This is a very good point and should be modded up. Sounds like it was hardly a library (in the academic/research sense) in the first place. Still, some of the comments recorded in the CBS article are disturbing for a pedantic academic such as myself.
You're right, this really does depend on the field.
I'm in history and while a great number of journals are now online (which is incredibly usefulu) the vast majority of books (and here I'm talking about recent as well as older books) are not online and I doubt they will be any time soon.
But, I can certainly see how the internet could provide most of what researchers in other fields -- especially those based more on journal studies, etc. (e.g. medicine) rather than those that also rely on book-length studies like my field.
There is *NOTHING* on the web that can compare, in both depth and breadth, to a well stocked research library. Use the internet to get quick, on-point information - a particular stat or an overview of something; you go to a library if you want to spend a lot of time doing some in depth study with materials that far outclass what you are going to find on the web.
Exactly right. I taught an upper-level undergraduate history course this past spring. When the papers came in I could immediately tell who used the internet for their research and who used scholarly books from the library. Internet sources are at best a searching tool or starting point for academic research. For the real work there is no substitute for a brick and mortar library with paper books. This might eventually change to some degree, but I tend to believe in the staying power of books -- augmented when it makes sense, by digital.
The wikipedia entry is a pretty decent short introduction. I'm not sure though how you took that article to explain how scholasticism "kept us down."
In fact, scholastic philosophers enjoyed quite a bit of academic freedom, even when their positions based on philosophy conflicted with how they read the scriptures or with religious dogma. This was allowed and to a large degree even encouraged by the church.
Scholasticism was by no means a narrow means of thinking and in fact it has a reputation for answering questions that no one ever asked. Scholasticism was instrumental in creating the institution of the modern university.
It also played an important role in the development of the history of science. While the scholastics (as scholastics) were usually not that concerned with observation of nature but rather with a logical explanation of nature, they did contribute habits of mind and ways of communicating scholarly discourse that can be seen to have been very important in the development of modern scientific method.
One must be careful not to equate scholasticism with modern bible thumping fundamentalism. They are quite different, and in fact scholasticism in many ways opposes and contradicts the assumptions of the fundamentalists. It seeks to harmonize reason and faith, philosophy and theology, science and religion while maintaining a proper respect and independence for each as ways to reach the same truth. When demonstrated science/reason conflicts with an aspect of faith it is assumed that the aspect of faith has been misunderstood and that a new understanding is needed -- by no means are scholastic thinkers scriptural literalists.
I am not aware of anything being "lost" due to the scholastic enterprise and rather than keeping us down I would argue that scholasticism was a very significant step toward progress (as much as I generally avoid theories of progress) and in fact that it is still useful as a method.
Sorry to have given a rambling and partial response (many others have explained scholasticism much better than I), but it's early and I've not yet had my coffee.
My main objection to addressing Intelligent Design in a philosophy class is that it would be a waste of time. Why not discuss Hume, Locke, Kant, Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle.
And nothing happened between Aristotle and Hume? Presumably you simply overlooked Descartes, but what about the medieval schoolmen (esp. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam)? Without them we would likely not have modern philosophy and it's entirely possible that we wouldn't even know of Plato or Aristotle without them either. Plus these medieval thinkers can be pretty interesting in their own right. I'm not saying that the philosophers you mention shouldn't be studies -- they certainly should -- but at the same time well over 1000 years of thought should not be passed over as if it never happened.
If you like recent philosophers then discuss Hare, Quine, Foucault, or Foote.
And you think Foucault isn't a waste of time? (I'm kidding, of course,... well not entirely)
"Equal Time" indeed...it should be equal, 0 hours on creationism (by whatever name) and 0 hours on evolution.
For the most part I agree with this. Introducing the theories (as scientific theories) on evolutionary change seems quite appropriate in a public/secular/government school. Pontificating on origins in the same course seems less appropriate, especially since science has been deemed authoritative and nearly infallible in our society.
In my opinion, origins, whether it be creationism, intelligent design, evolution, big bang, etc. belongs more appropriately in a philosophy class, where healthy debate can proceed with greater freedom than in a "science" course. But, of course, philosophy isn't really taught in most high schools anymore.
I think however that "intelligent design" in practice is the re-invention of medieval scholasticism. "How do we take views that conflict with christian orthodoxy that are useful, and reconcile them with Biblical Truth". That has no business in public school, and history documents clearly that such dark age thinking held society in place for a thousand years in wretched conditions. We do not want to go back there.
