On 2002-04-26 15:05, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
JDS writes...

Silly for not favoring my own destruction, as well as that of the rest of America? For, I learned a long time ago that the single worst act of American 'imperialism', the one from which all other evils flow, is our *existence*. Destroy America, including the American people, and all the world's problems would be solved, and the rest of the world could become a utopia. And yes, I do believe that the terrorists, and those who back them, fully intend to kill *all* of us.

Again, in any given Fourth Turning, the faction that benefits most from maintaining the status quo will find excuses to use violence to maintain the status quo. They generally lose. A downtrodden faction that is victim of injustice allied with factions seeking to integrate new technologies into the main stream culture triumph.

Or, at least this was true in crises of transition between agricultural and industrial age civilizations. Democracy, free market capitalism, human rights, and huge citizen armies are among the signature elements of Industrial Age societies that advanced at the expense of elitist landowners, slavery, privileged nobility and political police. During the Industrial Age, with benefit of 20 20 hindsight, it is fairly easy to see wealthy factions with profits from new industries created by new technologies, seeking political pull to match their wealth, allying with the common people through promises of democracy, human rights and equality. The sub-plot is that the wealthy industrialists maintained an excess of influence over the politicians. Thus, we have Marx screaming about evil capitalists, Eisenhower warning against the military industrial complex, hippies distrusting The Establishment, and McCain talking about campaign finance reform. These are just different perspectives on the same problem, a concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of a few who wish to continue and perpetuate the concentration of wealth and political power.

Which puts The People in a similar situation as when the noble land owners had all the wealth and political power. As we switch to transition between industrial and post-industrial civilizations, the natural alliance between the capitalists and the democracies seems questionable. There are very few tyrants left, attempting autocratic dictatorships. Thus, we might consider taking excess political power from the capitalists, as the currently greatest threat, rather than the tyrants.

Or maybe not. Class warfare certainly isn't the only perspective that might apply. Certainly, the US is spending zillions of bucks sustaining the Zionists. This does not win us friends in certain quarters. We also use military and political power to enhance our vital interests, the profits of US corporations abroad. There is a very real division of wealth between the West and other 'civilizations.' We shouldn't be faulted for being wealthy, but we can be disliked and distrusted for using strong arm hardball tactics to maintain and extend such a gap.

Anyway, in a world where minor nations have proxy use of weapons of mass destruction, should powerful nations continue to use hardball tactics to maintain a high standard of wealth?

As usual in a Fourth Turning, a considerable transformation seems necessary. Frankly, I think everyone would be best off starting from democracy, human rights and equality. The West is the best we have. It is not perfect. There are shadows of 19th Century imperialism still in place, old advantages, old ways of doing business. The West is no where near as arrogant and domineering as it once was. It is still well short of being a good neighbor.

Like Israel and Palestine, the West and the other civilizations ought to recognize that each other have a right to exist. Yes, the US has many reasons to be proud. Yes, we have every right to defend ourselves. No, we are not perfect. No, those who hate us are not irrational, are not insane, are not acting without cause.

No, we cannot stop the clock. Injustice cannot stand indefinitely. Brute force cannot maintain old 19th century patterns that would be best left behind. The solution, the proper and just solution, will involve moving on to something new. Moving on to something new is better done from a western perspective than by tyrannical fundamentalists clerics. Thus, it is very important the we look in the mirror, we be the ones to admit fault, we be the ones to build a vision of a new future, as those abroad are dwelling in the agricultural age past.

If the West is not ready to move on to a new high, who will be?

If one assumes, as many do, that the end of injustice demands the total destruction of the Western World, and especially of America, then China and Japan may be regarded as the nations most qualified to lead humanity on to the next High. After all, if all the world's injustice is entirely our fault, then does that not automatically disqualify us from being allowed to move on to anywhere but the graveyard of history? But as for the Islamic fundamentalists, I would agree with your assessment of them. Again, for me at least, if one eliminates the West from consideration, that leaves China and Japan as the obvious best choices to lead the post 4T world into the next 1T.

As you can see, some of my more radical professors were of the opinion that our civilization's record was sufficient to cause us to forfeit any right to continued existence. That we have *nothing* to be proud of, and *no* right to defend ourselves. Only the right to pay for our crimes. That democracy as practiced in the West is a sham and a lie, and the only true democracy, equality, and human rights were to be found in the Socialist World.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-26 20:07 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-26 20:14 ]</font>

On 2002-04-26 15:05, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

JDS writes...

