sexual_chocolate

Your side is correct regarding....?

"Talking sense into these people". Not to these people, but hammering more opinions and assumptions about "your side" being correct.

I'm glad you've done your part in "talking sense into these people" (the "into" is very telling).

I don't know. I'm very poor at hypotheticals. A simple "I don't know" would have also sufficed.

How might you go about this?

I don't know. I'm very poor at hypotheticals.

I don't think any of our wars in the past 70 years has gone "well"; why should this one be any different? I suppose I should have added the second sentence above as a parenthetical addendum, so my meaning would have been more clear. So, for clarification, my response was aimed at your following quote: To which I should have replied with the following, sans addendum: Does this clarify?

Dude, there are troops right now kicking the shit out of civies cuz they are pissed. Another horror of war. Abu Gharib(sp?), anyone? Rape and torture are seemingly an inescapable part of war once emotions have been unchecked and normal legal and moral frameworks have been rent asunder (every war I'VE ever read about has this "hidden side"). So anyway, a partial response to your assertion about troop concern for civilian life. (This doesn't mean there aren't troops acting in ways deemed "honorable" according to customary morality.) And your former point: None of these are applicable to the Iraq situation.

Squid you are a funny guy and did you write that funny poem yourself cuz if you did then you have the honor of knowing that the Honorable Sexual Chocolate thinks you are even funnier than he did before. Yours Truly, Sexual Chocolate

Thanks for the specifics. I know this is just one example and there are many more, but sometimes if we don't clearly elucidate our objections with specific examples, much fogginess ensues!

Oh I don't think so kask. Too many right-wingers and Republicans have aired grievances for this to be simply partisan griping. The war is going horribly, as it was BEFORE it even started. As it would be if Kerry were prez, and the media would report it just the same (IMO).

And yet credit for these efforts is few and far between. Rather, the rhetoric is replete with hyperbole claiming the exact *opposite*. That's because war will always be an abomination, a ruthlessly destructive horror no matter how sophisticated its methodologies become. I think the evidence from Iraq supports this view quite clearly. With this being the case, coupled with the fact that this was an entirely illegal and immoral war to begin with (an unprovoked invasion of a foreign country!), you won't get me as a sympathizer for your "new and improved" war.

But spell out EXACTLY where his religion and politics mix, and then tell me how this is affecting you. As a side-note, one can be a secularist and still be against abortion. I'm not a Christian, but I have grave reservations about the practice and its wide-spread use. The head of NARAL a few years ago compared an abortion to popping a pimple, and this type of blase attitude kinda horrifies me, really. (But, would I overturn Roe v Wade? No, I think to do that would be worse than the current ailment.)

I tend to agree with kaskade that the visceral dismissal of "born-again christians" is counter-productive if our aim is to generate any kind of mutual understanding and empathy for differing view-points.

Oh and creativity, fun, play and all that stuff's pretty cool too! And kaskade, I appreciate your sincerety, and don't want to pigeon-hole you with over-reaching generalizations.

You can't make the fact that we have reflective awareness go away with the above argument. We DO have the ability to reflect and consider our actions and the consequences of our actions. (Is this ability simply an evolutionary development? I tend to think so, although this wouldn't preclude a supra-intelligent universe, or God, or whatever one wants to believe). I think empathy and understanding are also components of humanity (and other life-forms), to varying degrees, and again the source of these can be entirely evolutionary. This doesn't negate their validity, reality, or importance (why would these be any more important if they were divinely originated?). I think that the fact we have these capabilities opens up the door for us to relate to the world in a way that promotes harmony and peace (what we really want, no?). And because we have the reflective capacities that either evolution or God has given us, we can more honestly and accurately gauge the effect we are having on the world around us, and on ourselves. I think it kinda comes down to the kind of world we want (and I would argue that there are some similarities in that vision: peace, prosperity, ease, comfort, love, security, understanding, compassion).

How many vegan nutballs will mock a creationist while denying that human evolution has produced an omnivorous species with canine teeth. But that's just the tip of the iceberg... We are opportunistic protein feeders (if we need a scientific label) in evolutionary terms, but does the fact that we have canine teeth necessitate the continued eating of animals? Of course not. Vegans tend to live healthier lives than most, according to all info that I've seen. Once we outgrow the need for specific anatomical accoutrements, we naturally stop using them. The appendix is one example, along with the tail-bone, toe-nails, leg hair, our reflexive reptilian brain.... well, maybe not all of them!