With all due respect, you seem to be quite ignorant regarding medieval scholasticism and its influence in history.
I think that the point needs to be made that this is not new information. That is, Lazarus' search was done using publically available real estate information. This has always been public information (in the U.S.). The difference now is that instead of having to call various county clerks/assessors, etc. he was able to do it from his computer. The internet does make it a lot easier though.
The Downing Street memo does not represent "the fact that the US government was deliberately 'fixing the facts around the policy." The Downing Street memo represents no "fact" about US policy but rather is recorded hearsay (essentially hearsay three-times removed: staffer recording the minutes of a British cabinet meeting were officials were relating their impressions of the impressions of unnamed Americans they had spoken to).
For more on this and other aspects of the non-importance of this memo see the following opinion piece : http://tinyurl.com/7fzwg
On your point about a coalition, the US had a coalition for this Iraq war even if it did not have the backing of the UN (which, with the financial ties France and Russia appear to have had with the Husein regime was never likely) . I respectfully disagree with your assertion that post-war Iraq would look better if the UN helped out more. The UN does not have an exceptional record in this regard (the corruption following the first Iraq war is just one example). How would the UN have helped prevent looting? And please don't tell me its because of the fear that those blue helmets strike into the heart of the enemy.
Also, I think you assign too much importance to an attitude. If a country is unwilling to help in an effort that is right (assuming, for sake of argument that it is) but decides not to due to the "attitude" of one of the parties (which is what you seem to imply), then that nation's help would only be half-hearted at best anyway.
Most of Iraqi society is functioning quite well with very little or no presence of US/UK troops.
[me]Comparing car acidents or smoking-related (not "caused", no causal link with tobacco has been established, only a correlation with excessive smoking) is to my mind a non sequitur
[...]
[me again]The war (and home security measures) has so far prevented another 9/11.
[you]I think your non-sequitur detector is only working sporadically....
You got me here. You're absolutely correct. I give myself a demerit.
[you]I think "berserk" part of the decision was the method by which they gathered support for the invasion: by deliberately lying to the public. It's the dishonesty, as much as anything else, that has cost the US leadership their moral legitimacy, and led to many of the problems in Iraq today. Few people (in Iraq or elsewhere) feel genuine loyalty to a bald faced liar.
Although I am not sure that the OP applied "berserk" in the way you interpret it, I do object to the "liar" charge. Just because information is later found not to be accurate does not mean it was originally a lie. I assume we are talking about how Bush "lied" about Saddam's weapons capabilities in order to justify going to war. If we are it is important to remember that before the war no one argued that Husein did not have such weapons or was aggressively seeking them -- even the French believed this -- the debate was over how to deal with them and with Husein. Now that no such weapons have been found does not mean that Bush or anyone else lied about believing that they were there.
In any case, I do not believe that this has led to "many of the problems in Iraq today." I feel that Iraq is moving in the right direction and in relative quick time too (did you think everything would be nice and happy two weeks after Saddam's statue fell? no one complained, or else no one remembers anyone complaining when it took several years after WWII for Germany and Japan to return to normal -- and these were both functioning societies prior to that war) It is remarkable how quickly Iraq was able to hold elections and also the degree to which most of Iraq (with a few notable exceptions - Baghdad and Falujah esp) has become a free and functioning society.
Whether Iraqis feel genuine loyalty to the US doesn't matter. Iraq is building its own new government and that is where the Iraqi people should (or should not) be placing their loyalties. Whether Iraqis think Bush lied or not should make no difference on what is going on over there right now.
First, thank you for your respectful tone. I'm happy we've been able to keep this civil, which does not always happen when such matters are discussed in such forums.
With that said, we may have to agree to disagree, which is fine by me. I think we both have similar objectives but have fundamentally different ways of achieving them, and since I (and presumably you too) have no direct power over the situation it is not worth it to expend too much energy arguing.
>>I believe that terrorism coming from Iraq could be prevented much better through non-war means (spies, special forces) than this questionable war.
I'm partly in agreement, partly not. First, I don't believe that any significant amount of terrorism is currently coming from Iraq. Going into yes, but coming out no. Also, I don't see the worldwide incidence of terrorism as having increased since the US entered Iraq. If anything it seems to have decreased.
