Did you know that the Indian Economy shrank after the British arrived?

Noam -- Just discovered your Zblog.  Really glad to see you in an online presence.  Your work has been a touchstone for many years, helping to sustain and propel me into my own work for direct democracy in the US and around the world.  (We exchanged snailmails in 1997, you and I.)  It is no trick for me to reach inside your Kinda antecdote.

This is personal.  This is one of the things that sustains and propels me into the fight for humanity and against inhumanity.  It is the small human voice beyond the senseless murdering, asking why.

The meek shall inheret the earth by taming the elites, their governments, and their corporations -- and then enjoying each other's company.

Stephen Neitzke, DD Revival -- The Blog, http://ddrevival.blogspot.com

 

Ted you wrote: We aren't going to nuke Iran or invade them. Moreover the revolution you speak of in Iran appears to be largely a revolution by young people against the traditional Islamic rut.

There is report that UK guerillas wre responsible for a few bombings in Iran. Afgahnistan opium market will flourish, it is very likely that the profits will be diverted to sponsor terrorism and train guerillas to overtrow the government of Iran...

At this moment, the US war machine is overted.. should congress close the lid on the war.. The US would continue coverted wars without relying on US funds.

 

You also wrote: The idea that the enormous problems of Middle Eastern Islamic culture are a result of Western intervention is absurd.

Iraq was particularily the most secular country before the illegal invasion, now it is at the hands of Shiites unfavorable to the US .

Lebanon is mostly secular and democratic, yet it is relying on hizbollah
for the protection of their countries..

Iran was relaxing its theocracy before The US started threatening.. Iran voted for a republican guard..

 

The US is ASSAULTING the whole middle-east and you have guts saying the US is not the cause of misery.

 

you also wrote:

 

The comparisons between fundamentals is a good one. Ours are enlightened saints compared to theirs. The levels of insane violence in Islamic countries and the almost complete lack of self-criticism speaks volumes. People denying and supporting this are the ones look very foolish and are doing the big disservice to humanity.

 

this aint true, a lots muslim are rather critical of their religion regardless, the arab world does not only contains muslims.

You are simply offering a philosophical rebut. (By the way you can see my extensive comments below elaborating on other points). Look at the following article in NYT and the nature of the problem and the scale of associated suffering, www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/asia/29water.html (the following article in the series also presents a huge challenge). The Indian government apparently can't maintain and expand the water distribution and treatment system. I would be stunned if the original system was not built by the British Government (like their rail system). Note this is an example of real world imperialism - building a water distribution and treatment system that by pre-modern standards is a miracle. Likewise the US Government has done numerous similar projects directly and indirectly (in funding basic health or sanitation treatment). How did the infant mortality rate across the 3rd world drop by a factor of three approximately 50 years ago? Note that the huge complication in India has been population growth as they have almost tripled their population since independence. Beneath this has been cultural tradition and a government unwilling to challenge that cultural bias that tends to view women as baby (preferably male baby) machines. If you take a look at a country or region's population dynamics plus their culture you get a meaningful look at their future challenges. NWhen have you ever seen Chomsky or Z look at these issues or more generally look out of the powerful-imperialist-elites-degrading-or-killing-the-innocent-poor-of-the-world story they seem addicted too. I really doubt the poor described in the above article (quite a few of whom would probably be Moslem) would find much resonance in Chomsky's tails of hegemony. Finally, I think this disinforming is very significant and I would be surprised if it doesn't help incite violence.

No sane person would dispute the fact that the "American people" are in its great majority generous and moderate and some individuals do great things, in dieffrent degrees, to dimish injustice and promote human dignity around the world. The key mistake you make while ranting against Professor Chomsky and Z-MAG lies on the fact that you can't distinguish between the "American people" and the "American governenment" and it's foreing policies. I hate to burst your bubble but "they are not the same thing" and the American government does not represent the whole of American society. That position has been very clear on Mr. Chomsky's writtings for many years, perhaps you haven't really taken the time to read it nor to understand his positions, hence your vicious attacks on a man that has lead a life o dissent fighting the very injustices you so passionatelly describe.

It is very clear to me who is missing the big picture here.

No sane person would dispute the fact that the "American people" are in its great majority generous and moderate and some individuals do great things, in dieffrent degrees, to dimish injustice and promote human dignity around the world. The key mistake you make while ranting against Professor Chomsky and Z-MAG lies on the fact that you can't distinguish between the "American people" and the "American governenment" and it's foreing policies. I hate to burst your bubble but "they are not the same thing" and the American government does not represent the whole of American society. That position has been very clear on Mr. Chomsky's writtings for many years, perhaps you haven't really taken the time to read it nor to understand his positions, hence your vicious attacks on a man that has lead a life o dissent fighting the very injustices you so passionatelly describe.

It is very clear to me who is missing the big picture here.

You can see my follow up points below - "still missing the big picture II", "not the point", "more on of missing the big picture", and "more".  (I am using Apple's Safari which has limited support here so it may look lousy, starting with no paragraph breaks.  I have regained a named account - I am Ted Christopher). Your points do not make sense.  We aren't going to nuke Iran or invade them.  Moreover the revolution you speak of in Iran appears to be largely a revolution by young people against the traditional Islamic rut.  Your point about significant contributions from around the globe is just nonsense.  There may be individuals who break out of their local scene and get into the international (and competent) science scene, but these are exceptions.  I would be absolutely stunned if a historial look at the origins of modern science in India did not give a lot of credit to the British.As pointed out in one of my pieces a Pakistani physicists had an article in the NYT about the miserable state of science in the Islamic world.  Absolutely miserable - a colleague was researching the "speed of heaven".  The total number of (nominal) scientists in the Islamic world was I think half that of the number in Israel.  Culture differences are very singificant and dismissing or denying them is not a good idea. The idea that the enormous problems of Middle Eastern Islamic culture are a result of Western intervention is absurd.  Look at the pre-modern history of Islam (and perhaps its non-science).  The comparisons between fundamentals is a good one.  Ours are enlightened saints compared to theirs.  The levels of insane violence in Islamic countries and the almost complete lack of self-criticism speaks volumes.  People denying and supporting this are the ones look very foolish and are doing the big disservice to humanity.

Don't you let people make you beleive that there is no threat on Iran for its oil. The threat is there and iranians should protect their society from being pushed to the STONE AGE by american imperialism.

Dear Anonymous,

You are perfectly entitled to praise what you see as great achievements of the western culture, such as science, democratic medical care and human-rights defence. What you do not know is that those aren't just western culture's merits but global. I am a scientist my self and I can tell, scientists and humanists are a global community. Many of the achievements you mention were conquered throughout the last centuries by the efforts of men and women all around the globe. Of course, wealthier societies had far more opportunities to add to the process than poorer, but still, you can see many asian and latin american thinkers, for instance, in constant communication and ideas exchange with european and american centers of research and development.

