Slashdot Mirror

You're right. Here in the UK it is ridiculously easy to sue for slander and defamation. So much so that there are many cases of people reported on in the media in a manner they don't like, sueing in UK if there is even a tenuous link to the country.

http://www.economist.co.uk/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11333006

Yes it is a massive problem. Yes there is an active campaign to do something about it. No flame taken :)

The Economist http://economist.co.uk/ has an argument against the practice of so-called fair trade. While a noble notion, in real life it is counter-productive.

I was going to just link to the article http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm ?story_id=E1_RPRDVJN, but since it you'll have to have a subscription to access it, I'll recant the main argument:

Coffee is cheap. Reason for this is over production. The coffee farmers have invested a lot of money in equipment etc, and reforming their farm is expensive.

Well-meaning western consumers pay extra for "fair trade" coffee, meaning extra money in the farmers pockets. Fair enough, right. Well, given the conditions cited earlier and apply a little basic economic principles: Farmers receiving, what essentially is, subsidies, will have the actual extra money to shift away from producing cheap, overproduced coffee-beans, but absolutely NO incentive to do so! Thus FURTHER lowering the prices.

Steffen Pøhner.

On this I go with the economist The incompetent or the incoherent? and I'd say plump for the incoherent as well.

Can the 2008 election please feature two people who you'd LIKE to vote for rather than two people than you'd rather not.

There is a difference between just coming up with a method of communication and a fully grammatical system. Being able to make enough gestures that someone can figure out what you want is not the same as having a consistent way to express complete sentences and convey abstract information. Holding your arms up for a hug is one thing; being able to explain completely new ideas is another. This article is more useful.

The WTO has never ruled against the US? Maybe they favour the USA over Mexico, but they sure don't give the USA a free pass in disputes with Europe.

Combined with the fact that mexican politicians would never do anything to upset Uncle Sam...

Are you sure?

Has cynicism become the new naivety?

Attacks are also happening faster. A few years ago, it typically took virus writers a year to exploit a software vulnerability announced by a vendor. This gap between disclosure of a flaw and attack has been shrinking. For the Slammer worm in January it was six months, and for Blaster in August a mere three weeks. It is almost three weeks now since Microsoft brought out its patch for Windows 2000.

Now say employee John Foofxr decides he wants someone to pay him some serious moolah to have this drug approved.

That's awfully blatent, and would get old John a long vacation at club fed. That kind of thing just isn't going to happen.

THIS is how the ``bribes'' happen. If you are a high-level bureaucrat, you can have a little talk with the executives at a company whose new drug you are tasked with approving. You mention that you'll be retiring soon, perhaps in a year or so after you've concluded their case. They reply that they really need someone who's experienced with dealing with FDA bureaucrats, to act as liasion with the agency (or experienced at dealing with Congress, to lobby for them, or ...), and would be interested in hiring you. You reply that you will certainly contact them when you retire. No money ever changes hands, but if you really want that cushy job, you make sure their drug gets approved.

There are some very real problems, with the FDA and government agencies in general, and you've missed them all. Two examples:

A real problem is that the FDA bureaucrats have nothing to gain by approving a drug, but a great deal to lose. If an FDA bureaucrat approves a drug and it turns out to be another thalidomide, he's in BIG trouble. If he approves a drug, and it turns out to be a side-effect-free cure for cancer and the common cold, he gets absolutely nothing. Thus, the bureaucrats always want one more round of tests, and people die waiting for safe, effective medicines.

Another big problem is regulatory capture, a natural process in which the regulated and the regulator talk only to each other, and the regulator eventually winds up siding with the regulated. We see this in action in US government when industry insiders are appointed to head the watchdog agencies for their industries, and when upper-level bureaucrats retire from Civil Service to take very high paying, low stress jobs in the industry they regulated. The result is that the FDA protects the pharmacutical industry at least as effectively as it protects us.

One example of how the FDA protects the industry is their enforcement of monopolies. No drug can go to market unless it is patented, because no drug can go to market unless someone has spent tens of millions getting the FDA's blessing. If someone were to find that an unpatentable combination of eye of newt, hair of bat and toe of frog cured cancer, the FDA would never approve it, since no company would fund the tests. Doctors would never hear about it from the drug company salesmen, so most of them would continue prescribing the current slash-and-burn therapies, which are sometimes worse than the disease. This hypothetical free, safe and effective therapy would never become available to most Americans, even if the research were published in JAMA and Lancet.

Talks about the "myth", relying heavily on an article by Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, "The Fable of the Keys" (which is also available online). Among other things, the Liebowitz/Margolis piece "tells you plenty about the history of the typewriter--but what every economist should have concluded from it was that another example of 'locking in' had better be found. QWERTY simply will not do."

Among other things, there was one main study (conducted by the US Navy in 1944) that showed the Dvorak keyboard was superior to QWERTY, but the "experiments were conducted by one Lieutenant-Commander August Dvorak, the navy's top time-and-motion man, and owner of the Dvorak layout patent."

This information is corroborated elsewhere. You'll see a failing Japan is a lot better place to be fresh out of college/university in this world than say, 98% of all other countries in existence

That means nothing. The discussion is about how the Japanese economy is changing internally, not about how it compares to other countries.

While there are flaws in their system, and they have bizarre aspects about them, I would consider this console thing a sign that they are more interested in something else rather than on the verge of economic collapse. It is very bad, particularly coupled with the recent US slump, but by no means are people flooding from Japan to emigrate to China or North Korea.

