Re: Roots Of Rage: U.S. policy mixed with Islamic triumphali

Post #10,809 by gtall 9/28/01 1:14:01 PM Reply	Re: Roots Of Rage: U.S. policy mixed with Islamic triumphali One of the ways to reduce our meddling is to get off the foreign oil fixation. We've done nothing since 1973 when the first oil shock hit. If we had decided then we'd never again be held hostage to our addiction to their oil, we'd have a much freer hand and we would not have to care so much about them. The other problem we have is Israel. There is no amount of peacemaking, love, etc. that will force the Arabs (and Muslims) in general to accept Israel. For us to allow Israel to be destroyed...and Muslims do want to destroy it and Jews in general because of some problem Mohammed had with them getting upset over his knocking over their caravans...would be the height of hypocrisy for us and the West in general. I see no solution to this. The culture clash between a secular, modern world, and the archaic Muslim world is not going to end either. They want it both ways, economic vitality and Muslim conservatism. They think there is a middle way, I do not believe there is. As soon as a people becomes economically self-sufficient and well off, the influence of religion wanes because its emotional support is not needed as much. As long as the religious nuts in the Muslim world insist on being their political nuts as well, a vibrant economy will feel threatening because it creates centers of power no longer under their control. The Communist Party in China are dealing with this problem now. They have to struggle to remain relevant. Gerard Allwein
Post #10,839 by Ashton 9/28/01 5:57:51 PM 9/28/01 6:07:55 PM Reply	'73 oil embargo.. Ah yes, I remember it well. And (even I) made it a point to look around, each year for about (5?) afterwards: for * signs of intelligent life in the universe. * Lily Tomlin has her show of that name, in San Francisco this week IIRC. Laugh-In had our number too well, in the late '60s -- so the network had to kill it, of course. After about six months, and the return of unlimited oil-at-Any-price for the 12 mpg Detroit iron of the day: we went back to sleep (nothwithstanding the occasional pious speech from this one or that one, admonishing ustoplanahead). Nothing I've owned since (or then, actually) has produced <25 mpg except for: the '70 Buick Riviera I bought for a song, at the height of the 'discomfort': sold a year later for $1000+ profit. I deem this one transaction as adequate evidence of our attention span then, and since. Buick weighed 5000#, which I thought then was ludicrous. Drive hard: 6 mpg for that car. Drive really carefully: maybe 13 on a trip. Anyone notice the mileage of the Popular Urban assault Vehicles of the new millennium? (7300# for the Explorer) (umm QED?) Hydrogen, hybrids, ... lots of ideas have been around since before '73. We (generally) do not care about 'conservation' of any resource - only consumption, comfort and amusement / distraction. Did 9/11 alter our deeply ingrained MO, more than momentarily? Place bets. Ashton Edited by Missing User 70 Sept. 28, 2001, 06:07:55 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #11,092 by Steve Lowe 10/1/01 11:26:29 AM Reply	Re: '73 oil embargo.. Ah yes, I remember it well. Explorer = 4334 lbs (4wd, loaded) Expedition = 5198 lbs (4wd, loaded) Excursion = 7087 lbs (4wd, loaded) (from consumerguide.com) I've always suspected the "7300# for the Explorer" figure you've been throwing around was grossly overstated. Actually, I'm no fan of Explorers, -peditions, -cursions either, just wanted to set the record straight. ----- Steve
Post #10,848 by tablizer 9/28/01 7:40:15 PM Reply	Good Intentions != Good Perceptions I tend to be of the "stop meddling" opinion. Meddling keeps backfiring, despite any good intentions. We keep inventing opportunities to serve as a convenient scapegoat for other governments. No good deed goes unpunished (and the bad deeds magnified). We should: 1. Get off our oil addiction. If we have to drive 2-cylinder cars to work, so be it. SUV's have no practical use in big cities. 2. Establish clear borders in the Israel problem area, and then build a huge wall that rivals the Great Wall and the Berlin Wall combined. Anybody crosses the wall either direction, shoot 'em. Islamic thinking is generally against the separation of church and state, and this will probably prevent any stable democracy or pluralistic society there. They will continue to listen to filtered information that makes us look bad by design. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #10,850 by a6l6e6x 9/28/01 8:05:20 PM Reply	However... Islamic thinking is generally against the separation of church and state... Turkey (population > 70 million), Egypt (population > 60 million) and Indonesia (population > 200 million) have secular governments. Granted, these countries are overwhelmingly Muslim and have significant problems with fundamentalist Muslims. Alex Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad. -- Euripides
Post #10,856 by tablizer 9/28/01 9:08:28 PM Reply	oil and water? >> Granted, these countries are overwhelmingly Muslim and have significant problems with fundamentalist Muslims. << I wonder if the world will split into a clearer distinction between fundamentalists and secularists. Straddling in the middle is proving harder and harder for many governments. They might start either expelling the fundamentalists or succumbing. That eery cold-war feeling is cropping back. At least the soviets were generally not ones to destroy the entire world to quicken their access to 70 virgins. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #10,861 by a6l6e6x 9/28/01 9:33:22 PM 9/29/01 4:27:37 PM Reply	Well, we've got our problems here in the US. The Christian fundamentalists have been awfully political in the last quarter century and have made a "full court press" on the Republican party and governments at all levels in general. Alex Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad. -- Euripides Edited by a6l6e6x Sept. 29, 2001, 04:27:37 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #10,863 by Ashton 9/28/01 9:52:25 PM Reply	Thou sayest.. My view is that the parallels are biting us on the nose. Fundament-alists' methods are here simply adapted to our vulnerabilities: Exploit the 24/7 two-working parents fact of Corporate hegemony - use your leisure time to pack school boards, waste their energies in combatting prayers in school; 'Creation science' and other patent religious dogma. Parlay the chaos sown into rendering the public school system even less effective than it has become = kill it finally, by sending voucher money. Thus end the ideal of Murican Founding Mothers - an education for all. (But please to call it: 'for bizness efficiency') Instead get: hundreds of sects, raising new little partisans for God, all unaware of the diversity of 'beliefs' out there = all unaware of any idea of community. (And that's just One parallel with the aims of such as the Taliban, and Ayatollahs everywhere - right here) Methinks 'fundamentalism' is the folder; Taliban, Ayatollah, bin Laden or Foulwell - just the files within. A.