What Mr. Chomsky righteously estresses is what has been the direct consequence of the American Corporativist elite endless quest for profit. They haven't had anything to do with the achievements you mention... in many ocassions they even opposed human progress (as it is happening now in Mid-East). As a matter of fact, they have been very much responsible of the Islamic culture being 'deeply stuck in a miserable rut' since war and political instability, as have resulted from the constant intervention of the Western interests, usually breed different sort of fundamentalisms... you certainly have noticed that nowadays in the very USA.

Besides, on what basis do you talk about the 'gigantic cultural gap'? Have you had at any University outside your country? Have you been a fellow scholar or perhaps a student in any nation of the so-called Islamic world? You would be surprised how much the 'gigantic cultural gap' is much more the product of misguiding media coverage than a fact on the ground.

Last but not least, women rights are very much in jeopardy in every society in which extreme religious thinking prevails. The islamic sharia is very much a good example, but just to get an unbiased view, look also at the grim situation of women living under ultraorthodox judaism or christianism. What makes the difference for us, women, is the possibility to benefit from education, political engagement and laboral egality. Major steps towards women liberation, in the Islamic world, have been taken in the craddle of the Islamic Revolution it-self: Iran. Give a look to the following article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5359672.stm

If the US path of foreign interventions is so humanitarian as you suggest Chomsky is unable to see, why is it Iran the next target? Would you really consider legitimate or humanitarian to nuke a country because they allegedly want to get some nukes to defend from those that are already menacing them? I would suggest: get your facts straight so you do not make a fool of your self.

 

But Europe has been succesfull reducing its birth with out using undemocratics means, may be your missing something there, may be knowledge.

But i can see your point.

 

 

 

    How fortunate we are to hear tales of such amazing, beautiful courage! How lucky we are to have such teachers as Chomsky!!!

Your remarks about other “non-US” countries can be classified as chauvinism. To me this is fascism. Your government commits crimes against humanity. You defend that by saying "others are no better", "there are worse things happening", "we are doing good things too". Imagine a murderer who says he is not guilty because there are other murderers that killed far more people than he did, that his crime is nothing compared with the deaths caused by influenza, or that he had recently given money to a charity. Might sound like fun, but this murderer had killed YOUR only child. Not just killed, burned alive.

Can you be hold personally responsible for your government's crimes? You took part in the elections, you provided the money as taxes, you even spent time publicly defending the doing. Although you did not vote for a particular deed, you might have been misinformed, brain-washed, stupid or just a compassion-challenged person. This is a kind of hard question the "low-motivated" people are dealing with. Sad thing, the people who meant no harm to you and whose families were destroyed by the US atrocities will not spend that much time answering the question. They will hold the US responsible, you, and even Chomsky. Just a matter of time.

your quote: I would tend to think that a lot of violence against Jews historically was also jealousy related. They have been very successful historically. You can believ I am rejoicing with Jews successes, in all speres that they are willingly contributing for the common good of all. what I do not rejoice to is the the occupation army you call the state of Israel because it is not something to envy but merely a cause of shame; if you call this pseudo state of israel a success, remember, it is build on the back of poor palestinians..

Israel are rich, have advanced science and technology, and a huge military because of one thing: US "aid". This "aid" takes several forms. There's direct money-transfers (which are huge), cheap weapons and weapons-systems deals, and political and diplomatic support. It has nothing to do with Jews being superhuman or anything like that. And it's preposterous to say that Palestinians are poor and live in horrible conditions because they have many kids and envy the Jews. You don't think it has anything to do with Israel bombing Palestine on a daily basis, occupying their land, and stealing more and more of it as time goes by? There is one solution to the conflict in the Middle East. Israel must respect UN resolutions and withdraw from the occupied territories. The result of that will be a Palestinian state with all the rights states have. Unless Israel realises this, there will never be peace in the region.

Here's a little more. The "auster widow"'s aren't jealous of long distance figures. It is a who's the "purest widow in town" competition. The comments about jealousy in the Middle East is both biologically plausible (they're human) and to me very observable. As related point I would tend to think that a lot of violence against Jews historically was also jealousy related. They have been very successful historically. The science versus social science is really not apples versus oranges. If scientist had not come up with basic life saving technologies most of us would have died in our diapers. Up the hill from me is the first reservoir in the area. The successful completion of it over 100 years ago was huge to human life in the area. No local social science or art event can really compare to that. This is not a blanket statement - you can waste time and money doing worthless science (as with anything). And no perfect science - for example guaranteeing no serious health problems until you die in your sleep at 100 - would not really guarantee happiness. Life is much more subtle than that - but it is very nice to have many diseases at bay. The point about the Palestians is as clear as it is ignored by Chomsky et al. Get the Israeli's out of the area (find a home somewhere like our west) then where are the Palestians? With their lifestyle challenges (starting with making a living so they can feed themselves) and a disasterous fertility habit. A relevant and nearby example is Iran. By the late 80's it became clear that their 7 kids per couple was going to take the country to hell in a hurry. They tried a number of suggestive voluntary things (and made some family planning available). Finally after a few years they got serious - government subsidies for kids past the third born were removed . I believe they're close to 2 kids per couple now. Humans for the most part could care less about nature (it is pretty much an ongoing slaughter-fest) but they are also failing even in a selfish sense. Unless enlightened (and gutsy) leaders press long term policies (with necessary incentives) the default human behavior will make quality of human life progressively worse. Finally, it is always possible to learn something from any individual but I wouldn't assume any worth for any cultural practices. Look at the horrible body-parts-as-medicine habit in Chinese culture.

this reminds we of the nazi speech towards the jews b4 WWII. How ugly. how uterly scandaleous !

Sure you SHOULD let the arabian world alone (and the rest of the world in the process) and rely on yourself. You'd be dead in weeks, crying mama while still playing your video game instead of doing something for your survival.

The trash you have been taught on TV remains propaganda. If you still believe in it while being grown, that simply means that they got your brains... The rest of the world HATES you and envy is neither palpable nor anything : they simply want to get rid of you, overweighted bastard.

Very nice post JD Casten, you clearly demonstrated that anomymous values are not same as other cultures without accusing him to be a bigot. Also like your essay on style, taste and cyber-networks, sometimes good evaluation of other arts, or others abilities and interest can bring insight to sometimes distorted visions we may have about others.