It is possible to have a failing economy that is still better off than many other countries. Using your own link to CIA world factbook, you can see that even using numbers 2 years ago the economy is deflating, GDP is decreasing, and unemployment increasing year-to-year. Their economy is still strong compared to other countries, but it is also shrinking, which means fewer people are inclined to pick up shiny new luxury items like consoles, and are instead choosing to save that money or spend it on something more essential. And, while we're on the subject, the Japanese culture has a very strong sense of denial when dealing with this kind of problem. I realize that this statement is somewhat subjective, but take for example how shocked the Japanese people were to discover they had lost WW2, when just a week earlier they had been convinced that they were handily winning the war, despite the obvious signs that they were losing (e.g. younger and younger conscripts, loss of territory, constant blackouts and bombs dropping on major cities). While my example is a bit extreme, there are many other examples that further demonstrate this characteristic in other facets of Japanese society.

I just though it would be a lot smarter to look at a bunch of factors than to come out an claim to know the answer as the original poster did based on anecdotal evidence.

I'm sorry I didn't link the facts I quoted to trusted 3rd party sources, but they are all true. If you don't believe me, see what the Economist has to say about the Japanese economy, and how it's currently being handled by the government (as in, it's not being handled). The Diet, as they are wont to do, gleefully ignore the huge, glaring problems in the economy. Dozens of reform plans have been introduced only to be dropped or watered down to the point where they are ineffectual. Most of the attention is instead diverted to "scandalous" material such as who is sleeping with whom, or who is getting kickbacks from the construction industry, rather than the fact that more people than ever are filing for bankruptcy.

While I do have plenty of anecdotal evidence as well (I have many close Japanese friends living and working in Japan, and I personally do business in Japan regularly) I didn't cite any of it.

According to the Economist, the movie industry makes a good portion of their money off of DVDs, not so much off theatre receipts, which is why they're so worried about online piracy.

The upshot of the article you can't read is that, even in this sluggish economy, spending on entertainment is UP, but advertising revenues are still DOWN, and so are entertainment profits (DOWN.)

Unfortunately, the story is "Premium Content" so I can't post the link (my room-mate subsrcibes in print.)

Of course, the Economist also thinks that piracy is responsible for the decline in CD sales (it is to laugh.)

Last year the Economist run an article (subscription required) focusing on the strong link between suicides and firearms in the US.
Nearly 3 of every 5 suicides in the US in 1999 (57%) were committed with a firearm, according to the Center for Disease Control. Suicide is the number 11 cause of death in the US, and in 1999 it outnumbered homicides 1.7 to 1.
Apparently, the suicide rate among US youth is much higher than in similar industrialized countries, because of the ready availability of firearms, especially because suicides are often impulsive (article on the Journal of Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior) and can be thwarded if the person gets to think long enough. Clearly, this is not possible when a gun is around.

• The BSA is very active here. It's members include all the usual suspects - Microsoft, Autodesk, Lotus et al - each of whom have large local offices with direct ties to their principals in the US. There's a current case about an entrepreneur who purchased a number of second hand machines from a large local bank only to be accused of piracy by Microsoft SA because of Windows license transfer issues.
  
• Open Source is proving a very attractive option for companies here who have to deal with a fluctuating and unfavorable exchange rate with the US Dollar. Software that costs $100 must be multiplied by roughly 14 to get the price in local currency - a highly depressing state of affairs since the Economist's Burgernomics method reckons the Rand should be around 4,5 to the Dollar. As a result, South Africa has some of the largest Linux installations in the world in some sectors. Microsoft costs too much and the authorities rightly don't like the idea of revenue leaving the country when perfectly acceptable free alternatives exist.
  
• There is more than enough education here to do simple things like compiling the kernel. A couple of the FreeBSD core maintenance team are South African (hi Neil :) and the editor of one of the most respected business/computer magazines compiled his Linux kernel for an upcoming feature.
  
• You most certainly can NOT find "full streets of pirated software stores" in South Africa. Maybe the odd flea market operator, but nearly all retailers are extremely careful because of the ever-present threat from the BSA.
  

There's a critical difference.

In the US/Europe/Australia/the civilized world in general, people actually have the choice to read the People's Daily or whatever. When I was in college during the Reagan Years, the only problem I had with getting copies of Pravda or Izvestia was that the local newsstand didn't want to waste shelf space on publications in Russian. And I learned Spanish by listening to Radio Havana.

The cops didn't kick down my door for reading Communist bullshit or listening to it on the radio. RH wasn't jammed by the government. And if the Chinese People's Daily is online, there's nothing stopping you from finding it other than their webmaster's incompetence.

Think someone in China could lay hands on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page or the Economist so easily and with so few repercussions?

Take Ed Abbey's masterpiece, _The Brave Cowboy_. In it, no end of trouble is caused by the fact that the protagonists/heroes refused to pay taxes, carry ID, or be drafted. Ten buck in any decent bricks-and-mortar bookstore in the US. And I'll just bet that China has no trouble whatsoever with such subversive books floating around.

Or we can look at the books which portray the US as a corrupt, decaying empire. Heinlein's _TMIAHM_ or Pournelle's _High Justice_ or Falkenberg's Legion series. Or psuedo-subversive nonfiction like Noam Chomsky's garbage. All of it sold openly and completely unrestricted in the US. And I dare you to try to translate it into Mandarin and distribute it in China.