Post #10,894 by gtall 9/29/01 9:25:25 AM Reply	Re: However... I guess I'd consider Egypts gov. secular, but if the people had their way, they'd have a religious Nazi state and be damn proud of it. Most are poor as dirt and civil liberties are not the most important thing to them. Turkey is slightly different. They aren't Arabs for one thing, and they used to have an empire as opposed to the wet dreams the Arabs insist on having over the one they think they lost. The U.S. should have leaned on Europe a lot harder to accept Turkey as an EU member. They've been loyal to NATO for a lot of years, albeit if only at the beginning to protect themselves from Stalin. We should be leaning on the EU now to accept Turkey immediately. Turkey does have decent relations with Israel, which only pisses off their religious nuts all the more. In fact, Turkey and Israel share intelligence information and I believe I read once where their intelligence chiefs have made visits to each other's countries. Indonesia I have trouble getting a fix on. It is such a large country with many groups that consider themselves ethnic minorities. But they are 88% Muslim. And they have a proud tradition of killing people when they get upset. They have a democracy, and are secular, but I think the jury is still out because they had been under the thumb of Suharto for so long that I do not think anyone knows what is their ambient political background. Indonesia isn't so much a country as it is fractious family of little separatists. The economy stinks, it won't get better. The whole country, in my estimation, will implode before too long because the people are too busy killing each other. It is ripe for a Muslim take over, for awhile, before they start killing each other again. In a way, it is something of a mystery. The people are relatively well educated, but they cannot pull together to save themselves. I hope I'm wrong. Malaysia is another mostly Muslim country but they are run by a dictator, well, technically they are not a dictatorship. But they've had the same prime minister, Mahathir bin Mohamad, since 1981. No one really knows what they will evolve into once they finally put him up against the wall. A good chunk of Malaysia also shares the Borneo island of Indonesia, one of Indonesia's main isles. They cannot be unaffected by how Indonesia swings. Also, Malaysia has a much looser definition as a country. It was more or less an amalgam of British possessions including Singapore after WWII. Singapore told the rest of the country to bug off in 1965. Gerard Allwein
Post #10,912 by Ashton 9/29/01 2:17:54 PM Reply	IIRC Mahatir binM was interviewed on PBS some years back for an hour or more. Enigmatic is just another word for - seconding your (everyone's?) rather shaky guesstimates about - what these folk might do.. anytime next. What for certain was the case: a subtle and smart person (not merely 'clever'). Well, my take anyway. In a way, it's almost refreshing that there remain places, groups which cannot be nicely pigeonholed, folded into some situation room's consensus for Pavlovian conditioning and simplistic manipulation. :-\ufffd As to faux pas re Turkey - For whatever reason, internationally we simply appear most often, too unsubtle to coalesce other nation groups well (except in extremis.. Saddam tries to take back Kuwait; the suicide bombers). Some think we aren't really interested except in us-us-us, lack empathy with others - eg Reagan giving Bibles to umm those prolly more intimately familiar with contents than he - but happen to have picked a different text.. Our curricula have never provided much honest discussion of religions in Murica, other than assuming that the Big C. is about the only Right one; my guess is that this has something to do with our unsubtlety (that and - the apparent loss of 'statesmanship' from our gene pool - via selective breeding for slogans over substance) A.