Thanks for more on the big picture. I did not mean to question your personal lifestyle: it sounds admirable (and hence similar to my own: my politics are “radically moderate” (world democracy) yet revolve around the polls of libertarianism and sustainability, and I try to live accordingly). However, questions I would have for you are ones that arise with the following Steven Pinker quote: “But if people's sense of well-being comes from an assessment of their social status, and social status is relative, then extreme inequality can make people on the lower rungs feel defeated even if they are better off than most of humanity. It is not just a matter of hurt feelings: people with lower status are less healthy and die younger, and communities with greater inequality have poorer health and shorter life expectancies” (The Blank Slate, 304). Yes, I would agree that status is important to people, POSSIBLY at a biological level (ingrained competitiveness, etc.)— but why does that status need revolve around GLOBAL comparisons, and around The SPECIFIC areas cited (sports and science (or, I might add, money))? Do not people have LOCAL jealousy (the neighbors up the hill) more than national jealousy (are you jealous of the team that beats your own home town's team, or would you be more likely to be jealous of a neighbor's new digital camera?)—and wouldn't people be more concerned with their own specialties (like arguing about spirituality, or as you cited, who is the most austere widow) than with competing in areas they could care less about (like science or sports)? BTW science, being ever concerned with the geo-metrical/structural objectivity rarely ever touches on the a-structural consciousness or meaning of subjectivity. I've written about such at my website, including this paper concerning cognitive science, etc: Style, Taste & Cyber-Networks My philosophical investigations are not about “classic” problems such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: but such can be a fruitful exercise in logic about the unknown—such arguments can exercise the mind, even if they are not immediately pragmatic, and can tame the hubris of science, and also add to the quality of our understanding aesthetically/spiritually. Need everything be pragmatic and oriented towards health? I don't smoke, but I would not outlaw it if I could. Even though freedom can be dangerous (to our health and environment) you should not, IMO, regulate it to the point of strangulation. I don't think you'd dictate that everyone be vegan, (I'm merely vegetarian), but you hint at frustration with other peoples non-sustainable lifestyles. Relevantly you also SEEM to advocate some sort of laissez-faire Malthusian solution to the middle-east's (population) problems; while at the same time condemning “their” use of oil, and their cultural problems (and I would include women's rights here). A question I've asked myself is, how can “we” help (e.g. the women and the poor) without intervening militarily and politically (and thus providing fuel for RESENTMENT). And that was my main point, that western (and soviet) counties have intervened (often subversively) too much in the politics of the middle-east—and this is a direct and conscious cause of the anger felt towards the west. I do think you are right to cite jealousy as one cause of the anger, but I think you should see that I think that particular emotion plays less of a roll in the Mid-East than you do. I would feel slightly smug and insulting if I were to accuse an entire culture of endemic jealousy. And again, to summarize my “argument” with you: I don't see why the “austere widow” would be jealous of westerners: you recognize cultural relativity but still seem to maintain that mid-easterners feel like losers by western standards—but maybe I missed your point. I agree that science is important, but believe the humanities to be just as important at teaching critical thinking and contributing to psychological wellbeing— I think mid-east cultures have something to teach me as well—but maybe that's an issue of attitude and not substance.

My perspective is not harassing Arab people by calling them losers but pointing out that in the larger context of the world they apparently do feel like losers and that this drives much of their violence toward others starting with Israel.  The use of "loser" here is not culturally dependent but biologically dependent.  Humans as animals are very status conscious.  This goes way beyond who has the fanciest car.  A recent NYT article reported on very poor Indian widows who compete to be the most austere and pure widow.  Notice this status consciousness - like most of evolution's behavioral tendencies (see the most recent Wildlife Conservation magazine's piece on the prevalence of siblicide in nature) is not something good.  But it is good to be self aware enough to have these behavioral tendencies not drive you around.  By the way I don't feel proud (or like a winner) because people in my country amongst other things have almost ended polio.  That was their efforts.  But I do want to support that process as it offers hope you can't find elsewhere.  Finally, criticism is far more useful than flattery (which personally I find at best is annoying).  People should very critical of US behavior starting with the typical energy-use orgy. I don't see your point on the Islamism article.  "People in Egypt still talk painfully about the loss to Israel in 1967".  I don't see any support for some enlightened viewpoint amongst the "pious" you cite.  Apparently many Arabs are happy with the perception that the Hezbollah "won" without having any concerns about the details.  What has Hezbollah done to Lebanon and what was their relationship to Lebanon prior to the recent fighting?  This was covered in detail in an NYT magazine piece "Hezbollah's Other War".  If they are relatively religious and thus caring people then what is their objective relationship to suffering around the world?  Irshad Manji had an op-ed piece "Muslim Myopia" pointing how little humanitarian concern there is amongst Muslims. The point about many - in particular young - Muslims feeling like losers was made repeatedly by Muslim officials in the wake of 9/11.  You mention sports.  Of late Quatar is buying Olympic athletes, apparently mostly African runners.  I briefly caught a piece of a Saudi World Cup game.  They're players looked African - not Saudi.  How much more of a demonstration do you want? A piece cited above (I have two longer pieces above) on Muslim science (by a Pakistani physicist) gave examples of his colleagues work.  One was trying to calculate "the speed of heaven" and another was trying to calculate how many Islamic angels could dance on the head of a pin.  How would you feel doing this kind of work?  The cultural problem is deep and relevant.  How could this kind of science help sustain and improve life?  (There are relevant criticisms for Western science, in particular that too much is disconnected from pressing problems in the future of life on Earth.  But at least it isn't make believe). At www.prb.org you can look up a PDF entitled "A First Glimpse at the 2004 Palestian Demographic and Health Survey".  Here are some relevant quotes.  "The population of Palestine is currently growing by 3.4 percent per year - a rate of natural increase that is among the highest in the world.  The latest Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), conducted in Palestine in 2004, shows that this high rate of growth is likely to continue - adding to development challenges of the territories, which for years have been plagued with conflicts, economic stagnation, and high unemployment. ... 46 percent was below age 15, ... women in Palestine have a total fertility rate (TFR) of 5.6 children - significantly higher than women in other countries that have similar levels of education and access to health services. ... In Gaza, only 30 percent of married women of reproductive age use a modern method of contraception - despite 94 percent of all Gazans having health insurance that covers family planning methods."  It is good to pause here and reflect that there are 380 million Indians live on living on less than 1 dollar a day.  How many of these have the kind of health care available to Palestinians (sources including NGO's and the UN)?  How much more attention and concern is registered globally on a population 1/100 the size in Palestine?  Finally the piece ends, "Unfortunately, this access has not translated into better health for Gazans for a number of reasons: poor health-seeking behavior; conservative cultural values and a poor social security, both of which foster desire for larger families; and continually deteriorating living conditions, particularly under the Israeli occupation".  The closer demonstrates bias to me.  The authors are Arab and are deeply conditioned to include blame on Israel (I am not Jewish and have never been to Israel). How much more relevant are the above demographic revelations to the future of the Palestinian people than the Kinda story?  How likely is it that Chomsky would investigate this or any other critical look at Palestinian behavior?   How much longer are people willing to have grossly disproportinate attention paid to the Middle East? You close with a personal question.  I live a simple life.  I use about 1/4  the energy that the average American does.  I eat a vegan diet for health reasons and simply to be decent to other living things.  I do not subscribe to any philosophy or intellectual-bin.  The intellect is good at finding out new ways to alleviate suffering and at poking holes in the facades that our psyches are ever propping up (including religious or "pious" ones).  Well-being is a much deeper issue.  Investigating that for oneself is essential to a meaningful life.

