Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry

KlavierBauer

I hope it wasn't a mistake...

I like very much the way you expressed yourself.

Anyway, who can be 100% sure that she/he is right ?

I am not in favor of war. Wars should be banned as death penalty should be.

But there still is the problem of security and human rights : if we follow your and LP's arguments, there should be no police.
If a person beats his wife or children, we should respect the privacy of his home.
If he tortures his children, then let's pray and hope he will see the light.

What about the beaten and tortured people ?

There is a strong problem of semantics.
Let us forget about war and discuss about what should be done :
1° to deprive Saddam of his WMD. Because everybody knows he has them. One of his sons in law is called Chemical Ali. And thousands of Iraki citizens have experienced them and are dead now.
2° Do we let the Iraki people suffer if we can stop that horror. Eveybody knows that as soon as Saddam and his tugs are out of power, the population will express their relief. Wouldn't you feel relieved ?
3° What do we do to stop the Arab world playing the vicious game of uniting in their hate for Israel, the Jews and the US and the developed countries in general.
They have to learn that democracy is an option, science is an option, industry is an option, freedom for women is an option. They have to learn that religion is great if it fits the principles of Human Rights (one of them being the freedom to believe what you choose to believe).

4° I understand that things would have been easier if Saddam had attacked one of his neighbours. He has been a fool several times, but he looks like a placid old man, a bit like good old Joe Stalin.
The USA have been victims of a serious crime against manking. We all know that the root of this crime is the hatred that seems to unite the Moslem world. It is absolutely essential to stop that game. If it can be done peacefully, then great. We all are waiting for your practical ideas.If it has to be done by the use of force (not war : force), then great.
Aren't you happy Milosevic is not practicing his favourite sport : ethnic purification ?
Don't you feel proud that, despite the tensions, Afganisthan is not ruled by the Talibans ?

It does not matter that you do not agree with this war.
People whose job it is to make decisions when a terror attack occurs as to what strategy they choose have decided. Their plan is not stupid and they must be given a chance.

If they have been dishonest and/or if they prove the fears of the whole world that the USA are an imperialistic country disguised as a peace loving exporter of democracy, then the hatred will be there forever and the USA will take place with nazi germany and Stalin's soviet union or Mao's china.

But we are not there yet.
In a few weeks, this operation should be a success.
Then, we shall see if the USA were there for the oil or for the democracy/security.
Then we shall see whether the USA are ready to get committed to a solution where the palestinian people have a land and Israel the right to exist in peace without being the scapegoat of 1 billion or more moslims.

If this happens, you are entitled to admit you did not trust the force of courage and committment.

If it doesn't, I will burn my new cowboy hat.

and I will eat mine.

KlavierBauer, very thoughtful post.

Benedict:

For the most part I agree with your post.

I haven't forgotten about the tortured people, or the human rights atrocities. In fact, these are the very things that sadden my heart as we go to war.

I'm a big fan of consistency though. I have no problem with this war on terror, if it is genuine. This means that other countries like Zimbabwe (in worse shape than Iraq right now) deserve to be regulated as well. There is a whole country starving, with people losing everything, being tortured, killed, etc. every day.

I hope that we find a way as humans to affect each other's hearts, rather than each other's actions. It seems that when we slap each other on the back of the hand, we just tend to get a little hotter under the color. Don't get me wrong, every hand needs a slap every once in awhile. My point is, I'm not excited, or happy about it. And it saddens me that there are people who are.

KlavierBauer

KlavierBauer,
I'm a big fan of consistency though. I have no problem with this war on terror, if it is genuine. This means that other countries like Zimbabwe (in worse shape than Iraq right now) deserve to be regulated as well. There is a whole country starving, with people losing everything, being tortured, killed, etc. every day.

It is up to the US citizens to decide if they want to confront their government with their resolve to impose democracy and human rights as a world norm and enforce it.

Then, the whole world will know if they were sincere or just greedy for oil and domination and just doing a police action in case Saddam was a threat to the Empire State Building and the White House.

I am amazed at the amount of hatred both from the British-US world and against the USA.

There is an enormous bug which might will have to be dealt with.