Most Americans are idiots, maybe. I don't agree with that statement, but it has been made and defended here on /. Two or three generations of television and a generation of computer/video games have made our culture a culture of people who sit around, accept the entertainment given them, and make no effort to learn beyond what's presented to them. And they end up with the attention span long enough to last from one commercial break to the next on the TV news. And as a result, CNN and most other major news outlets in the US tailor their material to the short attention span crowd. And some people claim that the news is doctored to some degree to meet the wishes of co-owners or advertisers. I mean, would WB News carry an expose about how Time Magazine can't get anything right? Would NBC (or MSNBC) go in-depth about what a bloated, spying POS Windows XP is? I'm not holding my breath.

But there's a distinction to be made. Here in the US, we CAN have better if we want it. It's a matter of just getting a decent newspaper, the BBC World Service on shortwave, or whatever. It takes more effort than turning on the latest insipid bullshit from WB/SeeBS/FOX/ABC/Whatever, but it's there.

There are plenty of countries where that's not an option. You WILL get your news from politically-acceptable sources. You WILL view only acceptable web sites. And if you don't, then you can be dragged off to die in a slave labor camp or shot with your spouse billed for the ammunition. And China is exactly that kind of fascist rathole.

Oops, that was a bit of a rant. Sorry about that.

You have no problem holding him to it. That does not mean that the evidence is anyhwere near conclusive. Rather, the evidence is inconclusive as The Economist recently pointed out. Even Tony Blair has admitted that the published evidence wouldn't hold up in a court of law. The unpublished evidence may or may not be sufficient but we don't know that. It could be no more substancial than those used to justify the attack on what turned out to be a civilian target in Sudan.

To my mind, this would be "terrorism as usual," which is to treat terrorists like some sort of protesters,

In other words, you think it is better to sacrifice innocent civilians, like the UN personnel killed today in Afghanistan, than to hold a trial in a third country.

Everyone,

As is often the case, the Economist seems to have the best story: America under Attack

Also see The Economist front page

Stratfor provides interesting and more complete analysis.

Lax Security One of the important points made in the article is that security in U.S. airports and on U.S. airplanes before the bombing was lax compared to the security in Europe.

George Bush had Increased Support for Israel. The Economist article does not mention that the Bush Administration in the U.S. had recently increased its support for the Israeli government and therefore also Israeli violence. The Clinton administration, in contrast, was more careful not to do things which could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

Once again, intelligence agencies were useless. It is amazing to me that "intelligence" authorities claim that they did not have any idea that there would be an attack like this. Below is a link to an album cover from a band called "The Coup". It is black American "Party Music". The album was sold long before today's bombing. The album cover shows both towers of the World Trade Center in New York in flames:

The Coup -- Party Music, album cover shows the World Trade Center towers burning.

If black rap artists can have this idea, why didn't the intelligence agencies have it? The idea was not particularly innovative, since the World Trade Center had already been bombed once. Did the intelligence agencies think that those who did it would just stop trying?

From one of the Stratfor articles: "Reuters is reporting that Arabic satellite television channel MBC warned Sept. 8 that followers of suspected Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden were planning a major attack on U.S. and Israeli interests in the next two weeks."

Violence is Assumed. Commentators on three of the largest U.S. TV networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, have made comments that assume without debate that the U.S. will engage in military action in retaliation. One U.S. senator said on TV that the U.S. response should be comparable to the U.S. response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. One of the U.S. responses at the time of Pearl Harbor was to be the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. Is the senator suggesting that?

This is my reply to the many people who are recommending violence as an answer to violence:

Do you have any thought that violence in retaliation might be a mistake, and might just invite further violence? Those who say no may change their minds after they consider the following issues:

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed were in any way directly threatening the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, friends and families and wives.

Most of the citizens of the U.S. had, and have, no idea of the beliefs of the people that their government killed. Most people in the U.S. cannot even locate the countries the U.S. government bombed on a map of the world. People cannot be thought to have chosen violence when they do not come close to understanding the issues. It is often the government that chooses violence, not the people.

No matter how violent a country is, or how many people a violent country kills, there is still an inexhaustible supply of people in other countries who also want to engage in violence. Violence can be unending. Do you want that?

No matter how angry you are, there are thousands of people who are more angry than you. Do you want them to attack you?

As was mentioned above, the Bush administration recently increased U.S. support for the violence of the Israelis. This was sure to make the people being killed by the Israelis unhappy. Do you find it surprising that some of them are motivated to violence also?

There are many countries where people are severely distressed by Israeli violence. Recently there was a TV news story about street violence in which Israelis were killed. The Israeli counter-attack was shown on TV: A helicopter fired rockets at a building, causing huge explosions. It is not important in this instance whether the Israelis are the aggressors. What is important is that a significant number of people in the world think they are the aggressors.

The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God. The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl.

It is not difficult to understand the thoughts of the Arabs. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live next to a group of people who claim that they are superior, and that Arabs are inferior. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like you as much.

It is also not difficult to understand that the constant claims of the Jews of superiority over everyone else (including people of European descent like me) are mentally de-centering to Arabs who happen to be psychologically conflicted.

Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people. Mentally de-centered people engage in violence. It's that simple. Being violent toward them makes mentally de-centered people even more mentally de-centered. That's why violence is not a good answer to violence.

The U.S., and all those who hate violence, should take very strong action. But the action must be designed to cure the problem of highly-conflicted, mentally de-centered people. Whatever that response is, it must be more sophisticated than violence.

The terrorists are extreme examples of mentally disturbed people. Remember that those who crashed airplanes into the buildings cannot possibly benefit from their own actions. They are dead. Someone who is willing to commit suicide is about as mentally de-centered as it is possible to be.

Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country? How many people here really understand this dispute? What percentage of the citizens of the U.S. can even find Israel on a map of the world? I think the percentage is low.

I find the arrogance of my Jewish friends annoying, too. However, there are many differences between myself and the terrorists. I am less conflicted. I am better educated. It doesn't matter to me what other people have been saying for thousands of years; I don't believe Jews actually are superior. I don't live in an area where I am at risk of being killed by Israelis. I am not Arab, so I am not the target of the strongest claims of Jews that they are superior.

I can also understand why Jews would find Arabs annoying. There is an element of the Arab culture that allows Arabs to think that lies are sometimes acceptable. My Arab friends have sometimes lied to me over trivial issues. To someone who values careful thought, lies are extremely repugnant.

Should we be giving Israel money when that will be seen as us a choosing to enter a 3,300 year-old conflict? The U.S. government gives billions of dollars every year to Israel. If anything, this money seems to have made Israel weaker. The Israelis have spent money they didn't earn; this is always a corrupting influence; they have had problems with inflation. It can hardly be said that the people of the U.S. give the money; most have no idea that money is going to Israel. So, the people pay the money, but the government gives it away. Rightly or wrongly, sensibly or crazily, the Arabs see this money as encouragement of Israel's violence toward them.

On this particular issue both cultures are crazy! They've been killing each other since the time of the Pharaohs! What does this have to do with the U.S.? Do we walk into bars and take part in any fight that is happening there?

The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries. We often hear about secret activities of the U.S. government after it is too late to object. The U.S. supported the killing of president Mossadegh of Iran, and then supported an extremely weak man, the Shah of Iran. (See Iran 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings) [thirdworldtraveler.com], for example.) This provoked a revolution in Iran that was hostile to the United States. Citizens of the U.S. were kept hostage.

The U.S. secret agencies' secret answer to the anti-U.S. sentiment was to support Saddam Hussein of Iraq against Iran. We supported Saddam Hussein's violent war against Iran. However, when Saddam Hussein became violent toward another country in the region, we spent billions of dollars to kill an estimated 150,000 Iraqis and destroy their property.

When executives do things openly they make lots of mistakes, and are sometimes held accountable, usually in a very peaceful way, and usually by their own staffs. When executives do things in secret, there is little accountability, and the mistakes can become huge.

Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of Chilean General Rene Schneider. The show aired on Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project [gwu.edu]

PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there" [pbs.org]

Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile [state.gov]

Iran, Iraq, and Chile are just three of the countries that have suffered from secret U.S. involvement. There is some discussion of U.S. government interference in Saudi Arabia below. Also, don't forget Nicaragua. I asked someone who went to Nicaragua during U.S. involvement there whether it was possible to see the wealth that the U.S. government was pouring into that small country. The amount was said to be about $1,000,000 per day. I was told, no, there was no evidence of the money that was spent.

There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. uses the violent retaliation as a justification for more hidden activity.

Invading countries and killing the residents and destroying their property is not a way of relating I consider socially skilled. Why do the citizens of one country think they can kill the citizens of another? If killing is the answer, can't the U.S. ask a better question?

The interference in the affairs of other countries by the secret U.S. agencies has prompted some people to retaliate. These people who retaliate are called "terrorists" in the U.S. The terrorists make everyone in the U.S. less safe. So, U.S. citizens have, in some ways, gotten less security for the money they spent on secret activities.

The violent attitude toward people outside the U.S. has, predictably, spread to the internal police forces in the U.S. When some religious fanatics decided to do stupid things in Waco, Texas, the U.S. government responded by bringing in very violent-minded people. The result was that people were killed.

There were people who didn't like the activities of the U.S. police forces in Waco. There were people who were psychologically de-centered by these activities. One of them, Timothy McVeigh, bombed a U.S. government building in Oklahoma. So then the U.S. government killed him.

Secrecy encourages people not to trust. Violence encourages violence.

We tend to hear about the activities of secret U.S. government agencies about 30 years after they occur. What are they doing now?

It is 10:00 o'clock. Do you know what the U.S. government is doing? No, it is a fact that you don't. You don't know any other time, either. You cannot even know how much of your money is spent on secret activities, because the budget for secret U.S. government agencies is hidden in other appropriations.

Definition of a terrorist: The other country's CIA.

There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures. Arab friends of mine have described situations in Saudi Arabia that are extremely volatile. Apparently Osama bin Laden, and many average Saudis who live in the U.S., feel very unhappy with U.S. influence in Saudi Arabia. They think that there should be political parties and democracy in Saudi Arabia. However, the U.S. government strongly supports the dictatorial regime of the house of Al Saud. Residents of Saudi Arabia, for example, are not allowed to leave the country without an exit visa. They are potentially prisoners of their own country.

Why not ask ourselves why Osama bin Laden is willing to go to so much trouble to promote terrorism? Maybe we would learn something. I am NOT saying Osama bin Laden is right about anything, and definitely his violence is reprehensible. Nevertheless it may help to understand him. According to Arabs to whom I've talked, there is considerable good reason to be dissatisfied with the secret actions of the U.S. government.

As other people have said in the past, the U.S. government has a history of supporting corrupt dictatorships. The U.S. government supported Pakistan against India! India is the world's most populous democracy. It has been suggested that the preference for supporting dictatorships is due to U.S. government corruption. A dictator is almost certain to be willing to support embezzlement of U.S. government money, and to keep it secret. Trying to arrange embezzlement would be very dangerous in a democracy because of the danger of being discovered.

Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think. It has always annoyed me that people who call themselves Christian often reveal that they don't really believe in the important messages of Christianity, and that they don't even understand those messages.

Basically, Jesus Christ's idea of not returning violence with violence means that we can vigorously protect ourselves, but that any response must be the true minimum necessary to achieve security. This is a theory that can be recommended even to the majority of people in the world who are not Christian. The theory seems to fit the facts. The facts seem to be that violence always has severely negative side-effects that overwhelm any effect that might be seen as positive.

Answers? Prevention is an answer. Better understanding is an answer. Being charitable long before any problems begin occurring is a good answer. And maybe there are times when we just don't know the answer.

There is often considerable misunderstanding about non-violent methods. One reason to suggest non-violent methods is that they can be extremely powerful. For example, suppose that representatives from the U.S. knew Osama bin Laden's family. Or suppose that you understood how money is transferred to bin Laden. Or suppose the U.S. was so well-liked in the region that bin Laden had difficulty finding supporters. One of the values of non-violent methods is that literally hundreds of them are available, and many of them are far, far cheaper than violence.

The desire for non-violence is a desire to be extremely powerful. Those who are really powerful can have a strong influence just by voicing disapproval.

There are many people who support violence because they want to act out their own personal anger, while at the same time hiding their internal conflict from themselves. It is a fact that such people would be FAR more comfortable if they could be helped to understand and take responsibility for their anger. Acting out anger is like a drug. It provides only temporary relief, and it makes the person who does it more angry. Having un-recognized anger is like carrying a 100-pound sack of cement on your back wherever you go. Un-recognized anger drags you down 24 hours per day.

Violence is not a good answer to violence.

Regards,

Michael Jennings

Michael Jennings
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

E-Mail: M_Jennings@USA.com

This letter maybe sent to anyone by email without permission from the author, provided that no changes are made. If you print this article with no changes, you may give it to anyone you know. Other use requires permission. Copyright 2001.

Please mention errors and shortcomings to the author.

Everyone,

As is often the case, the Economist seems to have the best story: America under Attack

Also see The Economist front page

Stratfor provides interesting and more complete analysis.

Lax Security One of the important points made in the article is that security in U.S. airports and on U.S. airplanes before the bombing was lax compared to the security in Europe.

George Bush had Increased Support for Israel. The Economist article does not mention that the Bush Administration in the U.S. had recently increased its support for the Israeli government and therefore also Israeli violence. The Clinton administration, in contrast, was more careful not to do things which could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

Once again, intelligence agencies were useless. It is amazing to me that "intelligence" authorities claim that they did not have any idea that there would be an attack like this. Below is a link to an album cover from a band called "The Coup". It is black American "Party Music". The album was sold long before today's bombing. The album cover shows both towers of the World Trade Center in New York in flames:

The Coup -- Party Music, album cover shows the World Trade Center towers burning.

If black rap artists can have this idea, why didn't the intelligence agencies have it? The idea was not particularly innovative, since the World Trade Center had already been bombed once. Did the intelligence agencies think that those who did it would just stop trying?

From one of the Stratfor articles: "Reuters is reporting that Arabic satellite television channel MBC warned Sept. 8 that followers of suspected Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden were planning a major attack on U.S. and Israeli interests in the next two weeks."

Violence is Assumed. Commentators on three of the largest U.S. TV networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, have made comments that assume without debate that the U.S. will engage in military action in retaliation. One U.S. senator said on TV that the U.S. response should be comparable to the U.S. response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. One of the U.S. responses at the time of Pearl Harbor was to be the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. Is the senator suggesting that?

This is my reply to the many people who are recommending violence as an answer to violence:

Do you have any thought that violence in retaliation might be a mistake, and might just invite further violence? Those who say no may change their minds after they consider the following issues:

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed were in any way directly threatening the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, friends and families and wives.

Most of the citizens of the U.S. had, and have, no idea of the beliefs of the people that their government killed. Most people in the U.S. cannot even locate the countries the U.S. government bombed on a map of the world. People cannot be thought to have chosen violence when they do not come close to understanding the issues. It is often the government that chooses violence, not the people.

No matter how violent a country is, or how many people a violent country kills, there is still an inexhaustible supply of people in other countries who also want to engage in violence. Violence can be unending. Do you want that?

No matter how angry you are, there are thousands of people who are more angry than you. Do you want them to attack you?

As was mentioned above, the Bush administration recently increased U.S. support for the violence of the Israelis. This was sure to make the people being killed by the Israelis unhappy. Do you find it surprising that some of them are motivated to violence also?

There are many countries where people are severely distressed by Israeli violence. Recently there was a TV news story about street violence in which Israelis were killed. The Israeli counter-attack was shown on TV: A helicopter fired rockets at a building, causing huge explosions. It is not important in this instance whether the Israelis are the aggressors. What is important is that a significant number of people in the world think they are the aggressors.

The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God. The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl.

It is not difficult to understand the thoughts of the Arabs. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live next to a group of people who claim that they are superior, and that Arabs are inferior. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like you as much.

It is also not difficult to understand that the constant claims of the Jews of superiority over everyone else (including people of European descent like me) are mentally de-centering to Arabs who happen to be psychologically conflicted.

Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people. Mentally de-centered people engage in violence. It's that simple. Being violent toward them makes mentally de-centered people even more mentally de-centered. That's why violence is not a good answer to violence.

The U.S., and all those who hate violence, should take very strong action. But the action must be designed to cure the problem of highly-conflicted, mentally de-centered people. Whatever that response is, it must be more sophisticated than violence.