If you read the NYT article you pointed out closer, you'd see that it feeds my point as well as, if not better than yours. It claims “In interviews on streets and in newspaper commentaries circulated around the Middle East, the prevailing view is that where Arab nations failed to stand up to Israel and the United States, an Islamic movement succeeded.” I don't think “they” are feeling like losers by western standards, but if they are, then it is also by their “own” standards of maintaining their dignity as a world “power” capable of defending itself, and its values from “intervention.” Look, just in the vicinity of my desk here that I write at, there is a hookah (not being used BTW) and a Persian rug, that may not be of Arabian crafts-persons, but if not, they are pretty close… point being— Arabs have their arts and crafts, architects, builders, culture, etc. (and news outlets like Aljazeera, that most likely talk of “winners” that you've never heard of too) that I imagine they find much superior when compared to our values represented in the past by global phenomena like “Bay Watch.” No, the biggest fake breasts (not to really knock those) may not be found in an Arab country, but I doubt many there feel like losers if they don't have them. Why would many Arabs be jealous of a western culture they saw as decadent? Status for a particular poor Arab person might be found in their sense of piety, not in winning the rat race. And their “dignity” might be tied up with national “integrity”—the hope that, as a people, they are self-determined, and not violated (intervened upon) by some self-righteous westerner that thinks “winning” at American style football means more than winning at Soccer/football. Maybe some Mid-Easterners would like to live like western celebrities (be they entertainment or intellectual, or whatever kind of celebrity)—so jealousy may be a factor for some – but “their” version of “celebrity” or “hero” seems to be found more and more in organizations like Hezbollah (or so says the NYT article you cited). If many idolize the “gun toting party of god,” would all those same people be jealous of the latest physics discovery in California? I think it is possible to be proud of one's culture, without putting down others as losers—like so many scientists (James D. Watson said something like “Darwin was the most important Human Being ever”, and Richard Dawkins said something to the effect that “if aliens came to earth, they'd first want to know how advanced our biology understanding was”)—you seem to see the world through the prism of your own values too much; (other's might say Jesus or Mohammed were more important human beings (given their impact on people and values), and that aliens could care less about our rudimentary scientific understanding, and would be much more interested in our culture and art). Again, the point is one of being able to see things from another's point of view—it seems like you would like many Arabs to see themselves as losers, since they are not winning at the games you may like to play; when they are probably kicking your ass at many you don't even know about. I'm not saying that certain games are not more pragmatic than others—but what makes something really pragmatic: cash value? If people are simply able to survive, why call them losers? And if you follow Jared Diamond, wouldn't you say that a people's geographic location, and other external circumstances beyond their culture's control will determine what sorts of areas they excel at? I'm not a complete relativist (I believe in universal human rights), but other than improving health care, so that people have a longer life expectancy, (yet you may have to work like a beast of burden to afford it)—what's so superior (rather than just different) about western culture? I am curious as to what your core values are (are they utilitarian? Is life expectancy and or happiness a holy grail? Maximizing bliss for as long as possible?) that make you see one culture need be jealous of another? Are you jealous of many middle-easterners piety and religious commitment? Why, or why not? At any rate, you've got me thinking about pragmatics again, and I thank you for that. (And you're not alone in seeing Jealousy as paramount in psychology: Marcel Proust's “À la Recherche du Temps Perdu” or “Remembrance of Things Past” is rife with jealousy too, as if love (or desire) couldn't do without it—love (and libido) have other was of being expressed as well).

Hi, my points are not subtle and neither are the flaws in Chomsky's points. The jealousy issue is blatant and palpable. Go to NYT and get the article entitled "And Now, Islamism Trumps Arabism" by Michael Slackman (Aug. 20, 2006). "Dignity" here is about feeling like "losers". Look around the world and identify one status-giving arena in which Arab Muslims are doing well (doesn't have to be winning, just in the mix). Can you find one? Sports? Music? Fine Arts? Economics? Science? ... It isn't subtle. A profound default behavior in humans is trying to identify with success (and another is doing something creative). Look at the mania over the World Cup. For completeness there are some neighboring Islamic countries - for example Iran - which produces champion wrestlers and weightlifters. The Arab world's subsistance is based on some of it being atop something they can't extract, we should not be using, and will not last long (if we continue to extract it). Look around your residence for something made or designed by Arabs. I am suggesting that the profound rift between the Arabs and the Israelis (and us) is about people feeling like loosers (or alternatively having very little gratification). I also think it would be good if we (and the Israeli's) got out of the region. Let the Arabs work things out for themselves (with the catch that they currently are far from being able to support themselves). There are huge differences in culture with big effects. Thomas Sowell's work is the place to read about it (and you can see it all around you if you want). As an example of the absurd denial of culture, a few years ago Z had two of its writers debating whether Ethopia should develop their own computer industry.

Suppose since we humans appear to have increased our population beyond some earlier level for which trial and error evolution "selected" survivors, we were "designed" to alter our sensitivity to the suffering of others as well as our own?

There would have to be an attenuator control. Or maybe an amplifier?

Noam Chomsky appears well informed, you might try to approach your critique at that level. Even some psyco-analytical level.

Or emerse yourself into the seemingly endless task of trying to help the sufferiing, even if you are one of those.

To deny that those in USA power positions are not using "propaganda" to attain a cover of legitimate power seems folly, and Press Raygun is a good example of the importance of Media Credibility.

Surely you may feel offended, but Press Raygun is just a two dimensional image on TV and film for most, but it works for the, maybe, well intended and the "jerks" whose chemistry kicks in before their tenderness.

It's the covering of the brutalized victims, the pain and suffering, with smoke screens, that appears an essential part of tryanny on all sides.

Have a nice day while we all can.

bwong - it's all a matter of priorities, in my mind. We have serious problems thoughout the world, certainly including the Palestinian issue, but many many others. But if we as a species do not recognise what is happening to us now, I believe we are doomed, and the Palestinian question will become only one of many problems too minor to be even mentioned in comparison. I believe we must invest our time, our money, our emotions and our lives to saving mankind before we walk off that cliff from which there is no return - for anyone. We (mankind) are unfocussed. We are juggling all these problems - overpopulation, political, economic, environmental, etc. - without regard to a studied assessment of the impact each has upon civilisation, and the connections one has to the others. We must understand that civilisation as we know it is doomed for a fall. Somehow, we and our leaders throughout the world must begin to understand that if we do not take serious action now, the fall will be critical to the species. We must act now to at least ease the fall. I fully realise that I sound alarmist and pessimistic, but so be it. But the ugly fact is that we have over 6 billion people on this planet (and growing fast) and a civilisation that in its entirety, down to the last detail, depends upon non-renewal, cheap sources of energy. Those non-renewable sources will in the next 2 to 3 decades be used up, finished, gone forever. There is currently no viable substitute for them that can do anything other than prolong the inevitable a little - afterall, an entire global infrastructure must be replaced. But long before that happens, the extremely sensitive financial and monetary systems of the world which rely totally upon the concept of unlimited economic growth will come to see that reality, and the fall will come quickly as those systems fall apart. And we are doing precious little to plan for that. So yes, I am pessimistic, as I now know my children will never experience life as I knew it. And the greatness of the shame upon us is that we had chances to change that future, and we chose instead to put our heads in the sand and hope it all went away.

I'm not depressed, perhaps because I'm used to reading and hearing about grotesque crimes. I'm sure Noam could say the same if he didn't use this Kinda story to explain.