Hate won't do the trick. Nor accepting the Saddams of this world to torture and (mass)murder as a way to enjoy power.
The irony of it is that millions of people do not like the way the USA seem to be power-hungry.

Because, they are powerhungry, are they not ?

No.

Yes.

Benedict, what do you, personally, think? Why do you think the US is in Iraq right now?

Benedict:

When you say the U.S., you are referring to everyone within it's borders.

While I said earlier that I am opposed to war, I will also support my country. I might not support what it's doing, but I support what it stands for.

Making a blanket statement like "the U.S. is power hungry" includes me ... and last I looked, I'm not power hungry.

I understand what you're saying. The U.S. Government does manytimes assume that they're #1, and that their way of life is #1. But don't make statements that include the whole country.
Like any other country, we're made up of lots of different ideas. We thankfull have the freedom to express it.

KlavierBauer

I apologize for a gross generalization.

What I mean is... Well, I don't know what I mean.

If one cannot utter gross generalization and feel good, life becomes heck.

When I started having beers in this Coffee Room, a lot, and I mean a lot of people explained clearly that :

1° France was a country of cowards
2° France had lost every war since two thousand years
3° The US Army had liberated France over and over again
4° The USA were always right because they are the country that is right by its very essence. (probably the last western country that is blessed by God since Germany decided to drop the subject altogether)
5° The French are cowards because they do not allow free sale of firearms
6° The French are cowards because they make wine
7° The French women are hairy and stink

So, I may have concluded a bit hastily that the USA are power hungry.

There are other elements as well.

Bush's administration makes it clear that no other country will ever be allowed to approach the level of military power that they have.
No country. Never.

Bush's administration makes it clear that they do not need any countries opinion to do what they decide to do. And since they pray every morning together, they know what they have to do.

The USA will take control of Irak and do exactly what they want to do, how they want to do, when they want to do it. With the oil (this government does know a lot about oil). With the government of Irak they will choose to implement.

No, all well considered, the US government and a lot of the people who explained to me what a piece of ... France I am are not power hungry.

One not power hungry person even explained that the Jewish Torah was there to show how everything prepared the coming of Jesus.

Power hungry ?

No. Definitely not.

Why do billions (yes, billions) of people think the opposite ?

I suppose they have seen to many US movies.

Do not mistake me : if I am here in this forum, it is because I love the USA that are not power hungry.
All my life I have read and studied authors like Carl Rogers, Maslow,Peter Senge and many others of humanistic psychology and management.

When I was a student, every morning I shaved while listening to Kennedies speeches.

"Do not ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country".

"We must help people help themselves".

So KlavierBauer, when I say the USA are power hungry, it certainly does not mean you and a lot of US citizens.

It means people like Jodi who kick sandbags and howl fiercely. These people are powerhungry.

Benedict,

I'm curious about your statement above, your interest in social manipulation via psychology (or is your interest more in productivity i.e., Taylor, Hawthorne Electric experiment, OK I'll include Maslow, etc.).
Was such reading part of school curriculum, or was this study simply an interest of yours?

I personally don't have a problem with generalizations. There is a reason they exist. When we speak using them we realize this and no one assumes every single person falls into this category. My particular problem with what you said was not the generalization, but that I believe you are wrong in thinking the USA is power hungry. Unless I misunderstand your definition.

For my part, I will address your points from my point of view and what I think I have stated here in the Kaffee Zimmer. I think France is acting like cowards now, both because of their failing to stand behind their own UN votes and because of their inability to distinguish and act on right v. wrong. I've never mentioned the free sale of firearms in France but I believe that makes you foolish, not cowardly. You prefer the rule of brute force over the right and ability of self-defense. I must assume the part about making wine and women you are just joking about. Also include prior administrations and I pray to God all future administrations as well. I believe the US should do what we think is right without regard to other countries, period. Does that make us a bad neighbor? I hope not. As long as we as a nation keep our moral compass we shouldn't be making bad decisions. I can't comment upon this too much other than to say you are probably pretty correct. Again, this doesn't have to automatically be a bad thing. Do you have a problem with France's attempting to sabotage the American-led campaign to rescue Iraq, or Chirac's insistance that, after the United States apologizes to the world community and the U.N. Security Council, France be a part of the rebuilding developments in Iraq? How about France selling spare parts to Iraq for their Mirage F-1 fighter jets and Gazelle attack helicopters in defiance of the UN? It seems France does what it wants to as well.