Post #10,938 by gtall 9/29/01 7:44:36 PM Reply	Re: IIRC Mahatir binM was interviewed on PBS some years back One of the reasons I'm in education (although I've run my own business in the past) is because Americans and foreign students need to be educated. In a way, I think that few people have a rallying cause throughout their life...a mission so to speak...a mission that animates their whole outlook. I'm a logician, I teach logic because I want students to understand how to reason effectively. I do research because I simply like the mathematics. In a sense, I've got a mission. A dentist friend of mine once told me he envied me because I come up with new stuff in my research. He, after two kids and amid a prosperous dental practice, didn't feel so fulfilled. I always envied him because he was able to be very, very good at medicine. But he didn't feel the same depth. I suspect it is because he felt the intellectual demands on me are greater than he feels. I do not think they are, but that was his perception. The point is that that old adage: idle hands are the devil's playground. If a person feels as though they are worth more than what they are doing, the mind becomes a terrible thing. It is open to manipulation, precisely the sort of manipulation a religion offers. I do not think religion is inherently bad, but I think that bad people are smart enough to use religion...even if unthinkingly...to control others simply to give themselves a sense of purpose. The person being manipulated is probably not some successful schmoe but is someone who only needs a purpose to feel fulfilled. Islam, Christianity, even the many forms of Hinduism will provide that for the person who's incapable of enough introspection to find their own way in the world. Gerard Allwein
Post #10,956 by dmarker2 9/30/01 12:09:18 AM Reply	Re: I concur with your picture of Indonesia & Malaysia Reason Suharto was in power for so long was that US interests supported him when he survived the communist assasination plot (night of the generals approx 1965) when the Indonesian communist part attemted a coup with the blessing of the then infamous president Surkano. They tried to kill all the leading generals but only half succeeded. The next 2 years saw approx 600,000 communists rounded up & executed (I previously said 2 million but must have been suffering from effects of too much coffee (Java) because I was mixing the #s up with Cambodia). These people who were killed in Indonesia at that time were mostly Chinese & included lots of innocents that some local non-communist official had a grudge against. I was in Air Force during this period & we had U2s stationed at the airbase I was on in Australia, belonging to the '57th Weather Recon Sqn' (yup great name). These U2s were used for spying mostly on Indonesia leading up to the 1965 coup. In the 1970s US provided aid to Indonesia (weapons, training & a green light) for Indonesia to invade East Timor. In 1990s when overthrowing despotic greedy dictators became a western fashion, US encouraged Suharto minions to begin a program of destabilisation as a means to prevent Islamic groups from asserting control over the country. Aceh province was the home to one Islamic movement. Mahatir is still supported as a bulwark against Islamic militancy & it is quite probable that Mahatir's attempt to destroy his former deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim, and that this attempt was really becasue this guy was so charismatic and was also pro Islamic. At the time I though Mahatir was being a bastard, but history may show he was attempting (with outside encouragement) to prevent Ibrahim from taking Malaysia down the path to an Islamic theocracy. I have no idea if Bin Ibrahim had any contacts with Bin Laden but it is possible ?. The recent East Timor incident was a further attempt to fragment Indonesia as a fragmented country is less dangerous to Islamic take over that a united one. The Islamic militants in Indonesia are certainly nasty bits of work. Cheers Doug Marker
Post #10,983 by Ashton 9/30/01 3:37:03 AM Reply	Concur with the ideas And also that, 'a theme' is a bulwark against the random emergencies as always distract. Moving from one distraction to next, may have become a pattern for many. I don't know if one can "decide to focus" though, however sensible the idea. But I'm quite sure (for myself) that teachers have been the catalyst for my major choices - only seen 20/20 later. I had the pleasure of finding again, getting together for a couple of days with my HS chem, physics teacher - and thanking him for the attention and maybe even more importantly: the freedom to explore as I chose (have the run of the place, and on weekends, etc). Only much later did I discover the rarity of my experience. I felt 'relieved' that I had the chance to thank him, to let him know what had mattered. Attention is love. Kids 'processed', due to time-$ constraints and all the other current problems of schools - have missed something vital. (Ditto when someone decides that 'music / art' is a dispensable frill.) I can't imagine a more daily demanding occupation than teaching - maybe even so fine a theoretician as Feynman would agree that his teaching was as important as anything else that concerned him (?) I also think that few possess a proper appreciation for the value to us all, of the excellent ones: who ought to be celebrated (were we as wise as the Japanese culture) as National Treasures. Believe the wonderful film with Edward James Olmos playing Jaime Escalante, in Stand By Me captures exquisitely what that Importance is like. Calculus was just the medium. Glad you are in that field. Among my deepest sorrows about the direction of Murica has been, and all along - that we value celebrities, sports figures (yes, and CIEIOs and even Billy) vastly more than 'we' respect, encourage, reward our teachers. This defect may prove fatal; it has certainly been costly re our growth towards something like a mature culture IMhO. Anti-intellectualism we may have inherited from the Puritans - but we could have outgrown it. Science was my lucky lucky, "pay the bills while enjoying your work" escape, from the vast fields of the mercantile; there again I'm grateful for the genetic? disposition in that direction. But as to an ongoing 'theme' - I believe some science folk find a sufficiency in just 'doing science' (it is at least honest! or it isn't science you're doing). Corporate 'research' is quite another matter. Some larger questions alas, don't yield to algorithms and logic can help only part way. Continuing to have questions (?) appears to be one self-test / innoculation against stagnation. (Love the 1-minute PBS videos whose theme also is, Stay Curious!. These gems are surely among the best generally-seen video work since the first, Got Milk? ads :-) Cheers, Ashton PS There may not be much actually 'new' under the local sun - but there are unlimited connections waiting to be noticed - leading towards honest work for more than just the lucky elite, whenever we have the will to move in that direction. Hope we make it, despite current fascination with toys..
Post #11,009 by brettj 9/30/01 4:08:51 PM Reply	Question about your interpretation of religion. "Islam, Christianity, even the many forms of Hinduism will provide that for the person who's incapable of enough introspection to find their own way in the world." Are you repeating what Ted Turner said, "Religion is for losers"? If so, I might remind you that around 70-80% of Americans considered themselves to be religious. Are all these people incapable of introspection? What does your logic tell you? Be careful of throwing stones.
Post #11,017 by CRConrad 9/30/01 5:39:03 PM Reply	Logic obviously tellls us... ...that around 70-80% of Americans are losers. What, you were thinking that just because a lot of people do something, it must be right? That's not logic, that's the Fly Diet argument. (if you can't take the answer, don't ask.) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,021 by brettj 9/30/01 5:41:32 PM Reply	I took your bait once ... ... I'll not take it twice. We'll have to agree to disagree. Peace be with you.