I don't know what are the answer to all these problems. But "democracy" seems to be just a slogan. I don't see the logic of how "majority rule" would improve the situation of enviromental degradation.

The problem is that democracy is basically just used rhetorically and as a slogan to rally support for the next war in the Middle East for instance. If one actually respected democracy this would not be the case. But I certainly see problems with democracy as in majority rules, especially in today's world where the media is in the hands of big corporations. Say we had democracy, and the people would decide by a vote whether to implement the Kyoto protocol. The media could easily print article after article with worrying scenarios with employment lost, reducing incomes etc. Basically trying to install fear in people to get them to vote the right way. And minorities' rights could be overlooked as the majority rules. But to answer your question. The majority today support the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. So if we had respect for democracy we would do so. Democracy is a lot more than having fair elections (and the US don't even have that). But this is what we understand democracy as, based on speeches from the US and UK. The ideal situation would be the philosophical one of deciding a matter without knowing what category you fall in yourself. Unfortunetely this is impossible in the real world.

I agree Bwong… and there are others who share your skepticism concerning democracy. Fareed Zakaria (who I sometimes disagree with yet find quite insightful) wrote a book called "The Future of Freedom" (excerpts here: How to Wage Peace) that treats such issues. Democracy is quite important IMO, but I think it also wise to look into the functioning of slow to change institutions as well (“institutions” as both indoctrinated cultural practices and protocols, and as the physical structures of societies—buildings, constitutions, computers, etc.) Setting up institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, and Conservation International, and also the various local sustainability consulting firms that are getting more popular, can have quite an impact. I think it remains important not only to try to be wise consumers, and innovative producers (aiming for renewable energy and recyclable materials)—but also good educators: democracy requires education (although it is easy to turn “education” into “propaganda”). I see the need for sounding the (apocalyptic) alarm on certain issues, yet I'm optimistic—not that all problems will be solved, but that humanity will adapt to changing problems, and will always be attempting a somewhat adequate effort to confront these problems. Even too frequently backward religions at least maintain and spread the words of great teachers and poets; relevant to the Sustainer's question and Chomsky's post above might be these surprising words from the Dhammapada: “Live in joy, In love, Even among those who hate. Live I joy, In health, Even among the afflicted. Live in joy, In peace, Even among the troubled. Look within. Be still. Free from fear and attachment, Know the sweet joy of the way.” Although I think it important to freely orient your actions and efforts in such a way as to help others, I think it also important to set an example, if possible, of living a loving, healthy, peaceful life. Maybe it takes an arduous cathartic road to reach some sort of enlightened joy, I'm not sure, but some seem to have found the way to follow the quote above.

I don't know what are the answer to all these problems. But "democracy" seems to be just a slogan. I don't see the logic of how "majority rule" would improve the situation of enviromental degradation. No one puts a gun to the heads of Americans to force them to drive SUVs. I don't think a long overdue legislation to ban SUVs would be too popular with the electorate or it would have been implemented already. Driving big, gas guzzling cars is a "democratic choice" in the U.S.A. In Asia deforestation and pollution are esculating in an alarming rate. In China the ambitious goal is for everyone to own a car (perhaps two or more for some)This is not just some mysterious "elite" pulling the string, everyone wants to get rich fast and increase consumption. This is truly a "democratic" aspiration, in fact it would take some coercive measures to force the public to cut down on activities that would do long term harm. One reason why it is difficult to combat avian flu in a lot Asian countries is the non coorperation of local authorities and the general public. Around Janurary the Hong Kong health authority tried to impose a ban of live chickens from China and was met with quite a bit of grassroot resistance, both from venders and general citizens who have a preference for fresh chicken meat (as opposed to frozen ones) No one forces people to keep breeding. I understand the "economical" argument but often there is no economical advantage in having so many children while people are still doing it. Culture does play a role and typically cultural attitudes don't adjust to new economical enviroment immediately. The Church bans contraception and Islam treats women like baby making machines(and also bans contraception), religious dogmas certainly contribute to the high birth rate among certain populations, but ultimately it is a democratic choice to reproduce.'Democracy" would not change people's attitude towards religion. China has some success in lowering its birth rate, but that is achieved through decidedly undemocratic means. The one child policy is so draconian that it would be considered a grave violation of human rights in any democratic society. "Democracy" in the sense of majority rule is more legitimate than other systems only in the sense that it distributes rights and responsibility (hence liability) as widely as possible. Since ideal democratic rule is based on consensus and compromise it provides a brake to wrong headed ideas before too much damage is done, so in a way it is self correcting, but only in a passive way. It doesn't follow that majority decisions must be wise and far sighted in and of themselves, in fact in most instances they are not.

If it is down to the last drop what is the difference who gets it? It is amazing you can still think of hating the "rich" in that scenario. You are pretty "rich" by the way comparing to people who live on 20 cents a day somewhere.

hey Victor , don't worry we wont let the riches get the last drop of water....the last drop of booze..

I see your point, and definitely see that as a possibility - more or less the destruction of the human race. I don't think "peak oil" will put much of a dent in it (as in the world's reliance on oil). I think the foreign policy of a dying US empire, and the vast amounts of nuclear warheads around the planet are much bigger problems. We already know the US are willing to use "the bomb". Israel also. The same is probably true of the other nuclear powers. This is why it is extremely important that the nuclear powers follow the NPT, and make moves to reduce their nuclear arsenals. The other worries mankind have at the moment, are the threat of global warming and the outbreak of pandemics such as bird-flu or a variant of it. Global warming can have horrible concequences for our beloved planet, and in turn for us. A pandemic is quite likely with time. We have made huge mono-cultures of animals. This is a breeding ground for viruses. Stuff like this has happened a few times in our history, due to human behaviour and interaction with animals. Based on this we have challenging times ahead. The good news is that we're not doomed yet. It may be late to turn global warming around, but it's not too late to reverse some of its effects. Nuclear disarmament is easy, if the elites around the world choose to do so (or we have the slightest respect for democracy). A pandemic is harder to avoid. Sure, we could drastically reduce the huge chicken-farms etc, and go back to bio-diversity, stop chopping down the Amazonas, and stop drying the wetlands. But the chance of a pandemic may still be unavoidable. But if that should hit us, it will probably be good for us long-term. Sorry for the cynicism, but it will reduce the human population on earth, and we will be resistent against yet more viruses and bacterias. Not bad for the ones who survive, but not quite so good for the people that perish. So it's still pretty much up to us. We can choose the present path and highly likely wreak horrible havoc to the earth and ourselves. Or we can change the destructive path. The choice is ours. Once again, the way forward is democracy (not in the "let's have an election" way, but in meaning of "people rule"/majority rule).

This is one of the most moving stories I've ever read. It not only brings hope and strength, but also tells of a window open to those whose vision is clear. The story is a testament to the strength of many human spirits. Thank you for telling it to us.

