the ugly American

I think it dawned on me earlier today just how intensely the Middle Easterners must despise the American presense. I mean think of it: here they are going about their daily lives, probably just trying to survive and take care of their families and responsibilities as best they can. Then they see Americans struting about with an attitude that seems to say, "Gee, I don't have anything better to do, but to lolly-gag around in your country." And they probably top it off with a sort of holier-than-thou hint that they are there to "help." (Like the boy scout helping the lady across the street, who didn't want to go?) The American presense must really stink. But we're so used to commercialistic attitudes that we don't even notice how bad we come off.

Comments

Here's a word for that attitude

Submitted by bass on February 20, 2006 - 11:01am.

I believe the right term for the attitude you describe,
Jupiter, is "hubris." Defined as "Overbearing pride
or presumption; arrogance." From the Greek "hubris"
meaning insolence or outrage. That's according to The
American Heritage Dictionary, New College Edition,
published in 1976. Hubris is also what led to the
downfall of many classical characters. Julius Caesar
and Agamemnon come to mind. Napoleon is another good
example. Do you see a pattern here? Hubris may well
bring down our own version of these figures.

Excuse me but...

Submitted by Dark Horse on February 21, 2006 - 8:47pm.

Why would one project his own perceptions of American "hubris" onto a population he does not know or understand? I think it would not surprise most people to know that most of the people to whom you refer do not stop to ask themselves -let alone do they care- how we perceive them.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that you are so willing to give someone a "free pass" to despise you because you are part of a successful country?

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the current imperialistic fervor, however, neither am I unable to recognize that if it weren't us in this position, it would be someone else in this position. That is the nature of men, women and the societies they agree upon.

Let's get something straight: These people to whom you refer are being most immediately subjegated by their own governments, not us. We are merely their largest customer.

Have you seen the palaces, the islands, the automobiles, the gilt and gold and silver and opulence, which goes well beyond most of us "Rich Americans'" wildest abilities to imagine wealth, currently in posession of the leaders of ALL middle-eastern countries? Now take a moment and contrast that opulence against the broad, sweeping and deeply despairing poverty of the vast majority of their people.

Give me a break! The US is not their most immediate problem, their own governments are their primary and most immediate threat.

You think the French Revolution was bad? "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

These people are just now waking up and while it is very convenient for their governments to point at us as the bad guy in order to draw the heat away from themselves, ultimately these people realize that we have actually been paying the bills expected of us, and it has been their leaders who have absconded with their birthright.

dh

Uh...

Submitted by iconoclast 555 on March 5, 2006 - 9:22am.

"Let's get something straight: These people to whom you refer are being most immediately subjegated by their own governments, not us. We are merely their largest customer."

Weeeell... the problem is that "their 'own' governments" are, by and large, puppets of OUR "own" government. Saddam was a strange bedfellow for quite some time - having been removed from the US' list of terrist supporters under Reagan and receiving ample support from us in many ways and forms. The Sauds are not popular... outside DC. Mubarak is hardly a democratic leader awash in popular support - but he IS supported by us. Pakistan? Morocco? Name the nation and the unpopular and oppressive leaders are, more likely than not, puppets tools or allies of the US State Dept.... because they are "good for bizness".

"These people are just now waking up and while it is very convenient for their governments to point at us as the bad guy in order to draw the heat away from themselves, ultimately these people realize that we have actually been paying the bills expected of us, and it has been their leaders who have absconded with their birthright."

No, they've been wide awake for decades. They saw how decolonialization took place.... the "liberal" and "democratic" alternatives were brushed aside so that some "anticommie hardnose" dictator could keep things good for bizness. They saw how, time and time again, "liberal", "social" and "Western" alternatives were quashed, often with the help of the US and UK secret services... leaving only the anti-Commie fundamentalists as the only "acceptable" opposition.

I find it ironic that you should preface your post with: "Why would one project his own perceptions of American "hubris" onto a population he does not know or understand?". You need to graduate from the Time-Life history books and get a clue.

A Clue?

Submitted by Dark Horse on March 8, 2006 - 2:36pm.