And re the oil, you have never stated whether you think the US is in Iraq to steal their oil or not, despite my asking you several times. Jealousy, envy, religious hatred, moral guilt (guilt brings with it anger). My personal belief is it all comes down to religion as a root cause, but that is a long discussion.

You ask why I and others like me are angry about France. Pfc. Jessica Lynch was rescued last night. She had two broken legs, a broken arm, and who knows what else. In one place where she was held Marines found a bed, a large battery, and a bloody US woman's service uniform. The room was used as a torture chamber.

In addition to this, since the war has started Iraq has used their own people as human shields in countless instances, engaged in acts of genocide against Shi'a Muslims in the south of Iraq, forced Iraqi civilians to take up arms at gunpoint, executed Iraqi civilians on the spot for any suspicion of disloyalty or even indifference, cut off food and water to Shi'a Muslim urban populations, used hospitals as military staging areas, fighting positions and arms storage depots, took Iraqi family members, including children, hostage, executed allied POWs in cold blood, while abusing others, prevented the International Red Cross or Red Crescent from visiting allied soldiers taken as POWs, fought in civilian clothes, in violation of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War, employed false surrenders to lure allied troops into ambushes, in violation of the same, committed multiple acts of terrorism against Iraqi civilians and coalition forces, forced unwilling soldiers to attack allied forces by executing some and driving the others forward at machine-gun point - far from patriotic resistance, this is the mass murder of Iraqis by Iraqis, attempted to create an ecological and economic catastrophe in Iraq's Shi'a and Kurdish regions by rigging oil fields for demolition, attempted to prevent relief supplies from reaching Iraqi civilians, and welcomed and harbored terrorists from abroad.

And in the face of all of this, France still wants Saddam Hussein to win. I am disgusted.

If you want to bash the US, believe me we have many, many things to criticize and I will lead the charge:

Although we are an educated people, American's spelling and grammar skills are appalling.

Precious few Americans can speak, write, or understand another language.

We produce "art" that glorifies murder, drugs, and the dehumanization of women.

Country music. There are a lot of reasons to criticize the US, but acting in what we believe to be our self-defense is not one of them. Make no mistake, 9/11 changed a lot of things for the US. I would expect France or Switzerland or any country to do no less in their self-defense interests.

I hope I have stated my case clearly, if not succinctly, and even-temperedly. Regards...

Great discussion. All of you! I am truly impressed. THIS is how it should be. Jodi

Yes, but this requires so much work. It is just easier to call Lazy Pianist a Communist and be done with it.

I think both points are being displayed well. But it is for the most part useless if nobody has a mind open to change. What I mean is, we all form nice articulate arguments, then display them here. We edit, spell check (at least those that aren't too lazy), and make sure everything we want to say is coming across just perfectly.

But what is the point if nobody really wants to change themselves, only others?

Benedict, I certainly see your point, and understand your anger about people making blanket statements against the French. Please know though, that I don't make such statements, because I've been there. Growing up in a German family was neat for me, but for my father, it was an invitation for name calling, and getting rocks/bricks thrown at him. People in general are not very understanding of each other. Nor do they want to be.

I have my own views on what's going on in the world, but I'm not really willing to spill all of them out in a place where people aren't sitting and discussing face to face, rather they're waiting for their chance to speak. It makes it very hard to have any sort of healthy communication.

I'm sure that as people, most of us have the same wants, and desires for our lives. I'm sure most of us want happiness for others, and self, and prosperity for the whole lot. The problem is that with an issue such as this, there is so much to it that it can't be discussed so simply. This is not just some random amalgamation of thoughts and ideas. This is a war. This is a demonstration of one of the few times when things get so bad, that the decision is made to use evil against evil.
While I may not agree with it, please understand what has happened to this nation in the last 2 years. The people who thought "we're invincible!" were shown on 9/11 that we aren't. Yes there is a lot of violence in our streets, but for the most part, suburbanites (place of dwelling, and the vehicle) don't see gun fire every day. When people were finally hit in their own back yard, the perceived sense of protection was washed away. And the reality hit that we are as vulnerable as anyone else. Please understand that this evokes different reactions in different people. For a lot of people, there needs to be something definitive. Something that equals the end to such a threat.
Of course the threat won't be removed after this is over. But people here will have a perception of goodness again.