Post #11,022 by CRConrad 9/30/01 5:51:52 PM Reply	If you could "take my bait", I'd have to throw you back... ...in the water. That "hook" is ludicrously too big for you, boyo. Don't you fucking realise it's a charicature of a hook, not something I ever imagined anyone would bite on for real??? So I'm really not trolling; I mean every word I write. And therefore, I can't just "agree to disagree" -- all we could possibly "agree" on... Is that you are fucking WRONG. (ObLrpdUtterlyWrongForOnce: "I say, I say that was a JOKE, son! A joke!") Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,147 by marlowe 10/1/01 5:56:08 PM Reply	I would say no more than 40% of Americans are losers. And that there are an awful lot of atheists among them. This from a lifetime of personal observation. Yes, Brett committed a logical fallacy. But for you to point that out is the pot calling the kettle black. You seem to have confused logic with the voices in your head. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #11,157 by CRConrad 10/1/01 6:19:21 PM Reply	How DARE you criticize... ...the voices in my head?!? Don't you realize they're the only True God?!? Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,068 by gtall 10/1/01 7:56:49 AM Reply	Re: Question about your interpretation of religion. gtall: "Islam, Christianity, even the many forms of Hinduism will provide that for the person who's incapable of enough introspection to find their own way in the world." brettj: "Are you repeating what Ted Turner said, "Religion is for losers"? No. It's the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition. For some, it is sufficient, it is those I worry about because they are then susceptible to seeing everything through religious eyes. For most of us, it is necessary, simply to arrive at any moral bearings. But most religions are intollerant of other religions, at least in practice. So how far is one to take one's religion. If it is to the extent that one begins to live in the next life before this one, then I contend that is going way overboard and leads to religious extremism. As to you reading into the statement as far as you did, I didn't intend your intrepretation. Logic has nothing to do with it. Gerard Allwein
Post #11,084 by brettj 10/1/01 10:49:18 AM Reply	Thanks for the polite response. I was hoping that I misunderstood your statement and I tend to agree with your view. The thing that really disturbed me about Jehovah's Witnesses was that they are an apocoliptic sect that hopes for armageddon so that things can get better. Me, I have always dreamed of world peace and believe that paradise can be found on earth, but only if people are tolerant of other peace loving people. Some people don't have much tolerance, religious or atheist. Apparently we share a similar view. Peace.
Post #11,015 by CRConrad 9/30/01 5:36:30 PM Reply	Sure, as soon as you make Taiwan a State. What, ain't gonna? Why, because you're the US of America, and Taiwan is in Asia? Well, the EU is the European Union, and Turkey is in Asia too. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,035 by a6l6e6x 9/30/01 8:38:22 PM Reply	A piece of Turkey is in Europe, CRC. Alex Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad. -- Euripides
Post #11,072 by CRConrad 10/1/01 9:10:45 AM Reply	Yeah, I know, the bit around Mikkelgarth[]. And I'm sure... ...the Greeks will be only to happy to have it back. Without, I'm equally sure, its Asian attachments. (Did you know the very name "Asia", later "Asia Minor", used to mean what is now called "Turkey" (except for the bit around Constantinopolis / Mikkelgarth / Istanbul)?) []: A.k.a Constantinopolis, or nowadays "Istanbul". Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,049 by Andrew Grygus 9/30/01 11:21:02 PM Reply	Well, I don't know 'zactly what Hawaii is . . . . but I'm pretty sure it's not part of the North American continent (or any other American continent) but it is a State. I don't see Taiwan would be that much of a push beyond Hawaii (but I think both the Taiwanese and mainland China might object rather strenuously). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #11,071 by CRConrad 10/1/01 9:04:12 AM Reply	It's an archipelago. HTH! :-)
Post #11,104 by tseliot 10/1/01 12:37:48 PM Reply	That's pronounced, "archipelago". HTH! :-) That's her, officer! That's the woman that programmed me for evil!
Post #11,079 by gtall 10/1/01 10:16:30 AM Reply	Re: Sure, as soon as you make Taiwan a State. What, ain't go Yes, but Turkey has been bucking to be part of the EU for quite awhile. They wanted to be in on the old Common Market. I don't see where Turkey being part of Asia (or Asia Minor) if you prefer makes any difference since the EU is mainly a trading group. We had no trouble accepting Alaska and Hawaii, although some native Hawaiians are not pleased. Currently, the EU has restrictions on the internal finances of countries that wish to join. The old Eastern Block countries are changing their economies to be acceptable for EU admittance. Turkey is currently doing the same thing. I do not know too much about what policies a country must have but I believe a lot revolves around transparency in banking and business transactions. By the way, transparency of banking a business transactions is something we in the West take for granted and (in my opinion) is one of the West's best achievements. The Asian Crisis of a few years ago had much to do with the non-transparency of deals in Asian countries. Even Japan has trouble, the main thrust of their banking reform is really an adoption of the West's prescription for transparency. Gerard Allwein
Post #11,094 by CRConrad 10/1/01 11:33:05 AM Reply	I don't think you quite understand the issues here. Gerard writes: Yes, but Turkey has been bucking to be part of the EU for quite awhile. So what? Would you feel obligated to take up, say, Indonesia (to take a better example than Taiwan), where as someone said "their main sport is killing each other" as a state, just becaused they'd been "bucking for it" for a long time?!? A third-world country, with an utterly foreign culture, that would at a stroke become your second-largest State in terms of population, adding a fifth again to your pre-joining total? I very much doubt it, and certainly can't see that we should have any such obligation. Just because they've been a militarily useful lackey to the USA -- because that's what their having been "a staunch NATO member" really means, isn't it? -- doesn't in any way make them Europeans. With that argument, you could just as well argue that pre-Gulf-War Iraq, or Iran under the Shah, should be "Europeans". Or Chile under Pinochet. They wanted to be in on the old Common Market. I don't see where Turkey being part of Asia (or Asia Minor) if you prefer makes any difference since the EU is mainly a trading group. Your information