The terrorists are extreme examples of mentally disturbed people. Remember that those who crashed airplanes into the buildings cannot possibly benefit from their own actions. They are dead. Someone who is willing to commit suicide is about as mentally de-centered as it is possible to be.

Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country? How many people here really understand this dispute? What percentage of the citizens of the U.S. can even find Israel on a map of the world? I think the percentage is low.

I find the arrogance of my Jewish friends annoying, too. However, there are many differences between myself and the terrorists. I am less conflicted. I am better educated. It doesn't matter to me what other people have been saying for thousands of years; I don't believe Jews actually are superior. I don't live in an area where I am at risk of being killed by Israelis. I am not Arab, so I am not the target of the strongest claims of Jews that they are superior.

I can also understand why Jews would find Arabs annoying. There is an element of the Arab culture that allows Arabs to think that lies are sometimes acceptable. My Arab friends have sometimes lied to me over trivial issues. To someone who values careful thought, lies are extremely repugnant.

Should we be giving Israel money when that will be seen as us a choosing to enter a 3,300 year-old conflict? The U.S. government gives billions of dollars every year to Israel. If anything, this money seems to have made Israel weaker. The Israelis have spent money they didn't earn; this is always a corrupting influence; they have had problems with inflation. It can hardly be said that the people of the U.S. give the money; most have no idea that money is going to Israel. So, the people pay the money, but the government gives it away. Rightly or wrongly, sensibly or crazily, the Arabs see this money as encouragement of Israel's violence toward them.

On this particular issue both cultures are crazy! They've been killing each other since the time of the Pharaohs! What does this have to do with the U.S.? Do we walk into bars and take part in any fight that is happening there?

The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries. We often hear about secret activities of the U.S. government after it is too late to object. The U.S. supported the killing of president Mossadegh of Iran, and then supported an extremely weak man, the Shah of Iran. (See Iran 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings) [thirdworldtraveler.com], for example.) This provoked a revolution in Iran that was hostile to the United States. Citizens of the U.S. were kept hostage.

The U.S. secret agencies' secret answer to the anti-U.S. sentiment was to support Saddam Hussein of Iraq against Iran. We supported Saddam Hussein's violent war against Iran. However, when Saddam Hussein became violent toward another country in the region, we spent billions of dollars to kill an estimated 150,000 Iraqis and destroy their property.

When executives do things openly they make lots of mistakes, and are sometimes held accountable, usually in a very peaceful way, and usually by their own staffs. When executives do things in secret, there is little accountability, and the mistakes can become huge.

Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of Chilean General Rene Schneider. The show aired on Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project [gwu.edu]

PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there" [pbs.org]

Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile [state.gov]

Iran, Iraq, and Chile are just three of the countries that have suffered from secret U.S. involvement. There is some discussion of U.S. government interference in Saudi Arabia below. Also, don't forget Nicaragua. I asked someone who went to Nicaragua during U.S. involvement there whether it was possible to see the wealth that the U.S. government was pouring into that small country. The amount was said to be about $1,000,000 per day. I was told, no, there was no evidence of the money that was spent.

There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. uses the violent retaliation as a justification for more hidden activity.

Invading countries and killing the residents and destroying their property is not a way of relating I consider socially skilled. Why do the citizens of one country think they can kill the citizens of another? If killing is the answer, can't the U.S. ask a better question?

The interference in the affairs of other countries by the secret U.S. agencies has prompted some people to retaliate. These people who retaliate are called "terrorists" in the U.S. The terrorists make everyone in the U.S. less safe. So, U.S. citizens have, in some ways, gotten less security for the money they spent on secret activities.

The violent attitude toward people outside the U.S. has, predictably, spread to the internal police forces in the U.S. When some religious fanatics decided to do stupid things in Waco, Texas, the U.S. government responded by bringing in very violent-minded people. The result was that people were killed.

There were people who didn't like the activities of the U.S. police forces in Waco. There were people who were psychologically de-centered by these activities. One of them, Timothy McVeigh, bombed a U.S. government building in Oklahoma. So then the U.S. government killed him.

Secrecy encourages people not to trust. Violence encourages violence.

We tend to hear about the activities of secret U.S. government agencies about 30 years after they occur. What are they doing now?

It is 10:00 o'clock. Do you know what the U.S. government is doing? No, it is a fact that you don't. You don't know any other time, either. You cannot even know how much of your money is spent on secret activities, because the budget for secret U.S. government agencies is hidden in other appropriations.

Definition of a terrorist: The other country's CIA.

There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures. Arab friends of mine have described situations in Saudi Arabia that are extremely volatile. Apparently Osama bin Laden, and many average Saudis who live in the U.S., feel very unhappy with U.S. influence in Saudi Arabia. They think that there should be political parties and democracy in Saudi Arabia. However, the U.S. government strongly supports the dictatorial regime of the house of Al Saud. Residents of Saudi Arabia, for example, are not allowed to leave the country without an exit visa. They are potentially prisoners of their own country.

Why not ask ourselves why Osama bin Laden is willing to go to so much trouble to promote terrorism? Maybe we would learn something. I am NOT saying Osama bin Laden is right about anything, and definitely his violence is reprehensible. Nevertheless it may help to understand him. According to Arabs to whom I've talked, there is considerable good reason to be dissatisfied with the secret actions of the U.S. government.

