sexual_chocolate

No, my sister is coming, riding many a mile (I haven't seen her for a long time).

So I cut my hedge down; you just can't believe all the light!

Muffy you wanker! (sprayer) Some of the stuff you say, I just cannot believe. "Gee life isn't fair so just get over it ok and let (someone) make all the rules and be empiric and peremptory about it cuz that's just the way life is." Is this the drivel you teach your kids? Teach your kids that we CAN make a difference, you indifferent (muffy). I'd love to see the world (hate to see) if everyone had your attitude: "Gee,slavery's not THAT bad. You get used to it, and you usually get fed." "Hey, I don't want to vote anyway. My place is in the kitchen (Really? Yours too, Muffy?)." "Hey, WWI was kinda bad, WWII too, but trying to work together through an international coalition for future WW prevention seems like a BAD IDEA to me." "I don't CARE if you're not guilty. You STILL get the death penalty. Life Isn't Fair. What kind of an upstart are you, anyways? " "Ahh gee mom (muffy), how come the bully always gets his way on the playground? I thought might wasn't supposed to make right?" "Shut up kid. I'm just a hypocritical hippy who once was kinda dippy. Now I'm sane, just playing the Republican's game." Sadness takes the form of water, nourishes new growth. What pain for new green. I cannot let go. Must let go. Must let go.

Haha! So there! How's it going on Porn Star, buddy? That fucker's going down! Thanks for the psych.

Oh, and it's a great place for learning how to dry-tool. Plus, we've talked to the UW administrators, and they might be adding some bolts on the tall tower on the face, for lead practice, which would be pretty cool, too.

Hey you, it isn't about either Iraq or the US dictating the rules; it's about having some semblance of a fair procedure for developing rules, without ONE GODDAMN COUNTRY having all the say. And we talk about Iraq being in breach of UN resolutions; do you know what goddamn country is currently in breach of THE MOST UN RESOLUTIONS? I'm not sure, just asking! So damnit, Muffy, SPINK befour you dark. OK?

Unless you're trying to put a little Oregonian spin on it?

And for god's sake, it's "Furs".

Exactly. When will the world's largest superpower figger it out? (Hint: They don't wanna.)

Well, I suppose Saddam's sanity is really a question of subjective interpretation, no? I consider him to be as sane as any other major player in international gamesmanship, and even quite a good player at that. I also consider him to be a tyrant, unbelievably vicious, yet does this give us grounds to attack? Of course not. We have allies who are almost as bad, and that's probably why we're not playing that card as heavily, cuz the duplicity would be even more apparent. Iraq poses absolutely no threat to us or its neighbors. Any major military build-up would be evident, even without inspections. And they'd never consider exporting "terrorism"; they can't afford takign the chance, unless they are attacked and subdued. Terrorism is a multi-headed Hydra, and I truly believe that much of our efforts to deal with it will only inflame it. Doesn't anyone here follow the Israeli situation? Tighten the clamps, and even more attacks begin. Stability comes from diplomacy, honest and sincere diplomacy. Without it, you open the gates of hell.

And not only is the UW rock the best climbing in town, it has a plethora of new routes being developed, mainly in the V7 and up category, cuz that's really the only direction for development: harder.

Your last point first: Pre-'91 Iraq enjoyed one of the highest, if not the highest, standards of living in any Arab middle-east country! It was quite socialized, with most enjoying the benefits of a rather substantial oil reserve. It had a sizable middle class, modern infrastrucures, a working economy. This flies in the face of your assertion that lifting the sanctions wouldn't benefit average Iraqis; it is the sanctions and only the sanctions that have decimated the country (without getting into the argument as to who's responsible). Regarding your penultimate point: As addressed by our French diplomat, Iraq was 95% disarmed by the initial inspections, as stated by the American weapons inspector. We want 100% disarmament (in accordance with UN protocols), which is either fair or not fair, based on one's viewpoint. Regarding this last issue, a formidable argument can be made that the draconian requirements of the Treaty of Versailles led directly to the rise of Hitler. I would suggest that the draconian requirements and sanctions concerning Iraq will lead to forms of blowback yet unknown. Perhaps 9/11 was one example? Ths doesn't even address the morality of what we have done to Iraq, post-'91. As far as the morality of Iraq's Kuwaiti invasion: It had as much validity as did our invasion of Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, and countless other maneuvers. When are we going to disarm?