seems to be terribly outdated: That's what "the old Common Market", as you so aptly describe it, was. The new European Union, though, is not just a new name for the same-old same-old -- it truly is a Union; something that is on its way to becoming a USE (United States of Europe). And anyway (again), just because someone's wanted something for a long while is not a logical reason, per se, that they should have it. Heck, I've wanted a Mercedes for as long as I can remember, and nobody seems to feel obligated to give me one just because of that. (You volunteering? :-) We had no trouble accepting Alaska and Hawaii, although some native Hawaiians are not pleased. Whoo, and the parallels are soo convincing... Not! The one populated by Neolithic islanders, thoroughly colonialised by pineapple barons for a century or more, the other an Arctic wasteland barely populated at all, it's no wonder a humongous country like the USA could swallow them without more than a few burps. Now move Indonesia next door and tell me you can do the same again. Tell me that you wouldn't even hesitate. Go on, tell me; I'm all ears. Currently, the EU has restrictions on the internal finances of countries that wish to join. The old Eastern Block countries are changing their economies to be acceptable for EU admittance. I think you're confusing EU admittance per se, with the criteria for joining the common European currency. (What more proof do you need that this is more like a new country than "a trading group", than the existence of that project?) Turkey is currently doing the same thing. I do not know too much about what policies a country must have but I believe a lot revolves around transparency in banking and business transactions. That's waaay secondary -- like, if Vietnam or Paraguay or Malawi fulfilled the requirements for, say, federal highway funding, and tried to argue that therefore they should be a State. Wouldn't you first wonder what the heck they were doing in your Union in the first place? (Sheesh, you haven't even given Tijuana or Haiti statehood yet, have you? Or even Puerto Rico?!? So why the heck should we be forced to gobble up Turkey, of all thoroughly non-European places in the world???) Likewise, it seems to me, it is generally felt in Europe that this new country we're trying to put together is best served, for the forseeable future, by "growing organically" from what has gone before: That the European Union be, at least at its inception, a Union of Europeans, however qualified in secondary respects various African and Asian countries may be. Personally, I find that blindingly obvious and fully agree. And I must say I'm rather astonished that you Americans -- insular as you are, as a nation -- feel qualified to butt in and tell us whom we should include in our country. Did the Greeks, the Germans, or the Swedes tell your "Founding Fathers" which colonies should be included in this little break-out they were setting up? Did the Italians, the Danes, or the Portuguese? Naah...? Well, I didn't really think so. (Sure, the British did, and perhaps the French -- but only because that was their colonies breaking out, so they wanted nothing of the kind to happen at all.) Try to extend us the same courtesy, please. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,099 by boxley 10/1/01 12:09:33 PM Reply	Arnt you folks overrun by turks as it is? havnt been following the latest internal euro news but second and third generation turks born in European Countries are not given citizenships in those countries(germany comes to mind). Here if ya manage to squat for 30 seconds on american soil while the kid squirts out, the kid is an american citizen. Howmuch is the guest worker turmoil affecting how the EU looks at turkey as a member nation? thanx, bill why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them? Randy Wayne White
Post #11,412 by gtall 10/3/01 7:47:32 AM Reply	Re: I don't think you quite understand the issues here. Christian wrote: Would you feel obligated to take up, say, Indonesia (to take a better example than Taiwan), where as someone said "their main sport is killing each other" as a state, just becaused they'd been "bucking for it" for a long time?!? A third-world country, with an utterly foreign culture, that would at a stroke become your second-largest State in terms of population, adding a fifth again to your pre-joining total? I think a better parallel might be Puerto Rico. Come to think of it, some of them have been bucking to become the 51st state for some time. And they will eventually have a referendum on it. I very much doubt it, and certainly can't see that we should have any such obligation. Egads...that's is SO European of you. Just because they've been a militarily useful lackey to the USA -- because that's what their having been "a staunch NATO member" really means, isn't it? -- doesn't in any way make them Europeans. With that argument, you could just as well argue that pre-Gulf-War Iraq, or Iran under the Shah, should be "Europeans". Or Chile under Pinochet. Useful lackey, such as say, Germany, Britain, etc. Who cares if they are Europeans? We don't. They wanted to be in on the old Common Market. I don't see where Turkey being part of Asia (or Asia Minor) if you prefer makes any difference since the EU is mainly a trading group. Your information seems to be terribly outdated: That's what "the old Common Market", as you so aptly describe it, was. The new European Union, though, is not just a new name for the same-old same-old -- it truly is a Union; something that is on its way to becoming a USE (United States of Europe). Ah, so you finally want to be big boys now? Didn't help you Bosnia or Kosovo. You still came crying to us to do the heavy lifting. We don't care about your European sensibilities about who is a proper European. What are you going to do, test everyone for ethnicity before admitting someone. "Hmmm...you seem mighty white to us and we have the same churches. Yup, yer European son. Hmmmm...you seem pretty dark, and have those funny onions on yer steeples. Nope, yer not European son, you gotta go." And anyway (again), just because someone's wanted something for a long while is not a logical reason, per se, that they should have it. Heck, I've wanted a Mercedes for as long as I can remember, and nobody seems to feel obligated to give me one just because of that. (You volunteering? :-) You won't feel that way if Turkey slides into a fundamentalist state because you were too white to accept them. Whoo, and the parallels are soo convincing... Not! The one populated by Neolithic islanders, thoroughly colonialised by pineapple barons for a century or more, the other an Arctic wasteland barely populated at all, it's no wonder a humongous country like the USA could swallow them without more than a few burps. See, note on Puerto