Silly for not favoring my own destruction, as well as that of the rest of America? For, I learned a long time ago that the single worst act of American 'imperialism', the one from which all other evils flow, is our *existence*. Destroy America, including the American people, and all the world's problems would be solved, and the rest of the world could become a utopia. And yes, I do believe that the terrorists, and those who back them, fully intend to kill *all* of us.

Again, in any given Fourth Turning, the faction that benefits most from maintaining the status quo will find excuses to use violence to maintain the status quo. They generally lose. A downtrodden faction that is victim of injustice allied with factions seeking to integrate new technologies into the main stream culture triumph.

Or, at least this was true in crises of transition between agricultural and industrial age civilizations. Democracy, free market capitalism, human rights, and huge citizen armies are among the signature elements of Industrial Age societies that advanced at the expense of elitist landowners, slavery, privileged nobility and political police. During the Industrial Age, with benefit of 20 20 hindsight, it is fairly easy to see wealthy factions with profits from new industries created by new technologies, seeking political pull to match their wealth, allying with the common people through promises of democracy, human rights and equality. The sub-plot is that the wealthy industrialists maintained an excess of influence over the politicians. Thus, we have Marx screaming about evil capitalists, Eisenhower warning against the military industrial complex, hippies distrusting The Establishment, and McCain talking about campaign finance reform. These are just different perspectives on the same problem, a concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of a few who wish to continue and perpetuate the concentration of wealth and political power.

Which puts The People in a similar situation as when the noble land owners had all the wealth and political power. As we switch to transition between industrial and post-industrial civilizations, the natural alliance between the capitalists and the democracies seems questionable. There are very few tyrants left, attempting autocratic dictatorships. Thus, we might consider taking excess political power from the capitalists, as the currently greatest threat, rather than the tyrants.

Or maybe not. Class warfare certainly isn't the only perspective that might apply. Certainly, the US is spending zillions of bucks sustaining the Zionists. This does not win us friends in certain quarters. We also use military and political power to enhance our vital interests, the profits of US corporations abroad. There is a very real division of wealth between the West and other 'civilizations.' We shouldn't be faulted for being wealthy, but we can be disliked and distrusted for using strong arm hardball tactics to maintain and extend such a gap.

Anyway, in a world where minor nations have proxy use of weapons of mass destruction, should powerful nations continue to use hardball tactics to maintain a high standard of wealth?

As usual in a Fourth Turning, a considerable transformation seems necessary. Frankly, I think everyone would be best off starting from democracy, human rights and equality. The West is the best we have. It is not perfect. There are shadows of 19th Century imperialism still in place, old advantages, old ways of doing business. The West is no where near as arrogant and domineering as it once was. It is still well short of being a good neighbor.

Like Israel and Palestine, the West and the other civilizations ought to recognize that each other have a right to exist. Yes, the US has many reasons to be proud. Yes, we have every right to defend ourselves. No, we are not perfect. No, those who hate us are not irrational, are not insane, are not acting without cause.

No, we cannot stop the clock. Injustice cannot stand indefinitely. Brute force cannot maintain old 19th century patterns that would be best left behind. The solution, the proper and just solution, will involve moving on to something new. Moving on to something new is better done from a western perspective than by tyrannical fundamentalists clerics. Thus, it is very important the we look in the mirror, we be the ones to admit fault, we be the ones to build a vision of a new future, as those abroad are dwelling in the agricultural age past.

If the West is not ready to move on to a new high, who will be?

Excellent analysis, Bob, but I am merely following suit on the bandwidth-burning train here. Grunt...grunt...grunt...(for Vince!).

I will make a couple of predictions on what will happen in the USA this year, the economy will recover to grow at around 4% annually. Also I we will expect around mid term election time for an attack against Iraq which will last about 2 weeks.

Given the low number of competitive congressional races. I do not expect the makeup of the congress to change much, during the mid term elections. Although I think the Republicans might win narrow control of the Senate once again.

_________________
For those about to die, we salute you!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-04-26 21:13 ]</font>

In case Michiganders like Vince are not aware, your state legislature just passed new legislation which empowers police to search your home (or whatever else) without ever having to tell you why. I imagine that this is what is coming for the rest of us in other states. Or will anybody give a damn that the Fourth Amendment is gone? Sounds pretty 4T to me.


http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=467992&rfi=6

(For info and discussion)

'Living in a police state'

By JOHN WISELY and STEPHEN W. HUBER, Of The Oakland Press April 24, 2002

April 24, 2002

The state Legislature has given police power to search your home without telling you why.
Two new laws, which took effect Monday as part of anti-terror efforts, also shield from public scrutiny the reasons for police searches.

Defense lawyers and civil libertarians are outraged at the laws, which make search warrants and supporting documents such as affidavits non-public records.

