static

Sounds/Songs: coffee brewing
Book: Paths of the Dead
Film: My Big Fat Greek Wedding
What I need right now is...someone to say the words.

Though it is probably wise for me personally to not join in this excellent dialog, I have to say that I highly respect people who can articulate their arguments in print.

I think I feel ultimately out of control of the possible war situation because I don't understand the main players. As for the government, I've voted as best I could considering the options I was given, and now I have to take my lumps with my cake based on how these elected officials react to the world at large. I have only a rudimentary understanding of how our government works, how the UN works, how the Middle East works. Until I understand it enough to predict how it will react, I have no intention of responding to it with action. I will probably comment on it, often in contridictory ways, as I work my way around it. Like the blind men and the elephant. I think I'm trying to intuit the government. I've given up understanding the logic of the government because it doesn't seem to be effective logic.

If the current administration is trying to take out terrorism at its roots, that being its finances, then I have to admire the goal. This is what I believe is the reason for the war with Iraq. (and eventually with any country that provides support to a terrorist network) I'm not convinced we will achieve it, but it is noble to try. If this administration is reacting for any other reason then I have to oppose it.

We will never have world peace until there is no reason for armed resistance. This goes for Israel, Palistine, Ireland, the Sudan, Pakestan, the Michigan Milita - not just Iraq. No reason for armed resistance means that there are other effective channels for dialog, there is compromise on both sides, and there is an over arching law with the ability for law enforcement. We seem to have all these items, why aren't they working?

Why does armed resistance still happen?

1. People can still get arms. (obviously)
2. The governing bodies are not accurate pictures of the general populus, but a support mechinism for the status quo.
3. People are greedy creatures.

How do you address these issues?

1. People can still get arms. If you remove arms from people you are not solving the problem, you are covering the symptom. People will fight with rocks and sticks if their cause is desperate enough. This being said, it couldn't hurt to cut down on the number of handguns available for soccer moms just on general principle.

2. The governing bodies are ...a support mechinism for the status quo. Governments can only be effectively changed internally. External pressure doesn't work for long. I can't speak for other countries, but in the US it probably means we would need to drop the party system and go to a more democratic form of government, remaining representative on the day to day running of the country. I think this last presidential election was a good example of how much of our governement is about party politics and not the will of the mob, erh I mean people. Generally though, it calls for compromise, prudence, and less hysterics. Our political commentary needs to stop being a football game for the masses and a chess game for our elected officals. We need to make the governement more accessible to the general public and we as the people of the united states need to invest more thought into our government then we currently do. Otherwise, what makes us better than the Roman Empire?

I do have to add here that I think that is why I'm mildly annoyed when protests of any form happen because they go outside the structure of the government. Protests are a symptom of a broken communication structure between the people and the elected officials. I am more annoyed at a government that can't even hear its own people unless they get signs and march outside your building. So I respect protestors for being active, yet I'm annoyed that our government has forced them to do so, or they have not tried other means of communication first in the urgency of their message.

As for other countires, well, all voices need to be heard, if not appeased. Start with that and then we will see how necessary these groups feel it is to arm and take up resistance.

3. People are greedy creatures. When I pray for peace, I really pray for personal realization of this fact by everyone on the planet or "How I personally am contributing to the shit going around." I am also convinced that this fact will not change without divine intervention into every person's life.

On a more pragmatic level, we should also take this into account about ourselves when we are in dialog with other people. Not to go back to a classical example, but we really need they guy on the chariot with caesar whispering "thou art mortal. thou art mortal" in his ear.

:: HOME :: LJ-PISCIS ::

2003-02-25 8:21 AM deaf dumb and blind Previous Entry :: Next Entry Mood: Contemplative Read/Post Comments (2) Share on Facebook	Sounds/Songs: coffee brewing Book: Paths of the Dead Film: My Big Fat Greek Wedding What I need right now is...someone to say the words. Though it is probably wise for me personally to not join in this excellent dialog, I have to say that I highly respect people who can articulate their arguments in print. I think I feel ultimately out of control of the possible war situation because I don't understand the main players. As for the government, I've voted as best I could considering the options I was given, and now I have to take my lumps with my cake based on how these elected officials react to the world at large. I have only a rudimentary understanding of how our government works, how the UN works, how the Middle East works. Until I understand it enough to predict how it will react, I have no intention of responding to it with action. I will probably comment on it, often in contridictory ways, as I work my way around it. Like the blind men and the elephant. I think I'm trying to intuit the government. I've given up understanding the logic of the government because it doesn't seem to be effective logic. If the current administration is trying to take out terrorism at its roots, that being its finances, then I have to admire the goal. This is what I believe is the reason for the war with Iraq. (and eventually with any country that provides support to a terrorist network) I'm not convinced we will achieve it, but it is noble to try. If this administration is reacting for any other reason then I have to oppose it. We will never have world peace until there is no reason for armed resistance. This goes for Israel, Palistine, Ireland, the Sudan, Pakestan, the Michigan Milita - not just Iraq. No reason for armed resistance means that there are other effective channels for dialog, there is compromise on both sides, and there is an over arching law with the ability for law enforcement. We seem to have all these items, why aren't they working? Why does armed resistance still happen? 1. People can still get arms. (obviously) 2. The governing bodies are not accurate pictures of the general populus, but a support mechinism for the status quo. 3. People are greedy creatures. How do you address these issues? 1. People can still get arms. If you remove arms from people you are not solving the problem, you are covering the symptom. People will fight with rocks and sticks if their cause is desperate enough. This being said, it couldn't hurt to cut down on the number of handguns available for soccer moms just on general principle. 2. The governing bodies are ...a support mechinism for the status quo. Governments can only be effectively changed internally. External pressure doesn't work for long. I can't speak for other countries, but in the US it probably means we would need to drop the party system and go to a more democratic form of government, remaining representative on the day to day running of the country. I think this last presidential election was a good example of how much of our governement is about party politics and not the will of the mob, erh I mean people. Generally though, it calls for compromise, prudence, and less hysterics. Our political commentary needs to stop being a football game for the masses and a chess game for our elected officals. We need to make the governement more accessible to the general public and we as the people of the united states need to invest more thought into our government then we currently do. Otherwise, what makes us better than the Roman Empire? I do have to add here that I think that is why I'm mildly annoyed when protests of any form happen because they go outside the structure of the government. Protests are a symptom of a broken communication structure between the people and the elected officials. I am more annoyed at a government that can't even hear its own people unless they get signs and march outside your building. So I respect protestors for being active, yet I'm annoyed that our government has forced them to do so, or they have not tried other means of communication first in the urgency of their message. As for other countires, well, all voices need to be heard, if not appeased. Start with that and then we will see how necessary these groups feel it is to arm and take up resistance. 3. People are greedy creatures. When I pray for peace, I really pray for personal realization of this fact by everyone on the planet or "How I personally am contributing to the shit going around." I am also convinced that this fact will not change without divine intervention into every person's life. On a more pragmatic level, we should also take this into account about ourselves when we are in dialog with other people. Not to go back to a classical example, but we really need they guy on the chariot with caesar whispering "thou art mortal. thou art mortal" in his ear. Read/Post Comments (2) Previous Entry :: Next Entry Back to Top
:: HOME :: LJ-PISCIS ::