Here's a clue for you: You can't want something for someone, more than they want it for themselves.

When they want to be free of tyranny and oppression, they'll throw it off. And, it won't matter who is trying to force them to comply.

In the mean time they are sitting on top of a significant portion of the world's oil supply which requires that they do business with world governments in a coherent manner. No government has an interest in dealing with an inconsistent, unstable and erratic state oil company, therefore we do business with the most stable. We don't like it but you might want to think about it next time you drive your car and mow your lawn and use products wrapped in or manufactured of petroleum based polymers, etc.

It is the people of the country who must throw off the dictators and despots; you cannot make it happen by being pissed off about the situation.

How's that for a clue?

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

Another clue

Submitted by iconoclast 555 on March 9, 2006 - 6:06am.

BTW, sorry if my tone seemed rough - I posted from work and in a rush.

"When they want to be free of tyranny and oppression, they'll throw it off. And, it won't matter who is trying to force them to comply."

This is true - but it certainly doesn't help when the tyranny is directly or indirectly supported by the world's sole superpower, one that not only wields military but economic forces that make revolt particularly difficult.

Revolt is certainly a possibility in any one of a dozen Muslim worlds. If we hadn't tried so hard to keep those 'orrible socialist and democratic elements down over the past 60 years, the revolt might have resulted in a more "Western" style government. But lo! Those options were destroyed with our help and purportedly for our benefit... and the likely result of a revolt nowadays is fundamentalism.

"No government has an interest in dealing with an inconsistent, unstable and erratic state oil company"

Translation: The West does not want to deal with a state oil company that would charge market prices and cut into the profit of oil companies. Don't forget Operation Ajax and a plethora of similar events - that had nothing to do with energy security and EVERYTHING to do with energy PROFITS.

You reap what you sow - and we've sowed an awful lot of hsit over the past decades. And it seems that even today, in the world of readily-available information, most people don't realize the bottom line is the bottom line, that cause and effect never fails, and that much of the problem is our own doing.

And we're not making it any better in Iraq and Afghanistan and Venezuela and and and

The people suffering from hubris is us.

Submitted by bass on February 22, 2006 - 11:35am.

dh,
At no point did I claim that the people of Iraq, or
elsewhere suffer from hubris. Just the opposite.
It's the Bush Administration that is prone to it.
They believe that they know what's best, and they're
always right. Example: bringing Democracy to others
will make everything better. But wait, the
Palestinians elected Hamas, we didn't want that!
The Iraqi people will welcome us with open arms. Some
will, but others will welcome us with arms of a
different type. It's an incredibly paternalistic
view of the world, and it's wrong. I'm all for self-dtermination,
but it should truly be SELF-determination. Not the US's
view of it.

Tom Leher comments...

Submitted by iconoclast 555 on March 5, 2006 - 9:28am.

...on YOUR comment, albeit 40 years ago:

"6. Send The Marines
What with President Johnson practicing escalatio on the Vietnamese, and then the Dominican Crisis on top of that, it has been a nervous year, and people have begun to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. Fortunately, in times of crisis like this, America always has its number one instrument of diplomacy to fall back on. Here's a song about it:

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,*
They have their place, I guess,
But first - send the Marines!

We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott;
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!

For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.

Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war;
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooh, we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!"

Nice little ditty

Submitted by Dark Horse on March 8, 2006 - 3:08pm.

So? What's your point?

You present the lyrics to a song that are intended to give a jaundiced point of view; and I'm supposed to do what with those slanted ideas?

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

So? What's MY point?

Submitted by iconoclast 555 on March 9, 2006 - 6:10am.

"You present the lyrics to a song that are intended to give a jaundiced point of view; and I'm supposed to do what with those slanted ideas?"

The truth is jaundiced? We have a history of overthrowing democratically-elected regimes because we don't like how the locals voted. We're trying to do so even now - in Venezuela, in Palestine.

The points ARE that we deal with wholesale hypocrisy, we support tyranny (especially of the economic type), and we wonder why we are not universally loved and why the wonderful two-party system isn't universally embraced.

I said the lyrics and intent of the song are jaundiced...