"If you think the police did secretive work before, just wait," defense attorney William Cataldo said. "It gives more power to the ignorant and more power to those who would take your rights."

Defense lawyer Walter Piszczatowski said: "This is nuts, this is beyond nuts.

"What happened to the Fourth Amendment? We're living in a police state."

That means the public, the press, and in some cases even the person accused of the crime, can't know why the police entered a home without permission.

Under previous laws, the records were public, unless a judge ordered them sealed for a specific reason. In federal courts, that remains the case. But now, search warrants in state courts are automatically closed to public view.

"I think this is absolutely unconstitutional," said Dawn Phillips, a First Amendment lawyer with the Michigan Press Association. "We objected to it at the time. This thing passed like greased lightning."

The House portion of the bill passed unanimously and the Senate version passed 27-8. The chief sponsor of the bill in the state senate was Shirley Johnson (R-Royal Oak) while Bill Bullard (R-Highland Township) was a cosponsor. In the state House, Nancy Cassis (R-Novi) was among 20 sponsors.

The American Civil Liberties Union also objected to the law's change. ACLU spokeswoman Wendy Wagenheim said the group is reviewing the law.

Law enforcement supported the changes. Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca said the laws protect victims, witnesses and confidential informants.

Gorcyca said the procedure for obtaining a search warrant didn't change, nor did the rights of the defendant to challenge a bad warrant or the ill-gotten gains of an illegal search.

"When affidavits are filed, previously they divulged a large portion of the investigation and where it was heading and that could hamper the investigation and the direction of the investigation," Gorcyca said.

"It doesn't mean you can circumvent the judicial process. All we're doing is suppressing the contents of the affidavit. It does prevent the public and the media from obtaining information during the investigation but it doesn't prevent the defendant and the defense attorney from challenging the search warrant."

Gorcyca cited drug conspiracy cases as those where witnesses are frequently in danger unless their identity is kept private during the investigation.

"In the drug world, witnesses are fearful all the time," he said. "Those are reluctant witnesses who are afraid to come forward and testify. In those cases, fear and intimidation is real. That's why grand juries are so vital. And this provides the same secrecy as a grand jury and does not impugn anyone's rights."

Civil libertarians say those goals can be met with a much narrower approach, like the one used in federal court.

"A judicial finding needs to be made on a case-by-case basis," said David Moran, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.

When police are investigating a crime and they believe evidence is stored in someone's home, car or other private place, they must submit a sworn affidavit to the court spelling out their case.

A judge reviews the document, then decides if there is enough evidence to search without the owner's permission.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires "probable cause" to issue a warrant and notes they must be written "particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

The changes are contained in two new laws - public acts 112 and 128.

State Court administrator John Ferry Jr. spelled out the changes to courts across the state in a memo last Friday. Public act 112 makes "all search warrants, affidavits and tabulations in any court file or record retention system nonpublic," according to Ferry's memo.

The memo goes on to say that public act 128 "provides for suppression of a search warrant affidavit upon a showing that it is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation or the privacy or the safety of a victim or witness."

When contacted Tuesday for clarification on the memo, a spokeswoman for the state court administrator's office declined comment. Marcia McBrien said the laws could appear before the Supreme Court for interpretation and it would be improper for her to offer one in advance.

The new laws could also create headaches for court recordkeepers. In many courts, search warrants are filed along with the case file. It's unclear how clerks will keep the two separate.

The new law also affects the rights of people who are searched. According to a analysis of the law done in the House of Representatives, the state Court of Appeals ruled that affidavits be given along with a warrant at the time of a search.

The new law changes that.

"An officer executing a search is not required to give a copy of the affidavit to the person or leave a copy at the place from which the property was taken," according to Ferry's memo.

?The Oakland Press 2002


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-04-26 21:35 ]</font>

Concerning the professors who think the West has no right to survive-self-hatred is neurotic-I suggest that they seek professional help.

On 2002-04-26 21:42, Tim Walker wrote:
Concerning the professors who think the West has no right to survive-self-hatred is neurotic-I suggest that they seek professional help.

Did the Hittites have such a right of survival? Did they just forget to exercise their option?



What exactly is the West? Was there a West 5,000 years ago? Is Japan in the West? Vladivostok? The Ukraine? Australia? Nazi Germany? East Germany? Brazil? Hong Kong?


One may have a right and that right may be ignored by someone with a bigger gun ... so is it a right or cant or just a sentiment which isn't quite the same thing at all. Do advise.

_________________
Voltaire wrote, a tragedy reqires testicles. But, I wonder if that's just nuts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-04-26 21:54 ]</font>

On 2002-04-26 21:52, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
What exactly is the West? Was there a West 5,000 years ago? Is Japan in the West? Vladivostok? The Ukraine? Australia? Nazi Germany? East Germany? Brazil? Hong Kong?