As other people have said in the past, the U.S. government has a history of supporting corrupt dictatorships. The U.S. government supported Pakistan against India! India is the world's most populous democracy. It has been suggested that the preference for supporting dictatorships is due to U.S. government corruption. A dictator is almost certain to be willing to support embezzlement of U.S. government money, and to keep it secret. Trying to arrange embezzlement would be very dangerous in a democracy because of the danger of being discovered.

Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think. It has always annoyed me that people who call themselves Christian often reveal that they don't really believe in the important messages of Christianity, and that they don't even understand those messages.

Basically, Jesus Christ's idea of not returning violence with violence means that we can vigorously protect ourselves, but that any response must be the true minimum necessary to achieve security. This is a theory that can be recommended even to the majority of people in the world who are not Christian. The theory seems to fit the facts. The facts seem to be that violence always has severely negative side-effects that overwhelm any effect that might be seen as positive.

Answers? Prevention is an answer. Better understanding is an answer. Being charitable long before any problems begin occurring is a good answer. And maybe there are times when we just don't know the answer.

There is often considerable misunderstanding about non-violent methods. One reason to suggest non-violent methods is that they can be extremely powerful. For example, suppose that representatives from the U.S. knew Osama bin Laden's family. Or suppose that you understood how money is transferred to bin Laden. Or suppose the U.S. was so well-liked in the region that bin Laden had difficulty finding supporters. One of the values of non-violent methods is that literally hundreds of them are available, and many of them are far, far cheaper than violence.

The desire for non-violence is a desire to be extremely powerful. Those who are really powerful can have a strong influence just by voicing disapproval.

There are many people who support violence because they want to act out their own personal anger, while at the same time hiding their internal conflict from themselves. It is a fact that such people would be FAR more comfortable if they could be helped to understand and take responsibility for their anger. Acting out anger is like a drug. It provides only temporary relief, and it makes the person who does it more angry. Having un-recognized anger is like carrying a 100-pound sack of cement on your back wherever you go. Un-recognized anger drags you down 24 hours per day.

Violence is not a good answer to violence.

Regards,

Michael Jennings

Michael Jennings
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

E-Mail: M_Jennings@USA.com

This letter maybe sent to anyone by email without permission from the author, provided that no changes are made. If you print this article with no changes, you may give it to anyone you know. Other use requires permission. Copyright 2001.

Please mention errors and shortcomings to the author.

Wasn't it possible to rescue people from the rooves of the burning WTO buildings using helicopters?

Was UA flight 93 shot down over Somerset County PA? (Even if the F16s were not air bourn at the time, what about a SAM?) Would the USAF admit doing it if they did? (This Economist article suggests doing so would have been illegal.)

Subject: What should be the response to violence?

September 11, 2001

Everyone,

As is often the case, the Economist seems to have the best story: America under Attack

Also see The Economist front page

One of the important points made in the article is that security in U.S. airports and on U.S. airplanes before the bombing was lax compared to the security in Europe.

The Economist article does not mention that the Bush Administration in the U.S. had recently increased its support for the Israeli government and therefore also Israeli violence. The Clinton administration, in contrast, was more careful not to do things which could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

It is amazing to me that "intelligence" authorities claim that they did not have any idea that there would be an attack like this. Below is a link to an album cover from a band called "The Coup". It is black American "Party Music". The album was sold long before today's bombing. The album cover shows both towers of the World Trade Center in New York in flames:

The Coup -- Party Music, album cover shows the towers burning.

Commentators on three of the largest U.S. TV networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, have made comments that assume without debate that the U.S. will engage in military action in retaliation. One U.S. senator said on TV that the U.S. response should be comparable to the U.S. response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. The U.S. response at the time of Pearl Harbor was to be the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons, causing genetic damage that continued long after Japan became a favored trading partner of the U.S.

Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think. It has always annoyed me that people who call themselves Christian often reveal that they don't really believe in the important messages of Christianity, and that they don't even understand those messages.

Basically, Jesus Christ's idea of not returning violence with violence means that we can protect ourselves, but that any response must be the true minimum necessary to achieve security. This is a theory that can be recommended even to the majority of people in the world who are not Christian. The theory seems to fit the facts. The facts seem to be that violence always has severely negative side-effects that overwhelm any effect that might be seen as positive.

This is my reply to the many people who are recommending violence as an answer to violence:

Do you have any thought that violence in retaliation might be a mistake, and might just invite further violence?

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people.

These people had mothers and fathers, friends and families and wives. Most of the citizens of the U.S. had, and have, no idea of the beliefs of the people that their government killed. Most people in the U.S. cannot even locate the countries the U.S. government bombed on a map of the world.

No matter how violent a country is, or how many people a violent country kills, there is still an inexhaustible supply of people in other countries who also want to engage in violence. Violence can be unending. Do you want that?

No matter how angry you are, there are thousands of people who are more angry than you. Do you want them to attack you?

The Bush administration recently increased U.S. support for the violence of the Israelis. This was sure to make the people being killed by the Israelis unhappy. Do you find it surprising that some of them are motivated to violence also?

There are many countries where people are severely distressed by Israeli violence. Recently there was a TV news story about street violence in which Israelis were killed. The Israeli counter-attack was shown on TV: A helicopter fired rockets at a building, causing huge explosions. It is not important in this instance whether the Israelis are the aggressors. What is important is that a significant number of people think they are the aggressors.

The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God. The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl.

It is not difficult to understand the thoughts of the Arabs. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live next to a group of people who claim that they are superior, and that Arabs are inferior. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like you as much.