Submitted by Dark Horse on March 9, 2006 - 11:57am.

And they are.

I ascribe them the same value I would ascribe to the words to "God Bless America," if presented to me by a jingoist. That is fair and I bet you probably agree, given a moment.

Thank you for taking a moment to address the tone 'Clast. We have been talking on this board (mostly the old board) for several years now, and I appreciate your pause for consideration.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In all legal venues, ommission of a material fact is always construed to be lie. That is why the words "the whole truth" are placed in the oath.

The lyrics of that song omit all of the good this country has done and are therefore and thereby, a lie.

Once again, I think that being pissed-off can be a good thing, especially if it serves as a motivational starting point, leading to constructive change. But venting, without action -while it may serve some purpose- has no real quantifyable value, other than to make people aware of one's perspective. At some point the rubber has to hit the road for value to be added, does it not? When that rubber hits the road, it is best pointed in the direction of positive change (working within and without the system to make it more workable), not negative change (violence, etc.).

It seems then that loving this country and dedicating some of our time to speaking of its positive potential and expressing some useful and valuable ideas, may be a good thing too. It is a way to mark a turning point and begin to make some positive change.

Any one of us can report the news (God knows I report my share); it is happening right in front of us. How do we change the direction of our motion; that is the crux of the matter.

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

???

Submitted by iconoclast 555 on March 9, 2006 - 12:03pm.

"The lyrics of that song omit all of the good this country has done and are therefore and thereby, a lie."

That's a bit of a non sequitor - as the lyrics only address one aspect of a greater subject. Since your posts likewise only address aspects of any given subject, your posts would (by your logic) also be lies.

Has America done "good"? Undoubtedly - although probably quite a bit less than you claim. The US stands far down the line as far as altruism is concerned, unless one is to believe hype as opposed to content.

"It seems then that loving this country and dedicating some of our time to speaking of its positive potential and expressing some useful and valuable ideas, may be a good thing too. It is a way to mark a turning point and begin to make some positive change."

It sure is. However, for the most part, those prone to seeing the "good side" completely obviate the "bad side" - and then carry on by claiming that all critics are "anti-American".

"How do we change the direction of our motion; that is the crux of the matter."

Unless we actually address what is wrong we are not changing any direction one iota.

It might help...

Submitted by iconoclast 555 on March 9, 2006 - 12:25pm.

...if we were to go over the military interventions we have perpetrated since 1880 and the reasons for the same.

It wouldn't hurt either if we were to contemplate the fact that we have been involved, directly or indirectly, in the deaths of more people SINCE 1945 than those killed during WWII.

FWIW, for the most part these deaths were for Texaco, United Fruit, or other such "persons".

For some fun, we could collect and trade! http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html

What follows what...

Submitted by Dark Horse on February 23, 2006 - 11:45am.

Bass,

Jupiter specifically talked about "American Pretense." And, because in your reply you agreed and put forth the word "hubris," without confining it to the current administration (actually there is nothing in the post about the administration, at all), I naturally assumed you were talking about Americans in general, not the present administration.

Sometimes one's intent doesn't make it to the writen product. This also happens to me on occasion.

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

Tendency toward superiority

Submitted by bass on February 24, 2006 - 12:44pm.

dh-
Don't you think there is a general tendency of the
United States to feel superior? Not just the government,
but the citizenry as well? Isn't that feeling sometimes
misplaced? Hasn't this country done things not to be
proud of? Slavery, racism, My Lai, Kent State...
Some perpetrated by the government with the support of
the citizenry.
When I ask such questions, I have had my
patriotism questioned, but I would compare my patriotism
to anyone's. Of course, I'm talking about TRUE patriotism,
not the pale, jingoistic version that seems so prevalenmt
now. Faithfulness to the Constitution. A remarkable
document that was framed in such a way as to evolve
over time, regardless of what some politicians and
judges seem to think.
Example of true patriotism: flag burning.
I don't like flag burning. I think it's disrespectful
and vile. That being said, I don't believe it should
be banned. It is a form of protest. My perspective
is flag burning shows me the content of the character
of the flag burner. Whatever their cause, they've lost
me. I cannot support them. I would also do my best
to stop them. Better to protect the rights of a person
attempting to prevent a flag burning than to prohibit
the action itself.
I think that clothing made to look lie the American
flag are disrespectful, too. I think people who think
they are patriotic by flying the flag from their car
antenna, a flag that gets destroyed by the elements
and wind, are not truly patriotic. I think people
who fly the flag 24/7, regardless of weather, don't
treat the flag with due respect. It should come in
at sunset, and in rain.
I've just realized that I really got off on a rant
here. My apologies.
In some ways, we may be superior. In some ways,we are not.