Anonymous- Although I agree with you on the importance of sustainable development, and don't have a personal aversion to concentrations of wealth, and if you are the one who mentioned Pinker (I think his earlier book “The Language Instinct” is actually better than his “How the Mind Works”)… I think there are at least a couple of differences I have with you. First: how are you so certain the “jealousy” (of wealth or “freedom”) is the cause for a general statistical prevalence of Mid-East hostilities towards the US and Israel. Could it not be “resentment” at US interventionism in the region? (E.g. hypocritically supporting undemocratic regimes, if they are seen as more stable with regard to US interests?). Again, there is the problem of over-generalizing: the Mid-East is not one homogeneous group: different regions, groups, and individuals will have diverging opinions—but why not take “their” self-assessment at face value? (If you ask someone why they are angry, often they will know, and they will tell you: although much is unconscious, much is conscious too—even if you don't believe opinions to be “rational,” you should at least realize there are “rationalizations”). Second: Although I think it is fascinating to view cultural and economic phenomena through evolutionary-ecological metaphors and structures—I think it is important to see that cultural phenomena can take on a life quite divorced from the biological (e.g. Dawkin's “memes”). Not everything, IMO, can be traced to bio-bodily instinct, as there may be cultural information flows (facts and ways of doing), that, although hosted by bio-bodily instinctually motivated humans, have a “life” of their own in culture: the brain is both, IMO, rigid in its survival instincts, yet quite flexible in its cultural channeling of such motivations. It is in this way that you might see Chomsky's Linguist/Dissident dichotomy as quite profound: it's a split between the biology of the brain, and the politics of culture: the unchangeable biology, and rejection of the status quo (although he believes both scientific and political reasoning should be similar).

Victor, I understand where you are coming from. But if the future is so bleak why should we even be bothered? Afterall if civilization and the human species itself are going to be decimated (say be bird flu, a giant meteorite, or peak oil, a few possibilities) why even care about the Palestinians and the Jews or any vison of the future? In the grand scheme of things we are just like bugs, really. Sometimes we do take ourselves too seriously. Nature is often the most ruthless killer. A gaintic earth quake like the one that hit Pakistan or the Asian Tsunami killed orders of magnitude more people in minutes than Israeli missiles and Hezzbollah rockets in a full month. Let's hope that you are wrong in your gloomy prediction.

bwong - Regretfully, I am saying LAST, as in LAST. If there are survivors, they will not likely be in the form of even nations, much less empires - more likely tribal in nature, in isolated pockets scattered over the remaining habital areas of the globe. I believe we are about to enter a truly disasterous and horrific period in human history. The worst thing about it is that we may no longer be able to avoid it, it being not a matter of if, but when it will happen. And please, before you think me a nutcase, there are a lot of very intelligent and committed folks who give an extremely cogent argument for the terrors about to befall us.

I offer some comments on feedback here (and at Leila's post). First , the general stuff then some personal comments. If you are going to look at human violence you have to start with men against women (and the home continent to us all - Africa - is a good place to start) and the much more pervasive violence against nature. These are the big items and behind them I would suggest there are pervasive analogs amongst animals. As far as I can see Z and other left-bound (no implied compliment to the right) groups are so thoroughly caught up in rich-versus-poor and related feel good stories that they can't even see (or perhaps better yet) feel what is going on. That has real consequences. For example, you still have enormous inertia (and effect) associated with African-American-as-victims movements, but very little if any with the far more sober realities of being a female in a traditional African culture. (You can see the article in the May 2000 issue of Scientific American for details.) I would suggest that allegiance to the former blocks potentially far more significant efforts on the latter. On a related point, if the US had gone into Rwanda to stop the genocide, I think Z would have had a field day. There certainly would have been well-equipped, well-fed Americans killing poorly-equipped and poorly-fed Africans and Chomsky et al would have dove in . The hatred towards Americans is first and foremost jealousy. And by analogy this fuels much of the Muslim hatred toward Israel. One can observe it externally or feel it internally but that is a powerful default in the human (status-bound) psyche. Has there ever been a powerful country that was beloved by the external masses? Have you ever heard of an international Muslim protest about how Hindus are treating Muslims in India? On the converse if we had open immigration we could let in 10's of million per year (in a recent year 6,000,000 million Bengali's went through the long process of trying to emigrate here. There were 5,000 slots available. They may not love us but they seem very interested in living here). On the humanitarian front, Scientific American now runs a monthly "Sustainable Development" piece by Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia. August's issue (with the chess-hyping cover article) has a significant paragraph. The context is Liberia and Haiti but the content is rather generic, "But if each impoverished farm family is given a bag of fertilizer and a tin of high-yield seeds, a good harvest with ample food output can be promoted within a single growing season. A nationwide campaign to spread immunizations, antimalaria bed nets and medicines, vitamin supplements and deworming agents can improve the health of the population even without longer-term fixes of public health system. Electric power can be restored quickly in key regions. And safe water outlets, including boreholes and protected natural springs, can be constructed by the thousands within a year." All of this is modern/western input. If you want to critique our foreign policy we should be doing a lot more of this AND encouraging small families (without which we will simply provide a short term respite). And no, bwong, science isn't independent of culture. Where other than Western or Western-derivative cultures does it happen? There was a nice NYT piece several years ago from a Pakistani scientist on the miserable state of science in the Islamic world (and no, Pangea, the numerals came from the Hindus - though named for the intermediaries, the Arabs - and so what). I think he said they're were more (perhaps twice as many) scientists in Israel than in the entire Islamic world. The sad part was in describing watching his scientist friend die after being killed by a mob. Bwong raises a generic point - it isn't black and white? Well why not turn that on Z. How - other than adding explicit reference to Allah and jihad - could Z (and Chomsky) be more Islamists-friendly? Z is profoundly biased (call it black or white, it certainly isn't a meaningful spectrum) and I wasn't surprised to read about some Islamic protester citing Chomsky. Chomsky's piece on Sudan is absurd - who put the pharmaceutical plant and related technologies there and moreover which countries even care about what is going there? The subject of race is a good one. I didn't mention in any way race. I did criticize some relevant features of Islamic culture. It appears to be deeply stuck and violent - what other culture would stage huge violent protests over a cartoon? What good would trying to lie around this point do? Criticism - unlike flattery - can occasionally do some good. But, again you will not find any criticism of Islam in Z. On a larger related point, the huge and sadly controversial topic of culture is laid out beautifully by Thomas Sowell. In turns out that groups do have very significant differences in behavioral habits and, yes, it might be good to appreciate and correct some of the gross flaws. Ultimately, this for the most part comes down to individual decisions - "Do I want to change from the local cultural norms"? My experience is that this often comes down to - "Do I want to continue to be a fool?". I have never hesitated to criticize US/Western norms, why would I hesitate elsewhere (where the norms may be better or worse)? The implied charge of rascism towards me is expected and appropriate for the Z forum. I come from a deeply rascist background and have been trying to correct it for sometime. In my early twenties I became increasingly aware that I wasn't comfortable being critical - even in my own head - with individuals from liberal designated-victim groups, starting with African Americans. Instead of doing the Z-thing - bludgeoning myself with social science stories of horrific abuse of slaves and imperialism - I allowed the question/self-criticism to register. Eventually, I got some help with a job as a live-in tutor for some African American and Latino students. They wanted honest feedback and honest relationship - not some bullshit condescending pity trip. I doubt they get Z magazine. This has been a healthy move - seeing one liberal biases - and trying to simply be aware of the person in front of you (as is). I have since lived for years in the city, worked at recreation program, taught at a University, lived in a large very diverse apartment complex, and spent large amounts of time with kids from every continent except South America. I regularly was awoken by kids Saturday and Sunday mornings - often Afgans or Pakistanis - to help fix their bikes. This earned me the rep of "Complex dad". I doubt Cyrano with his knee jerk insults has anything comparable in terms of a healthy diverse life. Honesty - which necessarily includes self-awareness - seems to work. Criticize as needed, no need in personal interactions for any group reference. The point is the behavior in question and who is doing it. (In a larger context, Israel versus the Palestians, the average or group behavior is the point and should be open to criticism.) Alternatively, the Z way has scored big locally. The city schools first went to regular affirmative action - which as I found out as a teacher lines up designated victims for curriculums they are not ready for. Very difficult humiliation often follows. But that wasn't enough idealism, they then switched to a racial quota-guided random selection process which eliminated any objective criteria to admission programs and pretty much eliminated the possibility of a middle class education. Not satisfied the ideal-sters can now cry "Rascist" to the largely white middle class that exited. The city schools still has one unadulterated fair program left - all African American athletic programs.