As for the part I agree: Although I see spies, special forces, etc. as being war forces, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on these methods than on regular military. As far as I can tell though a shift towards special forces is occuring although we're way behind on the spying.
>>Afganistan was covering known criminals, Syria and Lebanon have done such things - but I haven't heard Iraq ever being seriously accused for it.
Although it is disputable (what isn't), there is to my mind credible evidence that Husein was harboring terrorists. Also, it is known without a doubt that Husein was supporting Palestinian terrorists (he was publically awarding their family's money).
With regard to the car accidents argument, health care, etc. it seems that we have fundamentally different views of what the federal government is supposed to or can do. Military matters and national security are clearly in the purview of the US Federal Government, and thus spending tax money on the military is justified and in fact constitutionally mandated. No one seriously doubts this. Police patrols are state and local matters, many aspects of automobile safety are at best a state matter, and I'm very wary of any state control of health care (this gives the government way too much control over personal liberties). Moreover, just "throwing a billion dollars" at health care, police, public education, etc. etc. very rarely has the intended affect.
I will also disagree on your assesment of the status of democracy in Iraq. Although rarely covered on the major news outlets (which tend to focus on the handful of hot spots -- Fallujah, Baghdad) the majority of the country is doing quite well and is enjoying peace. Schools, businesses, etc are functioning quite well in most of the country.
Anarchy exists in only a few places and saying that it was better during Husein's reign is like saying at least Mussolini made sure the trains ran on time.
Okay, perhaps we're a little closer on this than I first thought. Yes, punish the terrorists -- obviously I agree here. Yes, also do not cluster bomb areas they are suspected of living in -- this is one of my biggest dissapointments with the U.S.-led war. We're so in love our air power and also with the post-Vietnam idea of zero casulties we were too reluctant to go house to house on the ground (although I believe that is what the US is now doing).
I disagree with your thought on disregarding politics. Terrorism is by its nature political and most terrorism needs state or quasi-state support to survive. Terrorists as individuals need to be rooted out but so does their network of support (both material and otherwise).
Comparing car acidents or smoking-related (not "caused", no causal link with tobacco has been established, only a correlation with excessive smoking) is to my mind a non sequitur.
Terrorists, if allowed to grow in power could do more damage than car accidents (the immediate physical impact could be devestating but beyond that there is the ripple effect in financial markets which have long term effects that impact everyong, not just the rich).
The war (and home security measures) has so far prevented another 9/11. By remaking Iraq into a modern free state it can also help the entire middle east and also help to alleviate many of the root causes for terrorism.
Also, it was by no means a rash "berserk" decision (not only did it take a long time before the US went to war but regime change had been US policy since Clinton in 1998)
>> The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.
This is false reasoning. The desperate do not usually become terrorists, they are too busy trying to care for themselves or their families. It is the bored and moderately well-to-do (quite often educated in the self-loathing West) who are more likely to become coward terrorists.
>>The only pressure that would 'kill them at the source' would be a full-scale genocide, killing everybody of a threatening (ethnical, religious, etc) group, their relatives, the relatives of relatives, their friends, relatives of their friends....
This is an absurd statement. It is quite possible to find, pinpoint, and kill terrorists and it would be even easier if we our intelligence services had not been neutered in the 1990s. It will take some time to build up our own Arabic speaking agents as well making greater inroads into Arabic terrorist networks (including having to deal with some unsavory characters).
Besides killing and arresting present terrorists, we do need to address some of the root causes of terrorism. Some of them, I think, are the same causes that you probably see -- but many of them, I would argue, are quite different than what many would assume. But to think that we will somehow persuade current terrorists to stop blowing things up is dangerously irresponsible.
"What I didn't realize was that they were going to pull me out of teaching to do full-time research at the Vatican. There's a small group of about a dozen Jesuits at the Vatican. I'm one of them. We come from all over the world. We all do just full-time astronomy. But in addition, I do a lot of public talks and things like my participation in this conference."
c) Games: This really hit when TCP/IP games became popular over the internet. Less need to lug your PC over to a friends' for a LAN party, and you mom can play solitaire with your aunt in another country
Perhaps I've not kept up with Solitaire, but how/why would your mom play solitaire with anyone much less your aunt in another country.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very good point and should be modded up. Sounds like it was hardly a library (in the academic/research sense) in the first place. Still, some of the comments recorded in the CBS article are disturbing for a pedantic academic such as myself.
You're right, this really does depend on the field.