Conscience of the country

Submitted by Dark Horse on February 24, 2006 - 5:02pm.

Bass,

I do not think there is a "general" tendency of the United States to feel superior. I do however think there may be a "general" tendency of other countries to feel inferior, and to resent the feeling that accompanies their own perceived inferiority. I think that most of the citizens of the United States are regular, fairly humble people, going about their lives. They Drive to work in the morning and get stuck in traffic, they can't afford many of the things they'd like to own but they are usually okay with that, they struggle to raise their kids and try to make their children's lot in life better than their own.

Yes our country has done things of which we should not be proud. We continue to execute untoward plans and schemes, which often are an embarrassment to the very citizenry to whom you earlier referred -as referenced by you, me and others, here and in other venues. Slavery, racism, My Lai and Kent State are all sad events. Yet which country in this world of societies agreed upon by men and women, does not carry these stains of their own?

Certainly Iraq cannot claim to be more of an honorable citizen than the United States, in light of the frequency and extent of its past atrocities. Iraq is not a country with a history of peacemakers; to the contrary, Iraq's past is a bloody history with far more systemized inhumanity than that which you will find in the US, even with all of our shameful choices. So why should I be concerned with their opinion of my country? As citizens they have as much responsibility to watch their government as do we.

I am concerned that we invaded their country, a sovereign nation. I am concerned about all of the deaths we have caused, I am especially concerned about the death of our troops and of the thousands of innocent people placed in harm’s way, I am concerned about the damage we have done to their infrastructure and I worry about the effort and cost required to help them rebuild their country. However, I also think the Iraqi people do share some responsibility in that they should have eradicated the Hussein virus themselves. Hussein was an agitator of the international community and he was speaking with their voice. They had a responsibility to remove him.

I am presently most concerned about the hurrying of the development of their constitution, it now having disenfranchised millions of its citizens and representing what is the cornerstone of yet another unworkable "democracy/theocracy." Though to be honest, I also know much of the pressure to hurry its presentation and passage came from Democratic criticism of the administration; I think Democrats made a serious error in forcing this issue based on time, rather than content.

I don't think we should have invaded Iraq.

I do think we should have invaded Afghanistan. Regardless of whether the international diplomacy involved with the Afghani's regarding the Caspian Sea pipeline, prior to our invasion, made our invasion appear suspect, I still think it was the correct choice, all things considered. We were right in not trusting their government during these negotiations. And, speaking of Hubris, did you get a look at those Taliban Government officials and their methods of torture, killing, oppression, and beliefs? Wow! I don't think Afghanistan lost much in the way of rational leadership in that situation.

I cannot answer why your patriotism is questioned. Perhaps it is a result of the personalities and beliefs of those with whom you converse. Based on what I have read in this thread, it may be that your patriotism is questioned because of the way you frame the question. No one can possibly explain away the events you mentioned, since they are not explainable to a rational mind, so your question may feel -to your companions- like it is a trap that is begging only one answer. However, on the flip side of the coin, the evocation of those events alone, fails to recognize the fine and wonderful gifts of compassion this country has poured out to the world. And to be completely honest, is not disingenuous to hold up our failures as a reflection of who we are without also holding up our successes, along with those failures, for consideration?

Sometimes when people are concerned about the direction of our policies, and when we have a feeling that things are going wrong, we feel the need to serve as the conscience of our country. It is an honorable and very patriotic thing to do when one is sincere, and I am sure you are sincere. However, we sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater due to the strong feelings we have. As you may have seen with me recently, in another post, I skipped out on the etiquette of debate in favor of angry expression. I didn’t rein myself in so someone else had to do it for me. Could be that you are meeting with this issue, on occasion, as well.