You are against this, because you are against the politics behind it. I am against this, because I cherish human life.

There are people who support this, yet also cherish human life. They feel that this is necessary, and justifiable. There are others still that support this, simply because they support the politics behind it.

The people, who are following something with their soul, are probably better able to reach compromise on such issues, because they are for the most part more willing to hear what the other side has to say. Whereas people subscribing to one belief or another based on it's supporters will most likely just fall into the crowd screaming and chanting.

I don't know what all of this means... and looking back I really haven't said anything myself. It's just too much darned typing to delete it all though, so I'll go ahead and post it.

Geez... I apologize again, I think I have something to say, and end up having absolutely nothing of value to say.

KlavierBauer

By benedict's own admission, 1/3 of France's population want Iraq to win, 1/3 won't openly state they do but according to him we can surmize that, and half of the rest think the US needs to learn a lesson. From where I sit 5/6 of a population is reason enough to generalize. In addition, if the populace didn't agree with their government the world would hear about it. After all, it isn't Iraq where they are afraid to speak up. Well you know, that seems logical and reasonable, doesn't it? However, in truth I don't think it is. Oh sure, I want shelter and to be able to feed my children, as does everyone. However it is more than that, much more. If it weren't, we wouldn't have the wars we do. We wouldn't even have the class envy in the US that we do! I don't care if my neighbor makes 2x or 20x the money I do, but you know there are people who do! There are people who will do anything for their beliefs. These are the ones we have to worry about. And let me refer again to my previous post. Reread the two paragraphs beginning with the one about Pfc. Jessica Lynch going through the one about the Iraqis taking families hostage and harboring terrorists. Now reconcile your "we all want the same thing" statement with the fact that people in France prefer the murderous brutality in Iraq continue and care not about Iraq's support of terrorism. That's a pretty loaded value judgement. Guns are neither good nor evil, they are inanimate objects, tools. People are evil. How do you stop evil? Is it evil to oppose evil? Or rather is it honorable? But you aren't suggesting that we do nothing, are you? So if I can show you that more people will be killed if we do not oust Saddam's regime than if we do, will you be for the war? Not true. No need to apologize and your thoughts are valuable. In fact, they are most valuable to you, and you will probably find out that thinking things through enough to write them down helps you form your own opinions better. And maybe you just might point out something that one of us hasn't thought about and change our minds.

Guns aren't evil, I own several of them. But I shoot them at targets. I can't think of a situation where I would shoot a person, accept in defense of another possibly.
In my post, I stated (I thought) several times that I understood what was going on. I understand that we are liberating someone, or at are trying to. But that doesn't really change what's going on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not on the corner protesting, or practicing civil disobedience, simply because I understand what's going on. But this doesn't mean that I need to stand behind it. I just want to make sure (for myself) that everyone understands what's going on.

you said:
Of course not. A statement like that indicates that you either don't take my first statement seriously, or didn't understand it. You can't weigh lives against lives in sheer numbers.

I also feel horrible that the POWs are having to go through what they're going through. I certainly wish they weren't there, and weren't having to deal with this. And I 100% value that they are doing this in their minds for liberation, and defense. It's the motives of their bosses that I question, not theirs. Don't forget though, that these people are invaders. We have never faced anything like that here, and shouldn't pretend to know how we would feel, or what we would do. As much as these people may or may not hate Hussein, they are certainly scared to death of us, and for good reason.

I don't know, like I said in my original post, I'm on the fence about the whole thing. I see the validity in some of the arguments, I just don't know that I agree with all of it yet. There is fortunately a difference between the two.

I won't however subscribe to an idea because of my political leanings. This is much bigger than that. Politics are temporary, as are our beliefs in them. People's souls are at stake here. Plain and simple. Lives are lost, and if you believe there is anything more to our bodies than a chance allocation of molecules, then you have to see the incredible weight of this situation.