Rico. Now move Indonesia next door and tell me you can do the same again. Turkey abuts Europe. They share a secular government, are reforming their economic system, and part of NATO...not white enough for you? Tell me that you wouldn't even hesitate. Go on, tell me; I'm all ears. Dunno...I might consider Indonesia, but they'd have to reform their economic system first. Actually, I'd rather take Taiwan or Japan. Currently, the EU has restrictions on the internal finances of countries that wish to join. The old Eastern Block countries are changing their economies to be acceptable for EU admittance. I think you're confusing EU admittance per se, with the criteria for joining the common European currency. (What more proof do you need that this is more like a new country than "a trading group", than the existence of that project?) Possibly I am confusing the two. So what are the criteria for being a good European these days? That's waaay secondary -- like, if Vietnam or Paraguay or Malawi fulfilled the requirements for, say, federal highway funding, and tried to argue that therefore they should be a State. Wouldn't you first wonder what the heck they were doing in your Union in the first place? (Sheesh, you haven't even given Tijuana or Haiti statehood yet, have you? Or even Puerto Rico?!? So why the heck should we be forced to gobble up Turkey, of all thoroughly non-European places in the world???) See note on Puerto Rico, it is up to the Puerto Ricans. And given they have fought in our wars at least since WWII, and we have extensive communities of Puerto Ricans in the U.S., we gave them the opportunity to decide. Get that, it is up to them to decide via their own referendum. They may choose not to. Get that choice bit? Likewise, it seems to me, it is generally felt in Europe that this new country we're trying to put together is best served, for the forseeable future, by "growing organically" from what has gone before: That the European Union be, at least at its inception, a Union of Europeans, however qualified in secondary respects various African and Asian countries may be. Personally, I find that blindingly obvious and fully agree. In other words, y'all wanting be living with people of your kind. How white of you. And I must say I'm rather astonished that you Americans -- insular as you are, as a nation -- feel qualified to butt in and tell us whom we should include in our country. Did the Greeks, the Germans, or the Swedes tell your "Founding Fathers" which colonies should be included in this little break-out they were setting up? Did the Italians, the Danes, or the Portuguese? Err...maybe it is because everytime there is a world problem, we get called to fix it and find...gee...this was originally started by Europeans. Mideast? Yup, European cockup. Balkans? Damn, Europeans again. Vietnam? French. WWII? Damn Europeans (but Japan helped...thanks, we took care of them ourselves). WWI, more Europeans. Maybe if you guys weren't such screwups we would be freer to leave you alone. Crusades...pesky Europeans again. We'll overlook the mess you made in Africa. Slavery in the U.S., given to us by Europeans. Caused a big Civil War here, over a million dead, you may have heard of it. We're still trying to recover from that wonderful legacy you gave us. Naah...? Well, I didn't really think so. (Sure, the British did, and perhaps the French -- but only because that was their colonies breaking out, so they wanted nothing of the kind to happen at all.) Try to extend us the same courtesy, please. Nope, European history has shown you guys are absolutely tone deaf when it comes to the rest of the world. We simply do not trust further you than we can spit a rat. Gerard Allwein
Post #11,434 by boxley 10/3/01 10:09:57 AM Reply	mfff, snort, ROFL! this could get good. why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them? Randy Wayne White
Post #11,436 by admin 10/3/01 10:16:32 AM Reply	United States of Europe? Note that this is a quick butt-in -- I'm more interested in how you and Gerald get on in this conversation. ;-) Anyway, like the French will ever go for a USofE. They're totally paranoid about cultural contamination as it is. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #11,462 by CRConrad 10/3/01 12:17:36 PM Reply	Dunno, but I think it's at least not quite impossible Scott writes: I'm more interested in how you and Gerald get on in this conversation. ;-) I wonder... I'm pretty proud I cooled down and didn't rapid-fire off the first reply that came to mind. (Still, if it's a flamewar he wants, I'll humour him at least to some extent.) Anyway, like the French will ever go for a USofE. They're totally paranoid about cultural contamination as it is. Yeah, but that's mainly cultural contamination from you uncouth colonials, it seems; I don't think European culture scares them as much -- perhaps mainly because they trend to see it as an extension of their own. So I think they see themselves as so much "primus inter pares" that they might still go for this; that they see a possible "Etats-Unies d'Europe" not as 'France, attached to Europe' but as 'Europe, attached to France'. (Only later vill ve tell tzem vhat 'die Vereinigten Staaten Europas' vill mean in terms off vho is really running tze shovv...) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,476 by wharris2 10/3/01 12:49:37 PM Reply	The French? They've got a huge case of the been-blown-to-bits-twice and had-to-be-rescued-by-the-US twice goos. I sorta wish nowdays that we'd kept our neutrality in World War 1. Germany might have carved off some of France (if they'd won) or France might have carved off some of Germany (if France/England had won) but at least they wouldn't have had this massive inferiority complex. Who knows how empty the sky is In the place of a fallen tower. Who knows how quiet it is in the home Where a son has not returned. -- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
Post #11,478 by boxley 10/3/01 12:53:09 PM Reply	More like the United kindoms of Greater Briton :) why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them? Randy Wayne White
Post #10,897 by wharris2 9/29/01 9:51:47 AM Reply	Re: Good Intentions != Good Perceptions SUV's have no practical use in big cities. They do have practical uses - they have more carrying capacity than a car trunk. With that said, I hate them. With a passion. I find myself in parking lots with two huge SUV's on each side, unable to see anywhere, trying to get out of my parking spot without being rammed by some other car that can't see me backing out. No fault of mine, no fault of theirs, but these huge goddamn SUV's just didn't provide any field of vision able for anyone to see anything. I wish some grocery stores and malls would wake up and provide special SUV parking areas, much like handicapped parking spaces. And tow away at a hefty fee the pisking yankers that disobey the parking rules. Who knows how empty the sky is In the place of a fallen tower. Who knows how quiet it is in the home Where a son has not returned. -- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