The west means Western European civilisation that originated in the Dark Ages, Europe and the Americas is part of the Western world. Associate members of western civilisation are countries whose cultures have become very westernised such as East Asia.

On 2002-04-26 19:57, Eric A Meece wrote:
The fire is burning up his mind, I do believe....

This is, what, the FIFTH time you've made the same sophomoric joke, Eric?

It seems that your mind's fire has long since burned out, rendering you a broken record, vintage 1971. Your funky album cover invokes nostalgia, but the scratchy music gets little airplay nowadays, and no CD version is available. How sad. :razz:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-27 06:16 ]</font>

On 2002-04-26 21:52, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
What exactly is the West?

Virgil is just yanking your chain, not making any valid point. He would know what "the West" was if it suited his argument.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-27 06:25 ]</font>

Virgil asked: What exactly is the West? Was there a West 5,000 years ago? Is Japan in the West? Vladivostok? The Ukraine? Australia? Nazi Germany? East Germany? Brazil? Hong Kong?

The West is a blend of Indo-European and Semitic cultures that first arose in Western Eurasia, hence the term "West". To a first approximation, traditionally Christian nations of speakers of Indo-European languages would be part of the West.

As for the rest of the questions:
Was there a West 5,000 years ago? No
Is Japan in the West? No
Vladivostok? Maybe, does the majority who live there speak Russian? Was this majority historically Orthodox Christian or Muslim?
The Ukraine? Yes
Australia? Yes
Nazi Germany? Yes
East Germany? Yes
Brazil? Yes
Hong Kong? No

Because of the spherical nature of earth, the geographical terms east and west, south and north, are relative to where one stands on the sphere. The West, however, has a specific connotation. It rests on the twin foundations of the Judeao-Christian heritage (a West Asian, or oriental, tradition) and the classical heritage (Greek philosophy and architecture, and Roman Law and engineering). Modified by Germanic tradition (i.e, customary law), it became full-blown in the Renaissance and was perfected in the Enlightenment which reached its full expression in the American and French Revolutions with their dedication to natural rights and popular sovereignty.

One might argue, therefore, that the West began 4000 years ago with Avrahm (Abraham) but didn't really take shape until the Polis, and Pythagorus, which would make the West about 2500 years old. While most closely identfied with Europe, it also includes many of those places (i.e., the Americas, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa) where European imperialism most deeply planted its languages and cultures.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27336

From the article:

"'Movies released in 1999 and 2000 showed pretty much the same results as the movies in 2001,' the commission said in its annual report. 'For instance, movies in 2000 with no sexual content averaged $33.8 million at the box office, more than twice as much as movies with excessive or strong sexual content. Movies in 1999 with excessive sexual content earned only $14.3 million on average, while movies with no sexual content in 1999 averaged $37.9 million.'"

The ratio for 1999 and 2000 is the same as 2001, and it looks like it's been the same all along. Note the lack of change among recent years...could this be a sign we're in a 3T?

Notice this comparison from the same group:

"Additionally, researchers said films 'with very strong Christian worldviews do much better at the box office than movies with non-Christian worldviews,' according to the report. '...Movies released in 2001 with a very strong Christian worldview earned nearly twice as much money (86 percent more money) on average, $43,593,518, than movies with a very strong non-Christian or anti-Christian worldview (including humanist, pagan, Romantic, Communist, feminist, occult, homosexual, and anti-patriotic worldviews), which averaged only $23,422,536 when combined together,' said the report." It then of course goes on giving the statistics for each of these, supposedly unchanged throughout the turn of the millennium. I'm curious exactly as to what films made recently they would classify as having a "Communist" worldview. What are some films they classified as "anti-patriotic" in worldview? What were some films with a "homosexual worldview" or "homosexual themes"? There must have been some, since they chalked a few up (however little money they made) out of the 266 movies they analyzed. Would "Harry Potter" be counted as an "occult" movie? Do these Christian commission people view every film with a gay character as a "homosexual worldview" movie? Maybe they're trying to tell us that Americans want good, decent Christian-themed films, like "The Ten Commandments".

On 2002-04-26 18:38, Kiff '61 wrote:
Evidence for 3T:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

In light of 9/11, Nevada is going ahead with these? Are they serious?

LOLOL!!!!!!

Firemind:

Do you suppose that just SOME of the responsibility for 9/11 could be attached to, oh, I don't know, perhaps THE TERRORISTS WHO DID IT?