I pray that it is over quickly, and justly. And I pray that we can give the Iraqis what we think they need, a new country. I also hope that they are now strong enough to run it, and not let another dictator take it over.

KlavierBauer

Klavier - your writing was wonderful

Larry's post. I'm in solid agreement with about 90% of it. I'm sorry Larry but I am still quite skeptical about everything. For example I'm going to be in substantial agreement with ksk about the Bible, despite its claims, its contents are checkered. Maybe if I were less blind I'd be less skeptical. I too would consider myself a "classic liberal" rather than a conservative; I prefer a parliamentary democracy to a monarchy with a peerage. I prefer free enterprise to mercantile licenses. Neither do I prefer a state church, though I am a Roman Catholic. A Catholic never has to defend the Bible on fundamental grounds as does a Protestant fundamentalist. The Bible is a book written collected edited translated and promulgated by men. While it may contain "the word of the Lord" it cannot by any stretch of logic be considered The Authoritative Word of God. That my friend must remain a matter of faith. On other points we are in full agreement.

So far it's Larry, Brad, gryphon and me.

Larry actually took you seriously. That was a mistake. You were only doing what liberals always do, JEER! Peter's reaction was to jeer too. As Larry correctly pointed out, all liberal jeers are not about ideas since they usually can't or won't argue effectively against them since in most cases there are no sensible arguments, they are PERSONAL. A conservative has hurt a liberal's feelings by pointing out the error of their ideas. The only sure response is to strike back with a smile. They try not to let anyone, including themselves, in on their real intent which is to KILL off all logical argument.

Again, those who identify themselves as liberals these days are almost always addicted to another feature of their characters which Larry left out; they JEER their opponents and believe jeering is not the same as being mean spirited when it is at least the same thing. Those who jeer others they regard as old fashioned, outmoded, uninformed or just plain wrong when faced down on their jeering quickly become angry and suggest that they didn't mean it. They were smiling or laughing when they said it, how can you take them seriously. They didn't mean it. Only conservatives can be intentionally mean.

Hey liberal: didn't mean it how? Did you think that your jeering would convince me that your viewpoint is correct? The American form of jeering resembles a high school rivalry between the in group and the hopeless dweebs, whereas the older European form is covered over with a more tired, languid sentimentality, as if to suggest a higher level of acquaintance with the subject than their opponents have, a greater sophistication. It is more supercilious. The more education one can acquire, the more one's jeering takes on this pseudo-elevated character.

"How well God must like you--you don't hang out at Sin Saloon, you don't slink along Dead-End Road, you don't go to SMART-MOUTH COLLEGE."

Psalm 1:1 THE MESSAGE version

Yeah there are as I said before TOO MANY smart-mouth colleges. I should know. I went to one. It took me many years to unlearn what I picked up there. Except for my degree, which allowed me to apply for work in a big US corporation, my smart-mouth college education profited me nothing.

I wanted to let Brad know that I was born raised and educated in the San Francisco Bay Area. I used to be a leftist too. I did plenty of jeering myself. I knew it worked when I got whole crowds of people who heard me jeer to laugh the poor conservative sap to scorn. I'm deeply ashamed of myself now and realize what an insufferable and worthless smug little ass I then was. It was just lucky that experience and a little more rigorous study of economics and finance opened my eyes and I began to recognize that I as long as I retained my liberal ideas I was in league with Fascists and that's what most ultra-liberals really are. They may not know it but what they really believe has more in common with Benito Mussolini than ... John Kennedy, perhaps the last real American liberal. I left residing in California 20 years ago and have no intention of ever living there again (the rest of my family has left too), not at least until real liberals are restored to power. When that day happens, if ever, they will have quite a mess to clean up. I predicted that it would get bad there. I understand how Brad feels. Step out of line there and you might be jailed. It's really turned Fascist there. Remember folks, a liberal is someone who lets you do whatever you want as long as you get their permission first. Put another way, since there is no fundamental logic to determining right from wrong, Larry's water analogy which I liked quite a lot, the only decision that is honored is the one arrived at by arbitrary rules of permissibility, put another way political might makes right. This is not civilization but a new barbarism; leftist liberalism = fascism.