It is also not difficult to understand that the constant claims of the Jews of superiority over everyone else (including people of European descent like me) is mentally de-centering to Arabs who happen to be psychologically conflicted. Mentally de-centered people engage in violence. It's that simple.

Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country? How many people here really understand this dispute? What percentage of the citizens of the U.S. can even find Israel on a map of the world? I think the percentage is low.

I find the arrogance of my Jewish friends annoying, too. However, there are many differences between myself and the terrorists. I am less conflicted. I am better educated. It doesn't matter to me what other people have been saying for thousands of years; I don't believe Jews actually are superior. I don't live in an area where I am at risk of being killed by Israelis. I am not Arab, so I am not the target of the strongest claims of Jews that they are superior.

Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people. Being violent makes mentally de-centered people even more mentally de-centered. That's why violence is not a good answer to violence. Prevention is a good answer. Better understanding is a good answer. Being charitable long before any problems begin occurring is a good answer. But violence is not a good answer to violence.

Regards,

Michael Jennings

Subject: What should be the response to violence?

September 11, 2001

Everyone,

As is often the case, the Economist seems to have the best story: America under Attack

Also see The Economist front page

One of the important points made in the article is that security in U.S. airports and on U.S. airplanes before the bombing was lax compared to the security in Europe.

The Economist article does not mention that the Bush Administration in the U.S. had recently increased its support for the Israeli government and therefore also Israeli violence. The Clinton administration, in contrast, was more careful not to do things which could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

It is amazing to me that "intelligence" authorities claim that they did not have any idea that there would be an attack like this. Below is a link to an album cover from a band called "The Coup". It is black American "Party Music". The album was sold long before today's bombing. The album cover shows both towers of the World Trade Center in New York in flames:

The Coup -- Party Music, album cover shows the towers burning.

Commentators on three of the largest U.S. TV networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, have made comments that assume without debate that the U.S. will engage in military action in retaliation. One U.S. senator said on TV that the U.S. response should be comparable to the U.S. response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. The U.S. response at the time of Pearl Harbor was to be the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons, causing genetic damage that continued long after Japan became a favored trading partner of the U.S.

Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think. It has always annoyed me that people who call themselves Christian often reveal that they don't really believe in the important messages of Christianity, and that they don't even understand those messages.

Basically, Jesus Christ's idea of not returning violence with violence means that we can protect ourselves, but that any response must be the true minimum necessary to achieve security. This is a theory that can be recommended even to the majority of people in the world who are not Christian. The theory seems to fit the facts. The facts seem to be that violence always has severely negative side-effects that overwhelm any effect that might be seen as positive.

This is my reply to the many people who are recommending violence as an answer to violence:

Do you have any thought that violence in retaliation might be a mistake, and might just invite further violence?

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people.

These people had mothers and fathers, friends and families and wives. Most of the citizens of the U.S. had, and have, no idea of the beliefs of the people that their government killed. Most people in the U.S. cannot even locate the countries the U.S. government bombed on a map of the world.

No matter how violent a country is, or how many people a violent country kills, there is still an inexhaustible supply of people in other countries who also want to engage in violence. Violence can be unending. Do you want that?

No matter how angry you are, there are thousands of people who are more angry than you. Do you want them to attack you?

The Bush administration recently increased U.S. support for the violence of the Israelis. This was sure to make the people being killed by the Israelis unhappy. Do you find it surprising that some of them are motivated to violence also?

There are many countries where people are severely distressed by Israeli violence. Recently there was a TV news story about street violence in which Israelis were killed. The Israeli counter-attack was shown on TV: A helicopter fired rockets at a building, causing huge explosions. It is not important in this instance whether the Israelis are the aggressors. What is important is that a significant number of people think they are the aggressors.

The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God. The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl.

It is not difficult to understand the thoughts of the Arabs. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live next to a group of people who claim that they are superior, and that Arabs are inferior. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like you as much.

It is also not difficult to understand that the constant claims of the Jews of superiority over everyone else (including people of European descent like me) is mentally de-centering to Arabs who happen to be psychologically conflicted. Mentally de-centered people engage in violence. It's that simple.

Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country? How many people here really understand this dispute? What percentage of the citizens of the U.S. can even find Israel on a map of the world? I think the percentage is low.

I find the arrogance of my Jewish friends annoying, too. However, there are many differences between myself and the terrorists. I am less conflicted. I am better educated. It doesn't matter to me what other people have been saying for thousands of years; I don't believe Jews actually are superior. I don't live in an area where I am at risk of being killed by Israelis. I am not Arab, so I am not the target of the strongest claims of Jews that they are superior.

Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people. Being violent makes mentally de-centered people even more mentally de-centered. That's why violence is not a good answer to violence. Prevention is a good answer. Better understanding is a good answer. Being charitable long before any problems begin occurring is a good answer. But violence is not a good answer to violence.

Regards,

Michael Jennings

Opinion stuff: National Review Online
The Economist
The best commentary I've picked up today.

Here.

son of paperclip

in praise of Bayes

son of paperclip

in praise of Bayes

There is an incredible article from the Economist about voter apathy and how different [it was really hard to keep from capitalizing that] Al Gore and George Bush really are.

If you truly feel that the candidates are Al Bush and George Gore I seriously suggest reading This Story.

Your vote really does mean something, even if you don't like either candidate.

There is an incredible article from the Economist about voter apathy and how different [it was really hard to keep from capitalizing that] Al Gore and George Bush really are.

If you truly feel that the candidates are Al Bush and George Gore I seriously suggest reading This Story.

Your vote really does mean something, even if you don't like either candidate.