I too dislike flag burning. I dislike it immensely. However, I served six years in the Navy supporting the right to freedom of speech; like you, neither am I a jingoist, so, to me, burning a flag is a valid -albeit abhorrent- statement, not an assailable or prosecutable violation of law.

I think I see it a bit differently than you. When I see a flag burning I look carefully at the statement being made by the flag burner and I ask myself: "Is this just some fool looking for attention or has this person lost so much faith in our system of democracy that he is burning this flag to communicate his opinion that our country's true foundations of law, justice and freedom are on fire?"

I guess I am ranting too.

Best of luck,

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

Hubris

Submitted by iconoclast 555 on March 9, 2006 - 9:33am.

"I do not think there is a "general" tendency of the United States to feel superior. I do however think there may be a "general" tendency of other countries to feel inferior, and to resent the feeling that accompanies their own perceived inferiority."

Could there be a more telling example of hubris? The above is the epitome of hubris - and unless supported by more than an ipse dixit, can only be interpreted as being caused by ignorance.

"Certainly Iraq cannot claim to be more of an honorable citizen than the United States, in light of the frequency and extent of its past atrocities."

Debateable.

"Iraq is not a country with a history of peacemakers; to the contrary, Iraq's past is a bloody history with far more systemized inhumanity than that which you will find in the US, even with all of our shameful choices."

Yeppers... the very cradle of civilization, of law, of urbanization, must take a backseat to the US of A. No hubris here, folks, move on.

"So why should I be concerned with their opinion of my country? As citizens they have as much responsibility to watch their government as do we."

Pity our government doesn't feel the same way, huh? Anyways, Iraq is merely one of over 100 countries which somehow don't have a particularly positive view of the US. Go figure.

BTW, I definitely rag on the US... because it is my RESPONSIBILITY to do so. It seems that many Americans are quick to point out how others are "worse" as a way of justifying our crimes and misdemeanours. That doesn't cut it for me - neither does the argument of it being a "hard world" justify self-serving policies in my book.

According to the Nuremburg doctrine, our current potus should be on trial for a capital crime - yet not only is he free, he was REELECTED by morons who are making the worst possible argument in favour of democracy. And the cause of our "dumbification" is the very basis of this website; spin, PR and other euphemisms for manipulation.

I note that the poster said ", on the flip side of the coin, the evocation of those events alone, fails to recognize the fine and wonderful gifts of compassion this country has poured out to the world."... I wonder what exactly he is refering to. The Marshall Plan that profitted US firms even more than Europe? The "foreign aid" which is really just a way for corporations to raid the treasury and garner unfair competitive advantages as we harp upon "fair trade"? Our participation in 2 avoidable world wars that ultimately brought us such power and wealth? We are no BETTER nor WORSE than other countries - but we supposedly have the advantage, coined by Lincoln as the "noble experiment", to actually move forward.

We haven't - yet many seem to think that we have. This is nothing more and nothing less than cognitive dissonance.

Welcome to Weimar.

following the conversation ...

Submitted by Maynard on February 26, 2006 - 8:18am.

Hibris is a good word, and applicable to both the administration and its general public supporters.

Humankind is made up of those who recognize that others in their family/community/civilization are valuable and loveable fellow humans with whom they can share experience, responsibility, imagination, and all other ways by which groups outperform indiiduals.

And humankind is comprised of those who regard others as threats to their own self and as resources to be exploited. These people become arrogant and greedy; they lose all sense of virtue, ethics, and responsibility as these may apply to anyone or anythign beyond themselves. The publicly traded corporation is one of these, if it were to really have personhood.

Into which of these categories a developing child grows is a matter of several influences, one of which is the behaviorial climate provided by their family, community, and country. The U.S. government, since its inception, is most solidly in tha latter camp; perhaps never more so than this very day. All fear; no ethics, and no accountability. The U.S. government today is actively striving to manipulate its citizens into the same blind stupid fervor.