I second gryphon, to me they are one and the same. I'll even add that the real dyed in the wool red liberal socialist really wants the US and all nations to give up their sovereignty to the UN which they would hope to control. One reason they are so furious with President Bush is that he has single handedly set their program back perhaps indefinitely.

I'd even say that everyone feels first then thinks about it, if they need to. Not all life's concerns require much thinking at all. But this does not change the fundamental distinction Larry is making. And I doubt that Larry's "feelings," reactions to what are commonly called liberal ideas are based on paranoia as much as on repugnance. Liberal ideologues don't scare me, they make me sick and occasionally pretty angry. Remember folks, I once was a liberal and I know what they really want and how they think. They see themselves as revolutionaries destined to change the world to their own liking despite their notable disregard for learning why the world as it is constructed really works. They claim to care for people, especially the poor, but they'd rather tear up someone's life with big government regulations and leave them helpless than give them a personal helping hand. It is only the liberal (fascist) mind that considers itself above the level of "the masses." To the true conservative there are no masses only individuals.

To ksk: my grandfather was from Sweden and my mother was raised there and he felt about Sweden about how I feel about California. Using your black man in Texas analogy, I have heard it said (by a friend who works in a Swedish consulate here) that a German accused of a crime in Sweden, let's say murder, wouldn't stand a chance there before an all Swedish jury whether he was innocent or not. Low crime rate there? How about the high suicide rate? Blame it on the weather? Or is it true that the Swedish system really saps people of their initiative therefore giving them little to hope for; a perfect life as long as you agree to someone else's rules, otherwise a prison of artificial fairness. The problem with Sweden is that you really can't live your own life how you want there. There is no individualism, only sameness. A utopian dream or nightmare. A real liberal would want as few rules as possible, again today's liberals are merely another order of fascists.

Of course liberal and conservative tenets exists and can be used to characterize large groups of people. You just described one way, voting, in which these are applied to large numbers of people all the time. There are also polls, Nielson ratings, various public interest surveys attempting to determine the feasibility of various policy objectives or the popularity of various products. You cannot have it both ways, although that's also a liberal trait. Liberals support affirmative action, public education, abortion on demand, gun control, rent control, confiscatory taxation, especially for anyone they consider to be rich, which is anyone who makes more than $100K a year, the UN, the Kyoto treaty, anything that would diminish or destroy parental authority, pop psychology, homosexuality or even bisexuality as a responsible option, when will they champion the rights of pederasts? I've described the two kinds of societies the liberals and conservatives would each tend to create. I'd rather live in the Old West than in Orwell's 1984. But I'm not an elitist type who dreams of a powerful position in a militarist totalitarian slave society above the masses, as perhaps does Peter Arnet.

Are you really serious or disingenuous? Few liberals take much of anything a conservative says seriously. As soon as they do they realize that something is wrong with their own thinking and they change their mind. It falls hard on people to recognize that they have been brainwashed by the liberal new-speak of public education and the pundits of the liberal end of the Democrat party. I've been there. You too can change.

Very well then, I am postulating the following; that there are for every person certain consciously held and subliminal tenets which influence their thinking and more importantly their reactions to social and political situations in their lives, discussions with others, etc. As a corollary, I'm suggesting that for purposes of statistical description (polling, etc.) these individuals can be collected into what Theodore Lowi called "interest groups," and I'm further suggesting that these interest groups vie with each other in society in order to gain for themselves and their group what they assume to be social gains, "public goods," etc. Ideology, any ideology by definition, consists in defining a struggle between an "us" and a "them" and happens to be a powerful means of getting individuals to relinquish their interests for those of the group to which they belong. This is all fairly politically neutral basic sociology.

Indeed we are. But we are discussing distinctive tenets, things which people believe and cleave to as if they were basic truths. Larry listed what he believed were conservative tenets which persons who consider themselves conservative would subscribe to. Larry also made a second list of what he called Leftist philosophies which he personally rejected. This list carries with it the conservative alternatives:

Atheism and materialism or a belief in God and an extra-materialist explanation or spiritual basis to nature and life.