God muffy, you are so pro-war. What's up with that?

Nice, Trask, you leftist hippie.

Hey, likewise.

Certain economic indicators that are trumpeted by neo-liberals as signs of great success are often, upon closer inspection, nothing but smoke-screens, hiding continuing disparities behind such terms as "GNP", "GDP", etc.. Many of the indicators used have very little to do with the actual living conditions of the majority of the people, as was the case in S. America when it was a favorite pet of the IMF and World Bank during the last decade. Even in the US, the last decade was heralded as a period of incredible growth, and that it was, for a few. We saw an unbelievably large movement of wealth into the hands of a few, with most people seeing a DECLINE in general standard of living indicators. If I remember correctly, never since such stats have been kept, has such a small percentage of people controlled such a large percentage of total wealth in the US. Of course this can be seen not as a failure of our system, but as a necessary consequence during a time of incredible technological growth, but when free-market capitalism has a history of repeating this cycle over and over again (putting most of the wealth into the hands of very few), it seems we have a problem. (And now some push for tax cuts, further exacerbating the problem! "More growth, more growth!" they yell, as if economic growth can be infinite within a finite time-frame.... I'm not terribly familiar with the "asian tiger" phenomenon. I remember a massive amount of wealth being generated in southeast asia, but I really don't know how that wealth spread itself throughout the population, something that I would expect to be a major component when analyzing the success of any economic system. When any economic structure fails to deliver for the "people", then calls for its replacement will be heard. Capitalism hears this call, rightfully and understandably so, as communistic state-run economies hear this call. This will continue to be the case, even in successful examples of both systems, such as Sweden (socialistic), or the US (more free-market driven). Oh, and I'm not familiar with Chile either. What kind of turn-around did they experience with the institution of neo-liberal fiscal policy? My understanding was that they had followed an economic path with similarities to our own, under the close tutelage of US economic support....? Cuz they had been an ally for quite a while, enjoying liberal trade priveledges....? Ever since Pinochet....? Again, I'm not very familiar.

The only problem is that what has happened in practice is that the poor and oppressed became both more impoverished and more intensely subjugated after the implementation of these policies. Good intentions are nice, but the true measure of any political philosophy are the results it produces. No other political philosophy in history has century has produced a more impressive catalogue of misery, suffering, and repression (China, Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, etc, etc) than the "sharing" at gunpoint that you seem to be in favor of. It is one thing to have supported such policies prior to the 80-100 million odd deaths that are a direct consequence of their implementation, but to do so now suggests a startling willingess to disregard facts that run counter to one's ideological fantasies. In Venezuela now, as with the examples cited above, the folks in charge seize control of the capital and the productive resources in the name of helping the poor, when what is really happening, of course, is that they are merely consolidating their power. Once the new regime has assumed power over the economy, they have all of the power that they need to effectively control every aspect of political life in that country, as any citizen who opposes them is likely to lose his livelihood, and any corporation that resists state domination can be overtaken by decree. Once this happens you can set your watch and observe the new regime squander what's left of the nation's hard currency reserves and industrial capital, missallocate the state's productive resources, and the population begin their slow death spiral into abject subjugation and poverty. For Venezuelans, unlike the ideological voyeurs cheering on Chavez in this country, these are not mere abstractions but concrete realities that they are staring in the face, and that is what they were striking to prevent. If you were really concerned with the well-being of the poor and downtrodden in that country, you'd be on their side. Actually, I think we have to disagree on this one. You mentioned totalitarian regimes, and Hugo was democratically elected. I think the opposition should simply wait 'til the legally mandated recall election in August. And you seem to keep forgetting he was elected? I believe around %70 of the people live below the poverty line. Sheesh. Neo-liberal capitalist reform didn't do much to solve their problems, did it? Nor has it done anything to solve the problems of most Latin countries. And one more thing, most governments, including ours, are a blend of free-market capitalism and socialism. I really don't think it could be anything else, even though some staunch ideologues are pushing harder and harder. I believe that mindless free-market capitalism is just as dangerous and destructive as totalitarian socialism. Oh, and did I mention Hugo was democratically elected?