You might be right, CBS. In his anger, he would sacrifice his own children, along with the lives of so many other thousands. Already, his actions have sacrificed tens of thousands, so he's too far down the slippery slope to try to climb back now. And it certainly seems as though Allawi is in a similar position. Can you imagine a more difficult situation to be in? Absolutely horrendous. Hell's gates have been opened by the sword again, and it really seems as though this situation will drag and drag and drag for years to come, in a not so dissimilar way to the current situation. I really don't see how it could be different. It kinda reminds me of the things I've read about the Vietnam war, how the politicos and military would spin the situation in favorable terms, whilst the situation deteriorated. It's been a year and a half now, and honestly, is the situation better, the same, or worse?

"You see, Ziad is a Sunni by birth, but a free and upright person by mind and education. This gives the lie to the idea that the problem in Iraq is solely due to the strife between religious sects and ethnic groups. The problem and divide is between intelligent cultured people and the ignorant. And Ziad is a fine example of a cultured person whose strength of character and conviction is stronger than all the pressures of sectarianism and fanaticism. The same applies to many fine men in Iraq today, and it is our hope that sooner and later the waters will calm and the true bond of “Iraqiness” will triumph over the ignorance and foolishness of extremists and peasants of all sorts, Sunni, Shiaa etc. etc. Ziad is my favorite blogger and he has been my inspiration for starting this blog. I wish to send him all my heart felt greetings and best wishes from this humble forum." The italics are mine, but indicate to my mind the ramblings of an arrogant and elitist attitude.

What CAN he do? (What would George Bush do if his daughters were kidnapped?) Iraqi interim PM's relatives taken hostage Wednesday 10 November 2004, 15:40 Makka Time, 12:40 GMT A group claiming responsibility for the abduction of three relatives of interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, have threatened to kill them in 48 hours if the state did not halt the raid on Falluja and free prisoners. "If the agent government does not meet our demands within 48 hours we will behead them (the hostages)," the Ansar al-Jihad group said in a statement dated Wednesday and carried on a Muslim website.

I have yet to see a better illustration of Pope's epigram: "A little learning is a dangerous thing." I would suggest aquainting oneself with the history of the period prior to pontificating about it. Start with a credible survey of that period in German history, and move on from there. Of course, it is actually quite reasonable to conclude that decades of historians who have dedicated innumerable lifetimes to dissecting the history of this period, with full access to all of the requisite archival material, interviews with the primary actors, etc had yet to unearth this essential truth that Brian has placed such stock in - "Why - yes! It was...the corporations!" - based on an authority as unimpeachable as an article on the internet. I am anxious awaiting an elucidation of the present conflict as merely the latest mischief orchestrated by the Z.O.G. - substantiated by an equally impeccable source... Should be fascinating. Wow. Now I understand why you are such an authority on the old "passive/aggressive" syndrome and its attendant symptomology! How are the chains treating you, by the way?

You can build your own from a backing of 3/4" ply and screw on different width strips of whatever. Get creative. Small edges, pockets and pinches. Then get psyched to used it, and develop a training plan that psyches you. It seems that the prefab ones that I see at friends' houses are chosen more for aesthetics, adding lovely colors to their living-rooms, chosen by their interior decorators.

Sure. There isn't a single person in this administration who strikes me as an ardent supporter of either the text or the spirit of our Constitution. To them, the Constitution is to be played for political gain when to their advantage, and ignored or rewritten or reinterpreted when curtailing their ambitions.

It was even called "corporatism" at the time. I think it was Mussolini who used "Corporatism" interchangably with "Fascism", proposing the former as the proper term at one point? Anyway, fascist tendencies exist in every individual, so of course they exist in every state. And the trend of our present political course to me seems much more indicative of a fascist tendency than that of say liberalism. State power has increased. Corporate power has increased. Individual liberties have been curtailed. Labor unions have the lowest representation in the work force since the turn of the century. (Walmart just advertised on NPR (can you believe this?), telling us how they offer people so many benefits and give them a lift in life!) While I don't think Fascism has become codified in any formal sense in this country, the tendencies are pretty clear, I think. And instead of referring only to past examples of Fascism as definitional reference points, perhaps we can look to them as loose guidelines for delineating current trends, and propose new terms. Under this framework, I would propose "Democratic Fascism" as a more accurate label for our current political reality.

Affirmative action? Of course dems pressed. Gay marriage? Not even an issue 30 years ago, but considering the progressive nature of the democratic party (this has become a joke, right?), they would have been the ones to run with it. The dems have swung further to the right, and that's pretty evident over the last 20 years. This was the party strategy after 12 years of reagan/bush.