Racism and chauvinism or a belief that each individual's cultural group deserves respect and understanding, but that this doesn't mean that either all cultural groups and races should be scrambled together to obliterate distinctions nor that there can be any real protection against the natural extinction of primitive and non competitive cultures. Please note I did NOT say nor do I suggest that ANY races are in any sense non competitive.

Collectivism vs. individual liberty. That one's simple.

Secular humanism vs. either traditional religion or mysticism.

Deep ecology (is this a pseudo-religion?) vs. a scientific study of geologic history both here on earth and on our nearest neighbors.

Animal rights anti-humanism (this is so clearly foolish but...) vs. rational human progress and survival.

Relativism vs. rigorous moral ethics; laws. What has always been right will always be right, what has always been wrong will always be wrong.

Constructivism vs. Just throw it out. Historical analysis may produce any number of weird theories that pretend to be smart but say nothing. Real Carroll Quigley.

Subjectivism vs. How about Taoism, try to determine how nature informs each individual person of a plan by which they can live the best possible life.

Cultural determinism vs. a scientific inquiry into the laws of human nature, see rigorous moral ethics; laws above.

Nominalism, the ultimate cop out, vs. a set of aesthetic and moral criteria by which some form of meaningful absolute distinctions, however boring they turn out to be, may be determined.

Post-modernism vs. just living in the present. This term could only have been coined by an "intellectual" with his or her thumb up his half moon.

Scientism vs. practical knowledge, plain old dumb horse sense.

Empiricism vs. real investigation of paranormal reality, near death experiences, the power of prayer, etc.

Skepticism vs. Faith. As indicated elsewhere, I try to balance these off in my own life. There is nothing more beautiful than faith except maybe true love, but there is nothing as educational as doubt. Trouble is, many who call themselves skeptics aren't really skeptics, they just prefer a materialistic explanation to saying, "I don't know."

Utopianism vs. each person learning to live in and work with the world the way it is.

Positivism (another type of idealism, all idealism leads to evil) vs. a realistic appraisal of human nature acknowledging both good and bad.

Pessimism or cynicism vs. compassion for other people as individuals in their life situations and helping them where they are to help themselves.

Ethical dualism (never heard it called this before) vs. accepting each person as an individual capable of good or evil.

the occult, neo paganism, earth worship, and other so called "New Age" beliefs vs. the higher ethical religions. A digression here. I happen to be a student of ancient civilizations and as part of such of these occult, etc. belief systems. I recognize that many of them contain the echoes of ancient civilizations, but compared with the ethical religions both east and west which followed, they represent mere superstitions on one hand or dangerous mind control systems on the other. Few who follow these have any idea of the dreadful conditions in which people lived in these ancient civilizations both here in the Americas and in the Old World. We do not want to go back there. That is not a solution to our problems today.

Darwinism vs. I DON'T KNOW. I know of nothing so hotly defended by people who should know better than the theory of evolution. It has certainly done no service to science. In fact it has limited scientific outlook and should be discarded as unworkable. Read Richard Milton.

I separate myself from Larry only when he brings God into it. Without a separation between the mechanisms of government (the state) and the revelations of this or that ethical religion (church), there can be no freedom as we know it and I'm sure that all "old fashioned liberals" would agree.

Fundamentalists of all ilk's are dangerous. A fanatic is someone who can't change his/her mind and wont change the conversation. Without real discourse on the issues that can float naturally between state and church in a third place called society, that society cannot be free and individual initiative would be almost non-existent. Without that, you can't have any meaningful progress as innovation and invention requires it. Read Wilhelm Reich's Listen Little Man.

Enough, thank you all.

I think I know what you are saying.

What I don't understand, though, is how you explain Rush Limbaugh -- if it is the "liberals" who jeer and the conservatives who do not.

If we want to hear jeering come from the more conservative side, perhaps someone should simply start a thread praising Hilary Clinton -- and see who jeers at that point.

As far as the rest of your post, David, I have the same criticism of yours as I did of Larry's. You have set up straw men and then have attacked them -- thinking you have proven some sort of point.

Both Larry and you have chosen to define the terms on your own grounds -- and define them in ways which can only lead to the conclusion you want to reach. You give these terms your own definitions -- and use very specific and carefully chosen words to nuance these definitions, making them appear to be reasonable, but in truth allowng you to dismiss outright anyone who would think what you have defined their thoughts are.