Of course. The part we can't do anything about. If I were sitting on some kind of cosmic tribunal meting out karmic penalties and rewards, I would paste the folks who actually did the deed with, minimum, sixty percent of the blame.


However, since I'm not sitting on any such tribunal, I'm less concerned with whom to blame than I am with what to do about it. And in that sense, it's something we can change by changing the way we do business. As you slyly hint yourself:

Terrorism is only prevalant in a relative few societies. If you look at the list of countries, clear patterns emerge. Tyranny, for one thing.

Yep. Now take a good look at those tyrannies, and try to find a list of the ones that don't hold power with U.S. support. Interestingly enough, you can identify exactly the three Bush named in his "Axis of Evil" speech, plus Cuba.


Most tyrants pay us in oil, or in cheap labor, or in some other commodity that enriches America's elite, and we support them against the aspirations of their own people. Terrorists arise in response, and while attacking their own government, they also hate us, the source of their government.


There's the A-number-one reason for terrorism. Of course, Bush can't attack that problem without cutting into American corporate profits. So he concentrates instead on the few tyrannies that we don't support.


Regarding "the West": What is meant by "the West" depends on who is talking. The context here is Huntingdon, for whom the term applies to the civilization that grew from the interaction of the western Roman Empire with the Germanic invaders. It is defined by a common history that includes the Roman Empire, Christianity, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the scientific, industrial, and democratic revolutions.


Mike Alexander has defined the term more broadly to include all civilizations descended from the Fertile Crescent coalescence. As there is no agreed definition of the term, he is neither right nor wrong, but that is not, I believe, the sense in which the term is being used here. In that sense, the answers to Virgil's questions would be:

Was there a West 5,000 years ago?

No, the West is only about 600 years old.

Is Japan in the West?

No, Japan is a civilization in its own right -- the only one that is precisely coextensive with a state.

Vladivostok? The Ukraine?

No, those are both part of the Orthodox civilization descended from the Eastern Roman Empire.

Australia? Nazi Germany? East Germany?

Yes to all three. Australia is a former British colony and as such is as much part of the West as the United States; and both Nazi and Communist Germany were still German.

Brazil? Hong Kong?

No, they are part of Latin American and Chinese civilization respectively. (Despite the British influence in Hong Kong.)

Hi!

Socialism does work in China. And the Fourth Turning will prove that American capitalism may not work but Chinese socialism does.


This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by rivituso@medianet.pl.



/-------------------- advertisement -----------------------


Let NYTimes.com Come to You

Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails
and the news will come directly to you.
YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis
and information about personal investing.
CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on
personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers
you a jump on special travel deals and news.

http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5

----------------------------------------------------------/

Futuristic Shanghai's Risky Bet: Train on Air


By CRAIG S. SMITH

SHANGHAI, March 6 ? This would-be city of the future has begun
construction on what it hopes will be the world's first commercial
railway to make successful use of magnetic levitation. The new line
is intended to whisk passengers between Shanghai's new financial
district and its new airport at speeds of up to about 250 miles an
hour, completing the 20- mile journey in under 10 minutes.

The train project is the latest ultramodern ornament to Pudong,
the showcase development zone east of the muddy Huangpu River and
the old center of Shanghai, which was built by foreigners before
World War II. The city has already unveiled a "people mover" that
will carry pedestrians through a tunnel under the river. And Pudong
has a collection of modernistic new office towers and a new hotel,
the Grand Hyatt Shanghai, atop China's tallest building, with a
30-story circular atrium that resembles something out of a "Star
Wars" movie.

But the magnetic levitation, or maglev, train project may be a
leap too far even for this thrusting city.

The idea of a maglev train ? floating a centimeter or two in the
air on a cushion of electromagnetic repulsion created between
superconducting magnets in the train and coils in the guide track,
and zipping along at speeds above 200 miles an hour without
friction ? has been studied for decades. But the only maglev
service ever opened to the public, a link of less than half a mile
between the main railway station and the airport in Birmingham,
England, was closed in the mid-1990's after 11 years in operation
because of maintenance problems.

Since then, no government has been willing to underwrite the huge
cost of building maglev lines, though Japan and Germany have each
developed prototypes and built test tracks.

Last year, Germany canceled plans for a Berlin-Hamburg line
because it was deemed economically infeasible and environmentally
harmful. Maglev trains consume huge amounts of electricity, yet are
not much faster than proven high- speed conventional rail systems
like the TGV of France. Maglevs could operate at yet higher speeds,
but the energy cost would be prohibitive.

Still, there are advantages for Shanghai in agreeing to be a
pioneer. Shanghai's maglev will use technology developed by two
German companies, Siemens and ThyssenKrupp, which will supply the
trains and stations. The two contractors will bear much of the
project's cost, which is expected to total well over $1 billion, in
hopes that it will be a successful model to show other prospective
buyers. Chinese contractors will build the magnetic track.