The idea that people of other nations have a feeling of inferiority to the US is ridiculous. The notion that Americans are lots better off than *everybody* else on the planet, in every way, is pure propaganda.

I agree with your evaluation

Submitted by bass on February 27, 2006 - 10:06am.

I agree with your evaluation of Mankind, Maynard, although
it may be a bit black & white, with no gray area.
dh,
you have valid arguments, but American History is filled
with examples of this country doing things for other
countries' "own good." How many actions have taken
place in Central & South America? Think Nicaragua,
Argentina, etc. Iraq is just the latest example.
The idea that the United States is going to "bring Democracy"
to any country is paternalistic, and smacks of a
superior attitude.

Capitalism

Submitted by Dark Horse on March 3, 2006 - 10:53pm.

Look, let's agree on one thing: This country was founded for the purpose of business to function without the oppression of governments. The founders recognized that for those businesses to blossom, the rights of individuals to pursue development of those businesses must be preserved. It is called Capitalism.

This country specifically was NOT founded with the inverse logic in mind (i.e., people first), though that is the story we are often told and to which we subscribe when we desire to comfort ourselves.

You mentioned a corporation being a person. Legally, it is a person. Actually, it is higher than a person. It cannot be thrown in jail, it cannot be shot or killed, it is nameless and faceless, it influences government and creates laws through that influence and it has no head nor tail, it has a beginning but it meets it own end only through its own stupidity and mismanagement. It is the only truly self-determined "person" in this country.

Corporations are started by people but most often become "public" which means "unaccountable" unless the public operating within and without the company hold it to standards. Only a public that is empowered and uses that power will hold those corporations to a rule of law.

We are talking about money here folks. There is far too often too little consideration given to morality when it comes to money. Money makes wealth and wealth makes class. Class rules because money rules. All of the conflicts over racism, sexism, etc. have nothing to do with race or jender (or the ism of the day), they are about class, plain and simple. Somebody has something and they want to keep it, and conversely, somebody else wants something and they are going to try to get it.

These conflict based "isms" are a distraction to keep peoples' minds off of wealth and way for those without real power to express themselves. We create this minutiae to keep ourselves busy. It is our way of distracting ourselves from the real issues of life. And, we should not kids ourselves, it is not some ruling class who divides us, it is we who divide ourselves. Example: Everybody wants some of that class, in whatever small way they may attain it, and they want to be recognized for it when they achieve it. The way to do this is to look down on others once they get there.

Everyone should look in the mirror at the end of every day and honestly ask themselves who did they use or hurt or manipulate today to gain their desired results. Not just those with whom we interact on a personal basis but how did our decisions and actions affect those we will never meet? Did I hurt my son's feelings and will this impact his raising of his son? Did I hurt my spouse in a selfish moment and how will that affect what our children see in him or her? Did I go to far in a suggestion at work, was my ambition too great and will my co-workers or the users of my company's product suffer because of it?

That's too a tough mirror for most people and that is why they rationalize their actions. They want what they want; it really is that simple. It is naked and it is raw and it is a crying shame. But we, the United States are only a minority the people in the world who rationalize in this way (by far) and we certainly are not the only people in the world who need to take stock.

We act the same way in the international community, as does every other country in the world. They are all looking to "get theirs," just as we are. We have a bigger stick and we don't always use it in a very pretty way. However don't kid yourselves, history has shown, in EVERY circumstance, that might may not make right but it makes kings and powerful governments.

Until everyone on this planet is willing to look into that mirror and ask themselves those tough question and develop a conscience, until we are all then willing to look into that mirror collectively and make some changes, we will have what we currently have, in varying degrees. Now how likely do you think it is that people are going to give up their lust for personal wealth and prestige so we might all join hands and sing "Kumbyah?"

I believe it is called the human condition folks and it is not likely to change to the degree we may want it to change, because we (each of us) is unwilling to give up what we must give up to make that change.

Think of it this way: Everyone knows that if we lived as true brothers and sisters in love and services to one another, no one in the world would suffer poverty. We all know that is a true and workable statement; there is no question that the natural resources and physical effort resources are available. It is the very concept that would allow everyone to live a happy and healthy life; we would relax and be happy and live wonderful lives, all across the world.