That's fucked up. Really. I think the people who shot should be tried and prosecuted, all the way up the chain of complicity, if evidence indicates the need for such. I also have to say I don't know the particulars of the case either. What do you think about this matter, and the entire presidency of Chavez?

com·mu·ni·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-myn-t) n. pl. com·mu·ni·ties A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. The district or locality in which such a group lives. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community. A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color. Similarity or identity: a community of interests. Sharing, participation, and fellowship. Actually, as we see above, the word "community" DOES denote some of the implications intended in the post you were replying to. Just trying to keep our semantics clear. Anything else I can help you with? Oh, there was one more thing: In your zeal to label socialism an intrusive politics of oppression, you conveniently forgot to mention the conditions it has often tried to correct-a condition supremely indifferent to the rights of certain individuals, often the poor and oppressed. This still goes on, in many countries that call themselves progressive and egalitarian. Sharing means caring, even if I have to hold a gun to your head, you greedy bastard! Have a nice day! (Meant towards no one in particular....)

Whatcha talking 'bout, Jay? Ya talking 'bout the strike, or sumpthin'?

You are absolutely correct, and that's why I made the comment about Fairweather. His anti-socialist slant runs so strong that he can't even assess the facts surrounding many issues. This issue in particular was the legitimacy of Hugo Chavez' presidency. I consider his presidency to be entirely legitimate, based on all the information I have gleaned from various sources; Fairweather considers his presidency illegitimate, based on what I can only assume to be ideological differences. Fairweather seems to be concerned only with the fact that Chavez is more of a socialist than he would like, while ignoring the larger context of Chavez' legal standing. Observing this type of behaviour repeatedly allows me to make the claim that I did-namely-that Fairweather cannot see past his ideology. Only because Fairweather's arguments were scientifically unverifiable or observable was I able to make the assertion I did. See above for refutation. The fact that I tend to disagree with Fairweather's philosophy and/or demagoguery has nothing to do with the facts regarding a particular case. I think I argued this quite clearly in my refutation of his views regarding Chavez. This is an interesting topic for me. I would actually venture forth the idea that indeed "bad" does cause "good", and vice-versa. First of all, as you say, there needs to exist both nodes for reference; without "bad", we'd have no idea what "good" was, at least in any meaningful way. Morality as modifier of human behaviour would cease to exist (not without its own perils!). So in this context, I'd say that human behaviour is certainly modified by both the signifier ("good" or "bad"), as well as the signified (the action denoted by the signifier). The pressures a humanoid faces when growing up in any society are almost entirely defined by codified expectancies inherent in the dualities presented by the "good" vs. "bad" schema that all culture has as its backbone. If this can be accepted, then we must accept that "good" causes "bad", and "bad" causes "good"; otherwise we must deny the reality of culture itself, a rather heady proposition! I believe Osama would be in full agreement with Plato's views on justice. I think we simply need to ask him: Hey Fairweather, are you uncomfortable thinking of yourself in the role of your enemy? I kinda like "Do unto others...."

I think this stance is more borne from scientific observation than mere ideology. I've never come across an argument that didn't have more than one view being postulated. Hell, inherent to discursive thought is bifurcation. Thought can never capture the totality of reality (an ideology!); hence, the unattainability of GUT (another ideology!). Exactly. But one must take into account the differing theories, something Fairweather seems to have a hard time doing because of his ideological blinders. Actually, if we are to believe in the notion of "bad people", then absolutely their existence leads to recursion; if everyone was good, then all would be good, right? But, I for one don't believe in the notion of "bad people"; I believe more in the notion of a Platonic ignorance, where all really want justice (an ideology, extended from observation!). Then here in this last part you kind of lost me. Sorry.

Let's not obfuscate. The topic wasn't Gore vs. Bush.

"As demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the quickest way to peace is through war." So this is what you wanted me to respond to? I don't know if I'd agree; WWII went on for 6 years! Although it certainly seems that WWII was necessary (if entirely decontextualized?).

No.