But just as a theoretical question. Do you think local, regional Empires would be better than a global one? I am not so sure. You are just trading in one gangster, who at least have some minimal standard, for a bunch of smaller ones many of whom are outright thugs in both words and deeds, they don't give a damn to public opinion or even pay lip service to the democratic ideal. Just consider China. The decline of a global empire would mean the ascendency of smaller, regional powers who would have a free hand in persuing their regional ambitions with little check and balance. Whatever the U.S. agenda is, I would rather have U.S presence around Taiwan than have China invading the Island. I think many Taiwanese would feel the same way. Another example, for the folks at Darfur it doesn't make a difference that Sudan is not a global empire, it just has the right size and fire power to make life miserable for the Darfurians. That is the only important point for those at the recieving end. Politics is often about shifting alliance. The same policy sometimes impacts different people differently, some get enslaved, some get liberated. It all depends on where and when you happen to be. I can't blame the Iraqi Kurds for supporting American invasion wholeheartedly, it makes sense from their perspective.

Also, one must consider, darkly perhaps, that the US Empire is quite different from the British or Roman, or Greek empires. These empires became dangerous places as they fell, becoming quite aggressive in attempting to defend themselves against the inevitable. The big difference between those empires and the Dark One, is that they didn't have nuclear capability. And they have clearly expressed a willingness to use it in a pre-emptive fashion.

What you say is largely true. The US has over-extended itself, and has shown weakness and vulnerability in its Middle East adventures. The client states sense that weakness, and I expect the battles to intensify and spread over many areas of the globe as a result. Israel too has shown that it is not invincible and does not have the capacity to do the damage that everyone thought it had. I'll go one step further, however, and state, perhaps most foolishly, that the US is likely the last Empire this world will know for the foreseeable future. As the oil runs out, the entirety of our oil-based civilisation will fall like a rock off a cliff. If a few of mankind survive the fall, there will likely be another empire in the far distant future. But it's not likely the species will survive for several reasons.

Multifaceted politician = a two faces politician.. Hmm Bob Rae although may be pro-israeli is not anti-palestinian, last time I checked Bob was a man of integrity, a nice guy truly. Howard Hampton is more a leftist, Rae is more liberal.

What is a "multifaceted" politician? Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff (one of those will likely be our next PM)are even more pro Israel. It is not just about oil or toeing the U.S. line. These people do have their convictions, at least I know Bob Rae does, whether you agree with him or not.

Meanwhile, Canada could try to get ride of multifaceted politicians in the like of Harper.. The way I see it the US is compromising oil flow to Canada with the crime it help commits in the midlle east.. oh well may be I should sign a private pact with Norway.. :)

Unless you are Chomsky you can't reduce a country to its foreign policy

Neither does Chomsky. This is something he often stresses - that US foreign policy (or domestic for that matter) doesn't at all reflect the opinions of the US population. Sometimes he backs this up with polls, as also Michael Moore did extensively in at least one of his books. If other governments or regimes had the military and political power of the US, they would probably do pretty much exactly what the US is currently doing. This we have proof for in history, although no state has ever been quite as powerful as the US is today. The British did pretty much what they wanted when they rules the world, and the Romans did what they wanted. What gives me some hope now, is that I think the US are gaping over too much. This is exactly what fell the British and Roman empires. The cost of standing armies to control the masses in the outskirts of the Empire got too high, the Empire got weaker, the people noticed this and the mental block of the invincibility of the Empire fell, people stood up against the Empire, and with time the Empire itself fell. I see signs of this happening today with the US Empire. The latest Lebanon war from the US' client Israel can also be interpreted like that, as Israel could not get a win over Hizbollah despite 33 days of intense bombing and tens of thousands of troops in a relatively small area. The US has perhaps 200,000 soldiers in Iraq (mercenaries and private armies included), and yet they can't get the masses under control. Meanwhile the costs of occupying especially Iraq are skyhigh. This is sure to impact US economy at some point. I also find it unlikely that they are able to establish an Iraqi client army. At some point they will realise they have to withdraw, as they had to withdraw from Vietnam. It is certain that the US Empire one day will fall. We, as a people of this planet, have to do all in our power to make sure that no other superpower replaces it - be that China, India, EU, Russia or some other regime.

This author's intimation that the West is by it's cultural nature benign, is laughable.  This is the same government that starved a people to punish them for democratically electing their government (Hamas) in an election in which they originally hailed.

 We know the US would also never give Israel one of the Dakota's.  Who else would help with the spread of Walmarts in the Middle East?  I hope the above post was not taken seriously by anyone.

Whys does Pangeae need to Be Chomsky? I don't know but a country that prominently proclaim itself the police of the world should at least abide by the standards it want to impose on others..it can't go around claiming to do one thing when its reasons are another.. Vaccination is controversial , its a mad scientistry IMO. Bwong since 9/11, 2 oil rich contries were invaded and bullshitBush went on as saying capturing him wasnt important.. It used the attacks to push invasion of 2 countries.. Most terrorist were from SA yet its Iraq that pay the bills.. also the Bin Laden familly probably doubled their profits with the price of oil raising.. 9/11 was a blessings for US corporations. D'ont be surprised to find out at a later date that some CIA was also involved with al-quaida elements and organizing 9/11

Unless you are Chomsky you can't reduce a country to its foreign policy. No country has a particularly good record in that department. The U.S has a more global impact only because it is the most powerful country. But I don't see any difference in the real politik attitude that motivates other countries. At least the U.S. does care about PR and is restrained to some degrees by public opinions. You can't say the same with China, Russia or regional powers like Iran. The common charge about "U.S. hypocrisy" proves that Americans do take principle seriously and feel that the government has to be held up to the ideals it professes to uphold. You may call this naive but it means something. You don't hear that kind of charges against China or Russia, since no one even believes that they are motivated by any high principle. Charges of "hypocrisy" wouldn't have any effect.

ok bwong really, I didn't mean that the US delibarately screwed the polio vaccine.. I just meant an accidenatl infection of the polio vaccine.. By the way I have strong feelings that the population is being over vaccinated..