At a small ceremony in a field east of the city late last week,
Shanghai's top Communist Party official, Huang Ju, pushed a button
to start a pile driver, which began work on a building that will
eventually house a workshop for the railway, as the German
ambassador to China and other dignitaries looked on. The first
passengers are scheduled to begin levitating between Pudong and the
airport in 2003.











http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/07/te...a5fc69269ea656

/-----------------------------------------------------------------


Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
updated throughout the day.

Become a member today! It's free!

http://www.nytimes.com?eta


-----------------------------------------------------------------/

HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson
Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

your mind's fire has long since burned out, rendering you a broken record, vintage 1971. Your funky album cover invokes nostalgia, but the scratchy music gets little airplay nowadays, and no CD version is available. How sad.

Ah, but 1971 was a very good year! :smile:

A joke you yourself just repeated, BTW ("your mind's fire"). And BTW, just WHY do you call yourself firemind, if you would care to divulge??

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-04-28 01:01 ]</font>

What is the West is a question I find interesting (if not on topic) :smile:

Basically I think Mike got it correctly, but Brian's view is good too.

I think the roots of "Western Civilization" go back at least to the Sumerians who invented the wheel, astronomy, the calendar, and writing (probably), and whose culture had the kind of dynamism (and violence) that the West is still known for. Though not "Western" itself, I think the West's trajectory comes largely from there. As history proceeded, the center of this new civilization moved west and north. As it crossed over into Europe in the time of the Greeks, it became more recognizably "Western." Egypt and Palestine contributed their part to this too.

The split of Rome into East and West at the fall of the empire created a split within The West that persisted at least until the fall of the Berlin Wall. So Eastern Orthodox culture is Western, but not as Western as the Roman church's half. To some extent the Byzantine, Russian and associated civilizations slipped back into the East, but never entirely. Meanwhile, as the West colonized America, that too became part of the West, with Western culture overlaying the native one.

So the West extends in a curve from Vladivostok through Europe and America down into Argentina to Tierra del Fuego. But the heart of the West is France, West Germany, Low Countries, Britain, etc, and the USA and Canada, the nations who led the development of and struggle for democracy.

Meanwhile in the last 110 years the West's influence has become pronounced around the world, and the rest of the world has influenced the West too. Cultures like Japan and India are not "Western," and yet what is happening in our time is the development of one world culture where all of earth's historic cultures are becoming integrated. The challenge is to keep the integrity of what is best in each culture and society, so that it is not overwhelmed by the worst aspects of the West (corporate globalization, commercial mediocrity, etc.), as the world cultures blend and learn from one another.

Basically I think Mike got it correctly, but Brian's view is good too.

Eric, we are talking about the definition of a word. When you're defining terms, there is no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect." There is no objective "truth" we can derive from nature that will tell us "this is the West and that is not." What we are doing is establishing what we mean by the term, not what is objectively true.


When you are dividing civilizations, you ultimately face two facts: 1) all humans descend from common ancestors and thus a common culture, and 2) all civilizations ultimately interact and influence one another. So to an extent, all such divisions are arbitrary.

I think the roots of "Western Civilization" go back at least to the Sumerians

The roots go back to the first emergence of the hominid line in Africa, or for that matter to the origins of life on Earth. There are a number of civilizations that can be traced to the Fertile Crescent coalescence: today's West, Orthodoxy, Islam, and India all come from that source. But that doesn't mean no valid distinctions can be drawn among the four of them.


You could argue that the West and Orthodoxy should be classified together; certainly they are related. But the question is whether there is a useful distinction to be drawn between them. I think there is, and that our tangled relations with Russia demonstrate that.

Toynbee described the West and Orthodoxy as sibling civilizations, and Islam as a half-sibling. He also classified Russia as a satellite civilization first of Orthodoxy and then of the West.

Eric writes....

What is the West is a question I find interesting (if not on topic)

Basically I think Mike got it correctly, but Brian's view is good too.

I think the roots of "Western Civilization" go back at least to the Sumerians who invented the wheel, astronomy, the calendar, and writing (probably), and whose culture had the kind of dynamism (and violence) that the West is still known for. Though not "Western" itself, I think the West's trajectory comes largely from there. As history proceeded, the center of this new civilization moved west and north. As it crossed over into Europe in the time of the Greeks, it became more recognizably "Western." Egypt and Palestine contributed their part to this too.

