotiate with kidnappers, for example, but for the most part the ideal gives way to the reality of the world in which we live. Terrorism is bad. Sending children to blow themselves up along with other children is bad. Compromising or negotiating with organizations that engage in that is bad.....isn't it? And yet that is what Carter is attempting to do. It is simply not going to work and hamas will be stronger for it. But I'm sitting here in my cozy living room with a Pepsi in my hand and American Idol on tv (how in the world did they bounce Carly????). It's easy for me to speak of ideals and tell people what they should and shouldn't do and think. No one is going to lob a bomb at my house in the morning or shoot at me on the way to work....er, i'll retract that last remark. I DO live in South Florida, after all.  I can speak of high ideals and yet I have not put on one pair of mocassins that the people over there walk in every day. I can say idealogocially that hamas should not be given legitimacy and yet I cannot condemn those who would do so. I simply don't think Jimmy Carter is the man to do it.Again, Bob, I thank you for the links. They helped my climb down from my high horse for a minute and look hard at both sides. I wish I were smart enough to have the answers. I don't. Peace...... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, I can see where Media Matters is more objective...they spell it out in their description. Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Thanks for the smile |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: If one has never stepped in the shoes of Mr.Gore or Mr.Carter or worked with them, one should not judge them. quote: Carter visits Hams is bad. How about Bush has not Caught Bin Laden? quote: Who is Any Rand any way? A woman's moral of baseless is self-made moral. quote: Yes. What shall we do about it? If it can not be wiped out why try to change it? War is organized terrorism too. quote: 1. How many woman and children have already been killed by dropping Bombs in the last 4 years? 2. In Vietnam war, someone has encountered children troops and women troops. It was war. It was homeland. It is integrity and it is freedom too. and idealism too. (everyone in the world value life as the same price but some have never had a measurement.) quote: I don't think that Mr.Carter is that powerful. I think that Both sides would take as good will. And I think this is rather good, because others from North could do the exactly same thing. Then, shall we be happy ? quote: (unmatchable) quote: Do you think that Hamas are doing this? quote: Ayn Rand's Black1 were blank. Black2 were blue. And her white was red and some times black5. And her evil were whoever said self-interest were selfish. Her sight was truly worse than color blind. Tell me, how gray is evil? quote: What is good and what is bad? every body is bloody handed. So what is the definition? By God 's standard or by self-interest? or other religions or philosophies? quote: Great man. Never forget to worry about the underprivileged ones.( Ayn Rand would hate this) quote: Do please do it more frequent and next time take me as your stool. And have a very good night!!! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, Thank you so much for checking out the Christian Science Monitor. I don't always like what they have to say, but I never doubt their integrity in their reporting of it. They've made me sit down and think deeply many a time as well. I know you've been busy, and I appreciate the time you've taken. I know that you were put off my the information in the heading of the link. I hope that didn't stop you from reading further. The information you discussed in your note was taken up and acknowledged there, but you need to read the article through to the end to get the balance of the thing. And then you'd have to check out their version of the facts as best you can. I don't want you to accept them on their own. Publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post make an effort to keep conservative folks on their staffs and to make sure those voices are represented. You can find them spread fairly widely through a week's worth of newsprint, as well as in most of the papers the right wing calls "Liberal Press." Alan Coombs is about the only liberal given an sort of voice in the right wing press, and when he starts to disagree, the show's producers cut to music or switch to Sean Hannity. I'm not weeping about it, I think it's funny, as a liberal, to see all the airplay about The Liberal Press. I don't think the country understands the word anymore. It's being used to define folks that when I was a kid used to be thought of as Rockefeller Republicans. I too read Ayn Rand when I was younger. We parted company over the issue of black and white when I realized that not everybody had the same notion of what was black and what was white. It was a simple way to become Procrustean about the important matters of life without understanding the other guy's point of view. A chair is a chair except when it's thirty feet tall and made out of aluminum, standing in front of The Pacific Design Center in LA, a hundred feet away from a thirty foot tall aluminum table lamp. Then it may be a piece of design. A Table Lamp is a Table Lamp, yes. A Table Lamp is a Piece of Design and not a table lamp, yes. A is A, as Ms. Rand famously misreads Aristotle, is often a matter of perspective and point of view. Cognitive therapy, one of the forms of widely used behavior therapy, uses Black and White thinking as an example of one of its logical fallacies. As do most behavioral therapies. Black and White thinking is often cited as a logical fallacy in rhetoric texts and is generally accepted as one. You being right, for example, about many conservative values does not make me wrong about many liberal ones; and vice versa. In other words, there is room for both of us to be decent and right thinking folks who want what's best for everyone. A few thoughts. Thanks again for you kind response to the Christian Science Monitor articles. They really do give good information and much to think about for everybody with concerns in the matter. Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Carter visits Hams is bad. How about Bush has not Caught Bin Laden? Seoulair, how can I argue with such profound logic? I surrender |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A chair is a chair except when it's thirty feet tall and made out of aluminum, standing in front of The Pacific Design Center in LA, a hundred feet away from a thirty foot tall aluminum table lamp. Then it may be a piece of design. And would you call that 30 foot tall piece of design a table, Bob? Or would it still be a chair? Arguments like this are what have muddied the waters so much that truth and fact become so garbled that one cannot recognize fact when one sees it. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong and there are no actual facts. Al Capone was basically an entrepreneur who supplied liquid refreshments to the populace and helped rid the world of gangsters who opposed him. Hitler was a painter who perfected population control. A thirty foot chair is really a sofa. Me being right about certain conservative values does not make you wrong about certain liberal ones? True enough but when I see something as a chair and you see it as a porcupine then I won't argue. I'll simply ask you to sit on it. There are few left with the courage to to say the emperor is really naked because there will always be someone out there to say not really - he is wearing skin or just because you don't see clothes doesn't mean they are not really there. There are no black and white issues any more.....hence the state of the world. Congrats to all.... |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
True enough but when I see something as a chair and you see it as a porcupine then I won't argue. I'll simply ask you to sit on it"  |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
There are no black and white issues any more.....hence the state of the world. Congrats to all.... Black and White are confused concepts because when you are not talking colors (still remember last troubles you made?  )you might put in any value into them as you treated X, Y in algebra. What is Black? what is white? If the world is as simple as this, why we need wisdom? why we need judgment?"Black is black and white is white and gray is evil." Rand When there is an issue presented to Mr.W does he view it as black? or white? How does he judge it? by previous teaching? then what is the statues before teaching? Gray? then Gray is evil. Did she mean that every one is evil? then what was she? "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil."- Jesus This is very clear... Say what you mean and mean what you say. He did not say that one had to be right Because human rarely got right anyway. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, No, I'm not joking about there being actual gray-scale cases that must be considered and do not conform usefully to black and white thinking. I simply haven't expressed myself well. Please see the wikipedia article on Fuzzy Logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic There are actual situations in which "truth' must be applied in a scalar fashion, and there are mathematical and logical systems that have been developed since the mid sixties that deal with these situations. Knowing your preference for seeing things in a real-world business kind of framework, I skipped over the psychological references to black and white thinking and settled on one that talks about it in terms of business dynamics. You might try this google reference on Black and White thinking to check it out from that point of view. http://www.slowleadership.org/2006/08/seeing-in-black-and-white.html One of the main problems with black and white thinking is that it yields faulty information, or it gets subordinates to act as yes men for the decision maker. New ideas and new approaches are D.O.A. And so on. I believe that Ayn Rand had problems of this sort with folks in her own organization, and many of them were forced to leave over reasonably small points of contention. I'm not sure, so I won't state this as fact. Facts must be distinguished from opinions. The ranking of the importance of one fact in relationship to another is also a matter of some importance. Your statement about Al Capone was factual. You left other facts out. Your statement about Hitler being a painter and an advocate of population control were facts. You simply distorted the importance of the facts by presenting them as if they had an import equal to or greater than the things in Hitler's life we generally think of first when we think of him at all. In fact, by using Black and White thinking, you seek to make Hitler more different from the rest of us than he in fact was. He was a not very successful artist with right wing leanings. You and I share the first part of that description, Balladeer, we split company on the second, and I don't know how we line up on the third. You seek to make evil something that is further away from us than it is. It's the Black and White thinking that not only allows but encourages that. It produces, as Mr. Fradera jibed in a recent poem, Us and Them splits that have a funny way of breaking down. I don't think you mean to do this. It's simply a by-product of this kind of thinking, like burning hydrogen produces water. I'm interested in your thoughts about this. And I'd like to get back to Mr. Carter and Mr. Gore. You've had interesting things to say about each of them and I'd like a chance to continue our dialogue with a man of conviction and integrity, such as yourself. I hope everything is going well for you down there. Sincerely, BobK. [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-24-2008 06:15 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Your statement about Hitler being a painter and an advocate of population control were facts. You simply distorted the importance of the facts by presenting them as if they had an import equal to or greater than the things in Hitler's life we generally think of first when we think of him at all. I distorted nothing. I named facts. I said nothing about where they rank in the level of importance at all. Apply that to Hamas. You can begin a conversation by they they are a duly elected body who aids the poor. But when you bring in the facts that they are murderers who kill innocent civilians with bombs in public places and describe some of the other atrocities they have committed over the years that kinds changes things a little, doesn't it....in the same way listing Hitler's atrocities would change perceptions when added to my original comments. Those who prefer dealing with Hamas advocate using the first two statements and not mentioning the others....or, by your words, distorting the issue. It's the same thing. Carter and Gore. I think I've presented my views and opinions of them. Carter was a horrible president who does wonderful work with his humanitarian endeavors. Gore is a slug who preys on the fears of others to make money. Global warming is not the first thing he tried. He was known as the "crisis" man. Years ago when he was running for President there was a compilation of clips about him making speeches, each one announcing a different crisis. There was an "educational" crisis, an "energy" crisis, a "morals" crisis.....you name it and Gore could announce a crisis over it. He hit gold with global warming and has milked it for all it's worth. He is a successful man in doing what he does best - conning the public. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Balladeer, One of the Problems with Black and White thinking is that it leads to overgeneralization, the use of words such as Always, Never, Everybody, Nobody often lead folks who use Black and White thinking to make statements to make statements that they themselves would find disquieting if they thought about it. They usually know the world is more complicated than they present it as being. From my own all too frequent indulgences in the practice, I know there are times when the actual complexity of the world is close to maddening and I simply wish it were not so. Hence, it is not surprising to find somebody using Black and White thinking to say, "Nobody is right, nobody is wrong and there are no actual facts," with all seriousness at one place and to say with equal seriousness and conviction, "I distorted nothing. I named facts. I said nothing about where they rank in the level of importance at all" at another to justify his own editing of the facts at a later point. And in point of fact, at least in my own belief, he sees no difference. There is no problem for him here. This isn't terrible, this is simply the way this sort of thinking operates. It tends to switch around in this way with perfectly decent and honest intentions. Some issues can be resolved by analysis of the facts. Some are matters of opinion that depend on how the facts are construed. There will be other options as well. This is why in recent years the folks who supply you with your electrical lighting have started to supply you with the option of a dimmer switch for the ordinary on/off switch that light fixtures used to supply. This is why heating and cooling systems tend to use rheostats to turn the heat or cooling functions on or off; otherwise home-owners would be pretty busy, running back and forth to the on/off switch for the furnace. I would like your thought on the two articles I selected on Black and White Thinking for your consideration. Or anybody else's. They're actually pretty decent. I'll try to get back to Carter and Gore Later. Respectfully yours, BobK. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I confess that, by my own limited intelligence, I have no idea what you just said. How whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization to be dealt with or not has led us to a road involving putting dimmer switches on lights is enough to baffle me....think I'll go to bed now |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
btw... Hence, it is not surprising to find somebody using Black and White thinking to say, "Nobody is right, nobody is wrong and there are no actual facts, I'm afraid you missed altogether there, Bob. I was not saying I feel that way. I was pointing out to what is said by those who argue against black and white. Apparently I said it in a way to confuse you....one of the problems of written words as opposed to oral conversation. goodnight.... |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
Knock! Knock.  have you wake up yet, dear Sir Balladeer?Rand chose black, white and gray as moral codes and she obviously was dumper than RumsField who knew for each color of security there was a saying in it. right? She did not use right and wrong because she knew that she could NOT define right and wrong by herself. And she has no idea what she was talking about on self-interests. In Russian that could have meant something else. And she knew that she had stolen the ideas from the communism....this is very scary to me. And her philosophy, borrowed thread with self-made notes(knots) to make sel-fishy net full of holes. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you for explaining Ayn Rand's true meaning of her words. Were she still alive I'm sure she would be grateful, also. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, quote: Sorry, Balladeer, I'd rather sit on your chair, most of the time. I'm seldom in the mood to sit on a porcupine. quote: No, sorry, Balladeer, neither a table nor a chair, but simply a piece of design; or perhaps a sculpture. Perhaps you have a table large enough for it, and to put the matching table lamp upon, which was the point in the first place, to show these ordinary objects as pieces of design and not as ordinary objects. A simple change in scale has accomplished the transformation in point of view. quote: Well, actually, yes. The muddying and confusion that you see here and are so uncomfortable with is the way many of us see reality all the time. We don't see it as being clearly organized into right and wrong and good and bad. We see overlapping motives as spurring people, organizations, and Countries with agendas of mixed qualities into actions that have a broad range of consequences; not all of them predictable, not all of them good, even for their own constituents. The problem isn't so much in knowing fact when you see it, but in evaluating what level of trust to place in the facts and opinions you get. This is of course my opinion, I'm stating it that way because I don't want you to think I'm trying to sneak it in here as a fact. It's a strongly held personal point of view. If you had a look at the article of how black and white thinking affects business decision-making, you'll understand a little bit of the pragmatics of why I think this way. It's not simply a pie in the sky point of view. It's a dollars and cents practical point of view as well. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