I most certainly agree that there is good and bad elements in the US. But I don't think there are many good elements in the current US administration. The civil society of the US is however very good, and are doing a lot of great things. That there can be no doubt about. Even Bush has done some good things, especially related to fighting HIV/AIDS, as unlikely as that sounds. Appearently Bono of U2 had an influence on him here, by telling him the Samaritan story IIRC. But I can very little positive in US foreign policy. And that is what most of us here mean when we say "the US". It is of course silly when people say that the US was resonsible for the tsunami (by underwater explosions) that killed hundreds of thousands of people, and so forth. The US (administration and its foreign policy) does enough "bad" across the world as it is. No need to invent things.

Do you people have to degenerate into this nonsense of arguing whether the U.S "save" more or "kill" more? The U.S. is not a monolith. There are people who do great humanitarian work and there are war mongers. Reality is complex, but all of you are trying to force everything into some kind of black or white, bad or good, the devil or the saint dichotomy. How old are you I wonder? The U.S. is not the red cross, but it is not the only country that kills and kills a lot. Following this "U.S is the source of all evil" (including vacination!) thesis perhaps it should be wiped off the face of earth ten times over and everyone would live happily ever after. Bin Laden would be proud of our resident American haters here.

This is basically a copy of your other post, and it is equally terrible reading. Since you think the US is so great and have spread so much good around the world, how come so many people detest the US and its foreign policy? Are they all deranged? Do they not know what's going on? Or is it exactly because they know what's going on? Here is a list of US interventions across the globe. Could it have something to do with this perhaps? To put it mildly, it's not so easy to come up with great new technology that requires advanced laboratories, when you are living in refugee camps, your homes are being destroyed, your land is being stolen, your rights are being trampled on, and your sons and daughters are being killed - as is the situation in Palestine. That said, they have come up with great ways to work with what little they have in the hospitals. Objectively this is technology too, although not the flashy, beeping electronic kind of the West, or the increasingly destructive bombs, weapons, gunships and fighterplanes of the West.

hello, I am pretty much sure you could find the US being cause of infant mortality, as for the polio , you suggest that vacinnation was of help..palestinian could had just got ride of cats and dogs and polio would had been gone.. also it seem that some of your polio sample were infected with SIV , a simian virus that evolved as HIV or that your vaccine was to the very origin of aids.. vaccination is controversial. I dont know its seem that your vaccine killed more than the polio itself would have done.. If you want good number about mortality and infant mortality world wide, read Fidel Castro, he can give you aproximate figure of what is the dead count as per the US war machine and policies.. I am certain you'll find that the US kills more than it save..

Chomsky's comments go back to same old pattern - find some select story to use for sentiment, in particular re-angering. The larger reality, completely ignored. The US's role in the world has been overwhelmingly humanitarian, certainly by the miserable "humanitarian" extincts that evolution has left us with. How did infant mortality get dropped by a factor of three around the globe and more generally - for better and worse - do we have 6.4 billion people alive today? How many centuries would it have taken one of your designated-victim societies like the Palestians to come up with a polio vaccine, a convienent way to synthesize ammonia to make fertilizer that provides 1/3 of the human protein input, or more generally to have some sustained charitable interest beyond their own lot? This is where serious discussion about reality and terrorism (really negative terrorism) begin. I get a regular newsletter from the Carter Center. It is remarkable the scale of alleviating human suffering that dedicated people like Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter in a country like our own can achieve. How many Muslim countries would it take to come up with something equivalent? I can't imagine Chomsky or Z ever even tacitly acknowledging this kind of activity. I would be surprised if Chomsky has not indicted Carter as a war criminal/Nazi-equivalent in the past. The vast scale of indigineous violence (starting with men toward women) is deeply downplayed for polite reasons in our society (and in social science). Along with this the huge impact of rapidly growing populations and deeply dysfunctional cultures are also politely talked around. Chomsky et al use this to put together a story-line in which the powerful elites (mostly from countries like our own) are greatly responsible from human mayhem. I am reminded that a few years ago the "alternative press" had identified one of the top "missing stories from the main stream", a story about an Indian women being beaten up by someone connected with a US company (perhaps Enron). The day before the mainstream media (I think it was ABC) had a succinct and serious piece on the fact that India was missing 22 million women in a recent census. You can compare the significances. That Chomsky could have dedicated so much time and energy to the Israeli/Palestian situation and still not mentioned the essentials is impressive (in a negative way). The cultural gap is gigantic and Palestian(/Islamic) culture is deeply stuck in a miserable rut. This leaves them almost completely out of creative/productive engagement. When you combine this with their population growth you end up with an avalanche of people feeling like losers. Sports, arts, engineeering, science - you name it. And next door is Israel. Does the concept of jealousy mean anything to you? Have Muslim ever really cared about Hindu mobs (seemingly a bunch of losers) attacking their brethern in India? Did they care about the vast scale of violence that West Pakistan brought to East Pakistan or what their brethen are doing in Sudan? A month or so ago an ex-Muslim women gave a scathing appraisal of Islamic culture. She shortly thereafter got death threats. Has their ever been an article in Z that was similarly critical about Islamic culture? Given the population trajectory and hateful, rigid culture of many of their neighbors, the obvious suggestion for Israeli is to leave. Perhaps the US could give them a good chunk real estate, perhaps one of the Dakotas. If their military strength were exchanged with their neighbors they would be extinguished. It would be good if people could be honest about the situation. As is, the Middle East is huge distraction from better things human beings can and should be dealing with. (I have some related comments after Leila Mouammar's recent comment).

. . . and I'll try to remember it the next time I encounter this "too depressing to deal with" argument. Ithought that argument was sincere, now I see it's just a cop-out.

Hi Chris ..Chris dont forget to go demonstrate your dissent in hamilton this saturday.. originally I was supposed to attend Hamilton, but I organized a group of people to attend saturdays demo In toronto at 1:pm..

 

Canadian policies toward palestinian is sickening, but hey when harper kiss asses, he does this good

Is the point of this that our anguish in trying to process these victim's harsh reality is small by comparison?

 

The mainstream North American press that avoids these 'human interest' stories knows no bounds in it's duplicity.  I bet David Welch doesn't consciously believe he is involved in the most Yellow form of Journalism.

Chris

Hamilton, Ontario

what a brave little girl this Kinda. I can't beleive people still worship reagan as a heroe (sic). Noam presently I am concerned, because media coverages here in toronto seem to be focuses about the goldwasser prisoner but no concern apparently is given about countless of stories similar to kinda (that possibly exist)or about our young arabs brothers and sisters that are directly being bombed. Like I should care more for a single Israeli'man s fate than an entire gaza population is held in hostage and the lebanese are being bombed senseless in the most barbaric manners.. don't think so..