The split of Rome into East and West at the fall of the empire created a split within The West that persisted at least until the fall of the Berlin Wall. So Eastern Orthodox culture is Western, but not as Western as the Roman church's half. To some extent the Byzantine, Russian and associated civilizations slipped back into the East, but never entirely. Meanwhile, as the West colonized America, that too became part of the West, with Western culture overlaying the native one.

So the West extends in a curve from Vladivostok through Europe and America down into Argentina to Tierra del Fuego. But the heart of the West is France, West Germany, Low Countries, Britain, etc, and the USA and Canada, the nations who led the development of and struggle for democracy.

Meanwhile in the last 110 years the West's influence has become pronounced around the world, and the rest of the world has influenced the West too. Cultures like Japan and India are not "Western," and yet what is happening in our time is the development of one world culture where all of earth's historic cultures are becoming integrated. The challenge is to keep the integrity of what is best in each culture and society, so that it is not overwhelmed by the worst aspects of the West (corporate globalization, commercial mediocrity, etc.), as the world cultures blend and learn from one another.

Well said. I'll just add a few hooks to nudge us back towards the topic.

I would note also the Protestant / Catholic split that rocked and formed the modern West, starting from Martin Luther and continuing at least until the democratic revolutions. Catholicism and the land owning feudal nobility dominated the West through the Agricultural Age. Protestant religion, Enlightenment politics, Newtonian science and capitalist economics all contributed to the transformation into the full fledged modern Industrial Age West. I would add that these forces provided the energy for the S&H crises, which in turn were pivotal in forming the modern West.

If Russia and Orthodoxy are a sibling civilization, I would put Latin (South and Latin American) civilizations in a similar category. As in Asia, the forces that propelled North America and Europe ahead at breakneck pace were muted. Agricultural age religion, social structure and autocratic tradition lingered longer.

If Protestantism, Capitalism, science and democracy drove western crises, many foreign crises have been driven by head on collision with the West. For some time I tried to fit Chinese historical patterns into S&H cycles. WW II had to be crisis. The Cultural Revolution and Four Modernizations movements smell of Awakening. The conservative take over of party politics that led to Tiananmen Square might mark the start of the unraveling. But trying to look at Chinese history before WW II through a S&H cycle filter is frustrating. From the Opium Wars through World War II, collision with the West, or the exploitive Imperialist aspects of the West, resulted in perpetual Crisis. (Well, much of the blame can go to Japan's all too effective imitation of the West's approach to power politics.) I mean, only in China could the Great Leap Forward be considered as part of a infrastructure building high.

A few centuries back, the West would show up with guns, germs and steel, and essentially rape the other civilizations. Maybe we don't do this anymore, at least not so blatantly. We certainly wish to forget that part of the West's heritage, but we shouldn't expect other civilizations to forget or forgive quite so quickly.

Further, is there a real distinction to be made between collision with the West as an issue, and dealing with democracy, science and capitalism? Democracy, science and capitalism exist, will have to be dealt with, will have to be assimilated, whether the West attempts to force feed them on the unwilling or not. I guess, too, Christianity, rock music, blue genes and Brittany's belly button aren't going away either. I have zero desire to force modern culture on anybody. Our own fundamentalists are nigh on as dubious about modern Western hedonism as anyone else's fundamentalists. This is one of the few places where I have sympathy for the fundamentalists, foreign and domestic. This doesn't mean the guardians of many age old civilizations don't see us as real threats, whether we intend to be or not.

What is a Crisis? It is a time of social change. It is a time when the most obvious and blatant inequalities and injustices will be resolved. The problems will not go away. Attention will not be diverted to the second or third most significant problem. Those attempting to perpetuate injustice and status quo will not be allowed to delay or obstruct. With the Cold War gone, conflict with the West and echoes of old Imperialism are a common theme linking many of the world's injustices.

Again, it seems prudent to address these unnamed and unmentionable "underlying causes," as they are not apt to vanish quietly.

Hi!

On 2002-04-27 15:47, Brian Rush wrote:
However, since I'm not sitting on any such tribunal, I'm less concerned with whom to blame than I am with what to do about it. And in that sense, it's something we can change by changing the way we do business. As you slyly hint yourself:

Terrorism is only prevalant in a relative few societies. If you look at the list of countries, clear patterns emerge. Tyranny, for one thing.

Yep. Now take a good look at those tyrannies, and try to find a list of the ones that don't hold power with U.S. support. Interestingly enough, you can identify exactly the three Bush named in his "Axis of Evil" speech, plus Cuba.

Er, you left out some, like Syria, but anyway...

Brian, these observations are just fine with me. However, do note that, to dispute a policy, it is not sufficient to note that the policy would not be neccessary if mistakes of the past were not made. This is like saying "you were wrong before, so go on being wrong, because I can't stand to see you take credit for fixing things now."