This is one of the means by which someone sets up a straw man. The person you condemn does not reflect who he really is, rather you have predefined him, then attacked him -- and basically leave it for him to defend himself as not being what you claim he is.

Both you and Larry choose to give a long list of attributes which you feel separate liberals from conservatives -- and then attack specific people as "liberals" clearly giving the impression that if the person is a liberal (as you define him) then he must agree with all of these positions who you have defined as what a liberal believes in.

This is another typical way of setting up a straw man. You explain what a type of person believes, then label someone as that type of person because he may accept one or two of those beliefs as if the person believes all them when in actuality is likely does not.

I will disagree with you as I did with Larry. I do not believe it is possible for either of you -- or anyone else -- to develop a list of tenets which defines every person who self-describes himself as a liberal. Nor do I think it is possible to give a list of tenets that describes every person who self describes himself as a conservative.

Since I suspect that most people share some of what you consider to be liberal views and some of what you consider conservative views -- most would not fall into either of the categories as either your or Larry deifne them.

I certainly don't, as I said in my response to Larry -- but you choose to call me a liberal, which allows you to dismiss my ideas because based on your own argument, the moment you have labeled me a liberal, you think you know ALL of my beliefs because you have predefined what they are -- even though on most of these issues you and Larry have defined as liberal you have never read my views.

Both of you are very quick to call someone a "liberal" leaving the impression that by applying that adjective to the person, you have now fully defined his entire belief system, his entire value system, how he makes decisions, what he thinks of any and all political and social policies, and a whole host of other aspects of him and his views.

In short -- yes, you both set up a straw man, one you can easily destroy because you have chosen the definitions and the words of what that straw man is. And once you label someone the same as you label the straw man, you can then dismiss him on that basis.

It is a great debating technique -- but not one that provides for any in depth or decent exchange of ideas -- because you and Larry have already prejudged what you think the other persons ideas are on every issue imaginable.

Of course, I expect what you and Larry will respond with is a challenge to me to prove I am NOT what you claim I and others are. This, to me, is a total waste of time. I would prefer to express myself as who I am rather than prove to you or anyone else who I am not.

Thank-you Bernard.

These points are so important to me that I wanted to make sure that I was not misunderstood about them.

Homosexuality:

A religion may determine how it intends to govern itself as applied to the practice of homosexuality (church governance) however the state which must count among its citizens those who choose to practice homosexuality must protect their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Where to draw the line? Simple. Civil law recognizes that children; minors, have a certain legal status which is intended to protect them from sexual predation of any kind. Pederasts are excluded from consideration. Homosexuals are not pederasts.

The Death Penalty:

The death penalty exists to satisfy society's requirement for justice in certain heinous capital cases, chiefly murder. The argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder is an irrelevant concern. The rationale for the death penalty rests squarely and solely on paying the price for one's crime.

Concerning so many people put to death in Texas: Texas is a relatively wild place, as is New York. California is less wild than it used to be. Usually a state decides to adopt a more serious punishment when the society there believes that "enough is enough" and wants to make sure that those who decide to kill people will have to pay with their own lives. But Texas is a wild place, just ask any Texan.

Has it been misused or over-used? Of course. If it has been misused just once should it be ended? Whose fault is that? Some heinous crime takes place, the police goof up the investigation, the prosecution is inept, the judge is inept, the defendant is a member of a minority race considered persecuted, but the defendant is also a celebrity, the whole thing is televised, the defense is able to make the case, and nobody quite knows how, that the defendant cannot be convicted WITHOUT ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY; there must have been another explanation. That explanation is never developed. No further investigation has ever been attempted. Why? Because the first defendant has already been tried and can't be tried again for the same crime. So the crime went unpunished because there aren't any more defendants? The public gets more than irritated by this. It implies that some people can get away with murder. Note that there was no death penalty in play for this crime at the time, even though whoever did it made quite a bloody mess. Whoever did the crime deserved to pay for it, or else life is just as cheap or as expensive as a set of the best lawyers money can buy.

Think about it.