I'm in history and while a great number of journals are now online (which is incredibly usefulu) the vast majority of books (and here I'm talking about recent as well as older books) are not online and I doubt they will be any time soon.
But, I can certainly see how the internet could provide most of what researchers in other fields -- especially those based more on journal studies, etc. (e.g. medicine) rather than those that also rely on book-length studies like my field.
There is *NOTHING* on the web that can compare, in both depth and breadth, to a well stocked research library. Use the internet to get quick, on-point information - a particular stat or an overview of something; you go to a library if you want to spend a lot of time doing some in depth study with materials that far outclass what you are going to find on the web.
Exactly right. I taught an upper-level undergraduate history course this past spring. When the papers came in I could immediately tell who used the internet for their research and who used scholarly books from the library. Internet sources are at best a searching tool or starting point for academic research. For the real work there is no substitute for a brick and mortar library with paper books. This might eventually change to some degree, but I tend to believe in the staying power of books -- augmented when it makes sense, by digital.
The wikipedia entry is a pretty decent short introduction. I'm not sure though how you took that article to explain how scholasticism "kept us down."
In fact, scholastic philosophers enjoyed quite a bit of academic freedom, even when their positions based on philosophy conflicted with how they read the scriptures or with religious dogma. This was allowed and to a large degree even encouraged by the church.
Scholasticism was by no means a narrow means of thinking and in fact it has a reputation for answering questions that no one ever asked. Scholasticism was instrumental in creating the institution of the modern university.
It also played an important role in the development of the history of science. While the scholastics (as scholastics) were usually not that concerned with observation of nature but rather with a logical explanation of nature, they did contribute habits of mind and ways of communicating scholarly discourse that can be seen to have been very important in the development of modern scientific method.
One must be careful not to equate scholasticism with modern bible thumping fundamentalism. They are quite different, and in fact scholasticism in many ways opposes and contradicts the assumptions of the fundamentalists. It seeks to harmonize reason and faith, philosophy and theology, science and religion while maintaining a proper respect and independence for each as ways to reach the same truth. When demonstrated science/reason conflicts with an aspect of faith it is assumed that the aspect of faith has been misunderstood and that a new understanding is needed -- by no means are scholastic thinkers scriptural literalists.
I am not aware of anything being "lost" due to the scholastic enterprise and rather than keeping us down I would argue that scholasticism was a very significant step toward progress (as much as I generally avoid theories of progress) and in fact that it is still useful as a method.
Sorry to have given a rambling and partial response (many others have explained scholasticism much better than I), but it's early and I've not yet had my coffee.
My main objection to addressing Intelligent Design in a philosophy class is that it would be a waste of time. Why not discuss Hume, Locke, Kant, Heidegger, Plato, Aristotle.
And nothing happened between Aristotle and Hume? Presumably you simply overlooked Descartes, but what about the medieval schoolmen (esp. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Occam)? Without them we would likely not have modern philosophy and it's entirely possible that we wouldn't even know of Plato or Aristotle without them either. Plus these medieval thinkers can be pretty interesting in their own right. I'm not saying that the philosophers you mention shouldn't be studies -- they certainly should -- but at the same time well over 1000 years of thought should not be passed over as if it never happened.
If you like recent philosophers then discuss Hare, Quine, Foucault, or Foote.
And you think Foucault isn't a waste of time? (I'm kidding, of course,... well not entirely)
"Equal Time" indeed...it should be equal, 0 hours on creationism (by whatever name) and 0 hours on evolution.
For the most part I agree with this. Introducing the theories (as scientific theories) on evolutionary change seems quite appropriate in a public/secular/government school. Pontificating on origins in the same course seems less appropriate, especially since science has been deemed authoritative and nearly infallible in our society.
In my opinion, origins, whether it be creationism, intelligent design, evolution, big bang, etc. belongs more appropriately in a philosophy class, where healthy debate can proceed with greater freedom than in a "science" course. But, of course, philosophy isn't really taught in most high schools anymore.
I think however that "intelligent design" in practice is the re-invention of medieval scholasticism. "How do we take views that conflict with christian orthodoxy that are useful, and reconcile them with Biblical Truth". That has no business in public school, and history documents clearly that such dark age thinking held society in place for a thousand years in wretched conditions. We do not want to go back there.
With all due respect, you seem to be quite ignorant regarding medieval scholasticism and its influence in history.