Post #10,915 by Ashton 9/29/01 2:24:42 PM Reply	You are too kind. Eco-disaster. 7300 POUNDS! for an Explorer - to carry around a 160# yuppie, dreaming of conquering the Andes (plowing through the delicate flora and fauna) enroute to stealing the left-eye of some heathen idol, and getting 70 virgins and 15 minutes on Tee Vee to flaunt it.. We ARE the stuff that dreams are made on. It's what we buy: marketers dreamstuff. We believe them! Only solution: crush 'em from orbit. It's the decent, the honorable - the Murican way of dealing with iffy questions. Ashton Moderate
Post #10,934 by Another Scott 9/29/01 5:01:36 PM Reply	Please get your masses right. It's annoying to see you keep repeating this: 7300 POUNDS! for an Explorer The curb weight of a 4 door XLS 2002 Explorer is 4334 pounds according to [link\|http://www.consumerguide.com/index.cfm?act=auto&main=detail&body=../autochannel/vehicledetail/spec25106style54996\|this]. It's gross vehicle weight rating is roughly 5360 pounds according to [link\|http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:18Ffu11QuqY:www.popsci.com/automotive/suv/data/ford_explorer_4-door.html+ford+explorer+gross+weight&hl=en\|this], about 1/2 ton difference (as you'd expect because they're basically built on a half-ton F-150 truck chassis). By contast, the Excursion weighs between 6650 and 7688 pounds, can carry up to 9200 pounds total (roughly 2000 pounds of cargo) or can tow up to 10,000 pounds according to [link\|http://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/2001_excursion_1.html\|this]. It's built on a heavier-duty (F350?) truck chassis. By contrast a 4 door [link\|http://www.hummer.com/H1/4dw/specperm.asp\|HUMMER] weighs up to 7646 pounds and carry up to 3700 pounds or tow up to 8300 pounds. If you're going to tar UAVs, please use the right brush. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #10,936 by Ashton 9/29/01 6:43:53 PM Reply	Re: Please get your masses right. Either I or a website may have confused an Excursion with an Explorer.. Somewhere was "73xx" but I don't even think about 'proof' of Everything (as if a link were immune from typos or creative editing, anyway). Unable to find a Boolean adequate to finding a list of Gross Wts for entire categories - so let's just damn the Excursion instead of the Explorer? (Though.. 'Explorer' has such familiar connotations of excess and duplicity, y'know?) Other incentives for excess: [link\|http://www.gesmallbusiness.com/magazine/1998_fall/f1998_hidde_auto_deduc.jsp\|The CPA mentality offers 2\ufffd] A lengthy effort at sorting out the cacophony. One could start another career just cataloguing peripheral considerations to the Point, nothing exceeds like excess: [link\|http://www.pageneralstore.com/busqueda/autow.htm\|Auto Week] Final Ramblings We are dealing with archaic vehicles. Ford and GM are enjoying a boom in the popularity of their large SUV category, examples of which are over thirty years old in their essential form, correct? These body-and-chassis machines are antiques no matter how much power, electronics and gizmos are placed in the things. I remember an interesting article a few years ago in The Atlantic Monthly, "Reinventing the Wheels," which illustrated how little auto corporations have innovated and how much potential exists for the improvement of the automobile. We have witnessed rapid evolution in the field of electronics, computers, even aircraft, but when it comes to cars, the companies continue to use an ancient process of stamped steel panels on body-and-frame vehicles or unibody/monocoques. This formula was exhausted long ago. Was it not a recent AutoWeek that made fun of the profusion of airbags in cars? Locating forty different airbags in a car is proof that it is time not to add more gizmos to the car, but to radically improve its performance and safety by changing its engine technology, materials, and manufacturing process. There is an efficiency craze in American and global business. Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are constantly trying to devise quicker, more efficient, and less expensive systems. Yet our cars are produced with an incredibly inefficient, enormously expensive process involving steel panel stamping. The marketing geniuses have somehow made suburban families crazed for the same 1972 vehicle(Suburban) that took my team to soccer games: a crude truck that is only marginally better today, but whose profit margin is obscene. I would guess that my conversations on SUV's with other car enthusiasts have been the same as many of yours in the past two years. Frequent comments in those discussions include: - The observation that rarely, if ever, do owners of the large SUV's take advantage of the cargo capabilities or four wheel drive capabilities of the trucks. - That these vehicles are extravagant, even decadent, when used by urban and suburban soccer moms; a great deal of weight and power is being squandered on uses that other, more efficient(in the complete sense) vehicles could better serve. - That we have no objections to ranchers, farmers, business people, or cold weather state people using light trucks, but urban families in the New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia regions seem to be wasting resources and behaving like fashion suckers when they use a Tahoe or Expedition on a daily basis for routine transit. - That these SUV's are versatile, rugged, and practical IN THEORY, however, IN PRACTICE none of this matters, because the vast majority of the vehicles in this class do not go off road, rarely engage or need to engage the four wheel mode, and are in fact more difficult to maneuver in Center City, Philadelphia or small suburban towns in New York. - That, when we are being tailgated, cut-off, or crowded for no reason, we would prefer that the offending vehicle be a car or heavy car rather than a high, ultra-heavy light truck. - That the increased vision capability, the increased safety, and the theoretical versatility of light trucks are excellent attributes, but only in the minority of cases, when these attributes are necessary, would they justify the purchase of an SUV. Considering the overlapping categories - heavy vehicles intended to perform actual work / playtoys for the unimaginitive herd, seeking style: it's clear that everything from licensing/usage fees to insurance to 'national security' (!) posited on infinite imports from er Arab nations - are about up for grabs. (Soon as the Corps work out how to charge enough more - for vehicles cheaper to build) Ashton New embargo? My Kawa KZ-550 can beat 52 mpg. Even though it's an '81.