During the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy largely revolved around containing Russia, and, yes, a lot of tyrants were backed by the U.S. This is nothing to be proud of, but the past cannot be changed.

Practically all far-sighted observers of all political stripes have noted that, with the Cold War over, we are due for major shifts in the U.S. system of alliances.

Take, for example, Saudi Arabia. In the history of diplomacy, rarely have two nations so quickly moved from alliance to near hostility as has recently the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Two years ago, would any have predicted it?

Yes, Saudi Arabia belonged on the same list as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. So what? Did you really expect Bush to include them in the list? Diplomatic propriety still counts for SOMETHING, and we aren't going to move from cordial alliance to open hostility THAT quickly.

Perhaps it is time for those who make a career out of pointing out that the U.S. has among its "allies" abject tryannies to note that, omigosh, the regimes they are complaining about are now FORMER allies.

The same thing happened with the Taliban. For years, certain people on the Left made a lot of noise about how bad the Taliban was, how cruel and injust they were. These people were correct to point this out, and also correct to note that the Taliban grew out of the mujahadeen movement which we exploited against the Soviets (although to imply that this was at all intentional was ridiculous. We would have loved it if, having defeated the Soviets, the mujahadeen settled down to form a Jeffersonian democracy when we said "OK, all done, see ya!".)

Still, it was wierd to see the SAME people actually COMPLAIN when the U.S. proceeded to overthrow the Taliban. Since they themselves had been complaining about the Taliban, should they not have rejoiced at the policy shift? This proves that a lot of people have more loyalty to their own political camps than they do to the actual issues.

Thus, the fact that you agree with me that tyranny is a root cause of terrorism is much more important to me than any harping about mistakes of the past. What matters is making sure that our current opportunities to, at the very least, STOP supporting tyrannies not be lost. I have my doubts that this will happen as well, but at least I note ongoing shifts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-28 17:46 ]</font>

Er, you left out some, like Syria, but anyway...

Brian, these observations are just fine with me. However, do note that, to dispute a policy, it is not sufficient to note that the policy would not be neccessary if mistakes of the past were not made. This is like saying "you were wrong before, so go on being wrong, because I can't stand to see you take credit for fixing things now."

During the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy largely revolved around containing Russia, and, yes, a lot of tyrants were backed by the U.S. This is nothing to be proud of, but the past cannot be changed.

Practically all far-sighted observers of all political stripes have noted that, with the Cold War over, we are due for major shifts in the U.S. system of alliances.

Take, for example, Saudi Arabia. In the history of diplomacy, rarely have two nations so quickly moved from alliance to near hostility as has recently the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Two years ago, would any have predicted it?

Yes, Saudi Arabia belonged on the same list as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. So what? Did you really expect Bush to include them in the list? Diplomatic propriety still counts for SOMETHING, and we aren't going to move from cordial alliance to open hostility THAT quickly.

Perhaps it is time for those who make a career out of pointing out that the U.S. has among its "allies" abject tryannies to note that, omigosh, the regimes they are complaining about are now FORMER allies.

The same thing happened with the Taliban. For years, certain people on the Left made a lot of noise about how bad the Taliban was, how cruel and injust they were. These people were correct to point this out, and also correct to note that the Taliban grew out of the mujahadeen movement which we exploited against the Soviets (although to imply that this was at all intentional was ridiculous. We would have loved it if, having defeated the Soviets, the mujahadeen settled down to form a Jeffersonian democracy when we said "OK, all done, see ya!".)

Still, it was wierd to see the SAME people actually COMPLAIN when the U.S. proceeded to overthrow the Taliban. Since they themselves had been complaining about the Taliban, should they not have rejoiced at the policy shift?

Thus, the fact that you agree with me that tyranny is a root cause of terrorism is much more important to me than any harping about mistakes of the past. What matters is making sure that our current opportunities to, at the very least, STOP supporting tyrannies not be lost. I have my doubts that this will happen as well, but at least I note ongoing shifts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-28 17:44 ]</font>

I can see some people responding to any American attempt to 'clean up our act' by regarding the task of our destruction as becoming all the more urgent. Lest we succeed.

On 2002-04-27 23:40, Eric A Meece wrote:
Ah, but 1971 was a very good year! :smile:

No doubt. At least we were still putting men on the moon back then.

A joke you yourself just repeated, BTW ("your mind's fire").

Yes, but I turned it around from a negative to a positive. And then I got carried away by the "broken record" metaphor.

And BTW, just WHY do you call yourself firemind, if you would care to divulge??

I'll answer this in the "Nothing is happening" folder.