I think that the point needs to be made that this is not new information. That is, Lazarus' search was done using publically available real estate information. This has always been public information (in the U.S.). The difference now is that instead of having to call various county clerks/assessors, etc. he was able to do it from his computer. The internet does make it a lot easier though.
The Downing Street memo does not represent "the fact that the US government was deliberately 'fixing the facts around the policy." The Downing Street memo represents no "fact" about US policy but rather is recorded hearsay (essentially hearsay three-times removed: staffer recording the minutes of a British cabinet meeting were officials were relating their impressions of the impressions of unnamed Americans they had spoken to).
For more on this and other aspects of the non-importance of this memo see the following opinion piece : http://tinyurl.com/7fzwg
On your point about a coalition, the US had a coalition for this Iraq war even if it did not have the backing of the UN (which, with the financial ties France and Russia appear to have had with the Husein regime was never likely) . I respectfully disagree with your assertion that post-war Iraq would look better if the UN helped out more. The UN does not have an exceptional record in this regard (the corruption following the first Iraq war is just one example). How would the UN have helped prevent looting? And please don't tell me its because of the fear that those blue helmets strike into the heart of the enemy.
Also, I think you assign too much importance to an attitude. If a country is unwilling to help in an effort that is right (assuming, for sake of argument that it is) but decides not to due to the "attitude" of one of the parties (which is what you seem to imply), then that nation's help would only be half-hearted at best anyway.
Most of Iraqi society is functioning quite well with very little or no presence of US/UK troops.
[me]Comparing car acidents or smoking-related (not "caused", no causal link with tobacco has been established, only a correlation with excessive smoking) is to my mind a non sequitur
[...]
[me again]The war (and home security measures) has so far prevented another 9/11.
[you]I think your non-sequitur detector is only working sporadically....
You got me here. You're absolutely correct. I give myself a demerit.
[you]I think "berserk" part of the decision was the method by which they gathered support for the invasion: by deliberately lying to the public. It's the dishonesty, as much as anything else, that has cost the US leadership their moral legitimacy, and led to many of the problems in Iraq today. Few people (in Iraq or elsewhere) feel genuine loyalty to a bald faced liar.
Although I am not sure that the OP applied "berserk" in the way you interpret it, I do object to the "liar" charge. Just because information is later found not to be accurate does not mean it was originally a lie. I assume we are talking about how Bush "lied" about Saddam's weapons capabilities in order to justify going to war. If we are it is important to remember that before the war no one argued that Husein did not have such weapons or was aggressively seeking them -- even the French believed this -- the debate was over how to deal with them and with Husein. Now that no such weapons have been found does not mean that Bush or anyone else lied about believing that they were there.
In any case, I do not believe that this has led to "many of the problems in Iraq today." I feel that Iraq is moving in the right direction and in relative quick time too (did you think everything would be nice and happy two weeks after Saddam's statue fell? no one complained, or else no one remembers anyone complaining when it took several years after WWII for Germany and Japan to return to normal -- and these were both functioning societies prior to that war) It is remarkable how quickly Iraq was able to hold elections and also the degree to which most of Iraq (with a few notable exceptions - Baghdad and Falujah esp) has become a free and functioning society.
Whether Iraqis feel genuine loyalty to the US doesn't matter. Iraq is building its own new government and that is where the Iraqi people should (or should not) be placing their loyalties. Whether Iraqis think Bush lied or not should make no difference on what is going on over there right now.
Peeteriz,
First, thank you for your respectful tone. I'm happy we've been able to keep this civil, which does not always happen when such matters are discussed in such forums.
With that said, we may have to agree to disagree, which is fine by me. I think we both have similar objectives but have fundamentally different ways of achieving them, and since I (and presumably you too) have no direct power over the situation it is not worth it to expend too much energy arguing.
>>I believe that terrorism coming from Iraq could be prevented much better through non-war means (spies, special forces) than this questionable war.
I'm partly in agreement, partly not. First, I don't believe that any significant amount of terrorism is currently coming from Iraq. Going into yes, but coming out no. Also, I don't see the worldwide incidence of terrorism as having increased since the US entered Iraq. If anything it seems to have decreased.
As for the part I agree: Although I see spies, special forces, etc. as being war forces, I agree that there needs to be more emphasis on these methods than on regular military. As far as I can tell though a shift towards special forces is occuring although we're way behind on the spying.