Post #11,075 by Silverlock 10/1/01 9:40:46 AM Reply	Your missing something Ash. I've never seen you mention the one reason most people I know have for buying/driving SUVs. Safety. These vehicles can withstand much more damage than passenger cars and the occupants are less likely to be injured in the event of collision. A close family friend explained it to me this way, "After that idiot plowed into my wifes car and sent her to the hospital for a month with 2 years of physical therapy after, I said to hell with fuel economy. She will never drive a small car again." So it's not all just vanity. Many people are making a reasoned, thought out choice to protect their loved ones with the most massive (and therefore the most protective of passengers) vehicle they can afford. For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw
Post #11,077 by CRConrad 10/1/01 9:56:50 AM Reply	So are you and, above all, they. Here's the fallacy: GreyStreak tries to be silver-tongued: These vehicles can withstand much more damage than passenger cars and the occupants are less likely to be injured in the event of collision. These vehicles can also cause much more damage than passenger cars, and the occupants of the other vehicle (not to mention pedestrians) are much more likely to be injured in the event of collision with such a behemoth, than with a regular car. Many people are making a reasoned, thought out choice to protect their loved ones with the most massive (and therefore the most protective of passengers) vehicle they can afford. So, is their choice to, in the event of a collision, kill and maim others much more efectively than they could with an ordinary car also "a reasoned, thought out" decision (which would make it the moral equivalent of murder in the first degree), or just sheer devil-may-care thoughtlessness (murder in the second degree, or if you're lucky, manslaughter)? Either way, it's awfully egocentric, isn't it? For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw How apropos... Albeit perhaps not in the way you thought. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #11,080 by Silverlock 10/1/01 10:19:11 AM Reply	Well, ..... of course. But I don't see how how you can consider it a "fallacy". Where is the flaw in the logic of "I want my family safe. In a collision, the occupants of the larger vehicle are safer. I will buy a large vehicle." Of course the occupants of a smaller car are more at risk. That is the point. They don't want their family at risk. They buy the larger vehicle. I doubt the possibility of smashing into a smaller car enters into the decision. I would guess they think something along the lines of-- I would never plow into anyone else. But if they hit me, I want the most steel between us I can get. Unreasonable, maybe. Thoughtless, ditto. Understandable, absolutly. For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw
Post #11,555 by Ashton 10/3/01 4:35:25 PM Reply	Not missing it, nor do I argue with that narrow thesis But (as your sig underscores - and again by CRC) where does this simple-minded me-me-me::fuck you mindset end? Humm-Vees all around, with armor plate and 'cow catchers' on front, like other locomotives - 2 mpg? And isn't it postulated upon the same intentional insouciance of the '50s Murican behemoths? - those ridiculed at the time, via such as The Insolent Chariots - quite pre-Nader and Corvair mindlessness.. (The later refined Corvair, killed by hype - proved to be quite stable, considering the average hunk of Detroit iron it should reasonably be compared with.) Despite '73 and all the ObOb-lessons since: "I wanna save MY family and.. and.. Fuck Yours - and damn the cost in resources" -- is certainly indicative of the bizness ethic seen rampant all the way to 'prisons for profit'. Seems our national disease and, it shows. And the hidden costs? The solvents, waste generated in the energy-intensive processes within the making of EACH part of each car/'van'/tank creation - these are akin to the massive toxic contaminations in Si Valley / the exposures of Manpower Inc. min-wage, no-benefits slaves who work around the cyanides, chlorocarbons and other ugly materials: so today's 1 GHz Athlon can be tomorrow's kewl 2 GHz Gorgon -- and ten million more PCs can hit the landfill. Because .. the new, slower OS ... [we know all this shit]. ie it is by definition er short-sighted as are all new products ever launched without a slightest concern for the life-cycle, the disposal (Pampers anyone?) and the consequences overall. Like today: We MUST make nice noises about the fascist Saudi-Arabia regime - for our insatiable need to produce oversized, inefficient playtoys, which we can... (and do) rationalize as um 'safer': if it only wipes out some Other family but--- I'm OK. See anything wrong with this pattern? Ashton
Post #11,559 by pwhysall 10/3/01 4:41:33 PM Reply	SUV Safety SUVs are safe, as long as you hit something smaller than you. If you're broadsided by an 18-wheeler, the non-crumple, non-monocoque design of the vehicle will neatly transfer much of the energy of the crash to the soft squishy bits inside, i.e. you. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]

Welcome to IWETHEY!