Now think about what will happen as soon as one group decides to do this; who wants to go first? Anybody want to take bets on which other group would rob, plunder and kill them for their resources and power first?

And there you have it, in a nutshell.

I think our job is to negotiate what we have, to the best of our abilities and with as much integrity and morality as a given situation will allow, always deferring to decency, because for the moment, it is all we've got. Right up to the point where it becomes obvious that the other guy will or has hurt you. Then, squash him like a bug; you may want to review it later to see if you could have done a better job on the front end of the interaction.

dh

The obvious is always obvious; and, nothing is ever as it appears.

more thoughts

Submitted by bass on March 8, 2006 - 11:29am.

"You mentioned a corporation being a person. Legally,
it is a person."

Only because the Supreme Court, in a misguided decision
declared it so. Some day, that decision will be
overturned, though perhaps not in our lifetime.

"We are talking about money here folks. There is far too often too little consideration given to morality when it comes to money. "

You got that right.

"These conflict based "isms" are a distraction to keep peoples' minds off of wealth and way for those without real power to express themselves."

That is true to a degree, but there is also the fantasy
factor. By that I mean the belief many people have that
eventually they will be rich, and benefit from the things
that the already wealthy have. Why are the various
state lotteries so successful? People want to get rich
quick. Why is it easy for some hucksters to sell the
schemes they do? The promise to get rich.

"I believe it is called the human condition..."

Again, can't argue with that. There will always be
people who want more, and will do anything to get it.
There will always be people not willing to put in much
effort, for themselves or, especially, for others.

As you said, dh, all we can do is make our own personal
decision on how to live our lives. I choose to live
mine doing as little damage as possible to those I am
close to, and the world in general.
Am I always successful? Of course not. But, I would
rather strive for that goal and be able to look at
myself in the mirror than to be like those lacking
a conscience. Does that mean I would sit around singing
"Kumbaya?" I think a better choice would be
"For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield.

Too much to process at once

Submitted by bass on March 5, 2006 - 12:19am.

That's quite an essay you wrote there, dh, and I, myself,
will need far more time to digest it than I have now,
pushing midnight. Couple of quick points, this country
may have been founded based on getting government out
of the way, but progress has required governmental action.
Child labor laws, for example. I took a great
course in college on the history of law that examined
how the law, illustrated mostly through Supreme Court
cases, changed over time. For example in the earliest
days of the nation, individual property rights were
overidden by the need for development. Development
served the greater good of a young nation. Eventually,
individual rights started taking precedence, although
the Supreme Court ruling regarding eminent domain may
signal a shift back to the old mindset.
My favorite unit during that course was about Eugenic
Sterilization. There was a time when it was legal for
the government to forcibly sterilize people if they were deemed "defective."
It even went to the Supreme Court,and Justice Oliver
Wendall Holmes, writing in the case of Buck v Bell
wrote an opinion uphold the laws that stated "Three
enerations of idiots is enough." (It has amused me
when recent Supreme Court nominees have spoken of
their respect for Stare Decisis. I want to ask
them, "So you would have upheld Plessy v Furgeson in
the Brown v Board of Ed. case? That would qualify
as Stare Decisis.)
Now, a point about mankind. Man is generally governed
by the idea of self-preservation. If, in the addled
psyche of some that equates to "screw your neighbor,"
that's what he's going to do. Some recognize that such
action is not what's required, in fact it can be
counterproductive, ie, screw your neighbor, and he's
going to screw you back even more, and so it escalates.
This is why, I believe, that Communism (in the sense
that Marx & Engels laid it out) can naver exist. It runs
counter to human nature.
That being said, there are those of us who don't
necessarily want what others have. We're reasonably
happy with our lot, though perhaps a little less so
in the last six years with what has happened to the
economy. I'm not going to lie, cheat and steal my way
to infamy and fortune, and I think that's true of many
people in this society.
I think I'm starting to rant a little, so I'll stop
now. Perhaps I will pick it up again when I've gotten
some sleep.