>>Afganistan was covering known criminals, Syria and Lebanon have done such things - but I haven't heard Iraq ever being seriously accused for it.
Although it is disputable (what isn't), there is to my mind credible evidence that Husein was harboring terrorists. Also, it is known without a doubt that Husein was supporting Palestinian terrorists (he was publically awarding their family's money).
With regard to the car accidents argument, health care, etc. it seems that we have fundamentally different views of what the federal government is supposed to or can do. Military matters and national security are clearly in the purview of the US Federal Government, and thus spending tax money on the military is justified and in fact constitutionally mandated. No one seriously doubts this. Police patrols are state and local matters, many aspects of automobile safety are at best a state matter, and I'm very wary of any state control of health care (this gives the government way too much control over personal liberties). Moreover, just "throwing a billion dollars" at health care, police, public education, etc. etc. very rarely has the intended affect.
I will also disagree on your assesment of the status of democracy in Iraq. Although rarely covered on the major news outlets (which tend to focus on the handful of hot spots -- Fallujah, Baghdad) the majority of the country is doing quite well and is enjoying peace. Schools, businesses, etc are functioning quite well in most of the country.
Anarchy exists in only a few places and saying that it was better during Husein's reign is like saying at least Mussolini made sure the trains ran on time.
Okay, perhaps we're a little closer on this than I first thought. Yes, punish the terrorists -- obviously I agree here. Yes, also do not cluster bomb areas they are suspected of living in -- this is one of my biggest dissapointments with the U.S.-led war. We're so in love our air power and also with the post-Vietnam idea of zero casulties we were too reluctant to go house to house on the ground (although I believe that is what the US is now doing).
I disagree with your thought on disregarding politics. Terrorism is by its nature political and most terrorism needs state or quasi-state support to survive. Terrorists as individuals need to be rooted out but so does their network of support (both material and otherwise).
Comparing car acidents or smoking-related (not "caused", no causal link with tobacco has been established, only a correlation with excessive smoking) is to my mind a non sequitur.
Terrorists, if allowed to grow in power could do more damage than car accidents (the immediate physical impact could be devestating but beyond that there is the ripple effect in financial markets which have long term effects that impact everyong, not just the rich).
The war (and home security measures) has so far prevented another 9/11. By remaking Iraq into a modern free state it can also help the entire middle east and also help to alleviate many of the root causes for terrorism.
Also, it was by no means a rash "berserk" decision (not only did it take a long time before the US went to war but regime change had been US policy since Clinton in 1998)
Yes, and that girl who dressed provacatively was just asking to be raped.
Iraq is not a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. Terrorists are coming into Iraq from other countries. They are not coming out.
Germany never did anything to the US before we went to war against them in WWII. Was it wrong for us to attack them?
>> The more desparate you make the people in Iraq, the more recruits are easily available for terrorist groups.
This is false reasoning. The desperate do not usually become terrorists, they are too busy trying to care for themselves or their families. It is the bored and moderately well-to-do (quite often educated in the self-loathing West) who are more likely to become coward terrorists.
>>The only pressure that would 'kill them at the source' would be a full-scale genocide, killing everybody of a threatening (ethnical, religious, etc) group, their relatives, the relatives of relatives, their friends, relatives of their friends....
This is an absurd statement. It is quite possible to find, pinpoint, and kill terrorists and it would be even easier if we our intelligence services had not been neutered in the 1990s. It will take some time to build up our own Arabic speaking agents as well making greater inroads into Arabic terrorist networks (including having to deal with some unsavory characters).
Besides killing and arresting present terrorists, we do need to address some of the root causes of terrorism. Some of them, I think, are the same causes that you probably see -- but many of them, I would argue, are quite different than what many would assume. But to think that we will somehow persuade current terrorists to stop blowing things up is dangerously irresponsible.
By the way Peeteriz, what is your solution?
Did you even read the article?
"What I didn't realize was that they were going to pull me out of teaching to do full-time research at the Vatican. There's a small group of about a dozen Jesuits at the Vatican. I'm one of them. We come from all over the world. We all do just full-time astronomy. But in addition, I do a lot of public talks and things like my participation in this conference."
c) Games: This really hit when TCP/IP games became popular over the internet. Less need to lug your PC over to a friends' for a LAN party, and you mom can play solitaire with your aunt in another country
Perhaps I've not kept up with Solitaire, but how/why would your mom play solitaire with anyone much less your aunt in another country.