Curious Minds ~ 2001 November Export

Welcome to another of SeniorNet's Books & Literature "general" Discussions: The Curious Mind. Here we hope to bring new and interesting articles that have been made available on the internet. If it appears in internet e-zines, online editions of monthly or weekly magazines, online editions of newspapers or critical journals and reviews, it's fair game for discussion. Not strictly limited to "books and literature", our scope is only defined by the challenging topic, the new point of view - anything that engages and questions and involves - our "curious minds." All articles will appear as an underlined 'link' beside the picture at the top of the page. Just click on the "link" to read this week's featured article.

A new link will be posted approximately every week, unless the pace of our discussion dictates otherwise. Your suggestions are always welcome. If you see an article on the internet that you think would be an interesting discussion topic, please e-mail the link to me. We hope to feature your suggestions.

For our first article, we have the literary editor of The Guardian Unlimited, Robert McCrum. In his essay, entitled Words of Comfort, McCrum addresses an issue many of us here have struggled with since September 11 - the consolations of literature, and it's meaning for us at this particular time in our lives. I found it interesting because it goes to the very heart of literature, to the very heart of what separates us from the savage beast: our use of language and the healing power of words. Our use of language to express our feelings, to express our understanding of our surroundings, to attempt to cope with life's tragedies as well as lifes joys big and small IS literature, is it not?

For me literature has always been a search for familiarity, a search for traces of my own life in the lives of others, real or imagined. It's a way of understanding that, as McCrum says: "You are not alone." At some point we need to let go of the narcotic of 'headline news.' Understanding the events, the reasons for them, remembering the tragic aftermath, grieving the loss, are all worthy goals. What ways have you chosen, a week after the unfolding horror, to understand, to grieve and to cope? Have you found solace in our language? Comfort in words? In a favorite book from your youth? In a poem of loss and remembrance? Have you found escape, if only temporary, in the fictional lives of others? In what way has books and literature been of service to your soul this past week?

Besides tuning more closely to causes and roots, I've immersed myself in some page turning fiction this week as well as thoughtful poetry - they alternate and serve different functions for me. The fiction has been an antidote to the inflamed rhetoric of passion, the poetry a balm for the wounds. As humans, we've all been wounded this past week. We survive, whereas others, an unimaginable amount of others, have not. We owe them many things, perhaps. One of the things we do owe them is to live our lives more authentically, to be worthy of carrying on in their absence. We owe their memory justice. But we must not doubt that those who did not survive would have lived lives of compassion, of grace, and of forgiveness. To do otherwise, is to diminish the possibility inherent in their lives cut short. It is our opportunity now, to multiply the good that might have been, not to increase the hate that was.

Charlie

Hi, MaryPage (and love your "tag").

I shall be here, too. I wonder, is part of what I am feeling Survivor's Guilt?

Survivor's Guilt? Quite possibly, Mrs. W. Avid readers are often tagged with the "frivolous" tag anyway. So there's that baggage to drag around, at any rate. All too ready to bury ourselves away from the world, aren't we?

But it's our reflective mode of engagement, isn't it? Far from being just an escape (and it has that element to it), it's a way of involving ourselves in the world, more fully, and in another way. That escape gives us the necessary distance for perspective, I'd say.

I'm sure that anyone who yearns to get back to a semblance of normalcy, to take up their lives as they were, has a similar sense of "guilt." But return we must, at some point. Warier, perhaps. A little of our innocence tarnished. But wiser. We must always be wiser.
Charlie

It's true that readin brings me into the world more. Areas I've never visited can become familiar. Peering into the minds of people like Hannibal Lecter, Christopher Robin, multiple personality Eve, etc., would not be possible without books. I am a different person because of the richness and breadth of my read-about world. All these years my reading was like a guilty pleasure, escaping from the "real" world. Thank you for the insight.

Mrs. W: One of the points made in the article is that language (literature) has many uses. Escape is certainly one of them And why not? We need that, too, sometimes. Another, as you point out, is the possibility it has to enrich us as people.

Charlie

Just found you here, Charlie, I shall return to read the essay. Meanwhile I am posting something in the History Folder of interest or perhaps I can put it here also quickly - am off to an appointment.

In our paper this morning this: "Afghanistan is not an impregnable fortress......In fact, the region has been stomped on repeatedly in the past 2300 years. Among its conquerors have been the Greeks and Macedonians under Alexander the Great, various Persian empires (centered in what today is Iran, the Muslim Arabs who swept out of Arabia in the seventh century to create an Islamic empire, the Huns, the Mongols of Genghis Khan, and the central Asian hordes of Tamerlane."

My way of coping is learning all I can. I looked in my library for a history of the country, 1 video, 2 histories (I'll check them out) and about 10 copies of the Soviet invasion. Anyone knew a good history of the country to recommend?

Last night late I went through my 11 volume series by Durant, THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION, and looked up Afghanistan in the back of each and then read what they had to say. Do you know the richest king who ever lived reigned in Afghanistan? I was astonished. Mahmud was his name. He plundered India.

New nuggets like this inject me with the JOY of discovery. Self-discovery, as goodness knows, everything I learn has first been learned or experienced by someone else. But if this is to be a place to exchange such exquisite experiences of new knowledge, then this is precisely where I want to be!

ELLA, for fun and valuable information, read CARAVANS by James A. Mitchener. You can get it in paperback. It is set in the Afghanistan of 1946 and published in 1963.

Ella- As a friend of a friend said (he is of Afghani descent), "you can't bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age [a popular "solution"] because that's already been done - by the Russians." Russia DID do that, but their 10-year descent into the quicksand of the Afghani plains was a major contributor to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of this there can be no doubt. When the refrain is heard over and over that this will be a long fight, we should not turn a deaf ear. This is a clear signal that our expectations (if we harbor them) for quick victory should be minimized. Of that, there can be no doubt. I can't recommend a good history of Afghanistan, Ella. Perhaps others can. MaryPage recommends Michener for reading that contains background information on the country. A very rich resource though, is the sabawoon site which offers its Afghanpedia. The sabawoon site will be an interesting one to watch as the war on terrorism plays itself out.

I know it, MaryPage. Finding things like that it almost seems like we SHOULD have known is always a kick. So, DISCOVERY is another integral part of what our reading gives us. Discovery for the value of what is discovered but also for the "exquisite experience" (nicely put) as you call it.
Charlie

Ella, at the washingtonpost.com site, can be found an article called Nonfiction Page-Turneres: Books on Terrorists, CIA, World Trade Center in Demand After Attacks. It is in their books section I think. It's just what you are looking for I would guess. In my own reading, two fiction accounts of the fierce fighters of Afghanastan are Kim by Rudyard Kipling and The Far Pavilions by Kaye,MM. ....elizabeth

Thanks, elizabeth. It was Kipling's poem THE YOUNG BRITISH SOLDIER that starts

When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier ~OF~ the Queen!

and ends with the rather chilling passage

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!

Charlie

Thanks to all of you for your efforts, I appreciate it.

Here is an Internet site that gives enough history for me as I got a headache reading it, but I got enough background information from it to satisfy my curiousity. As you will note this information was published by the State Department in 1994.

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bgnotes/sa/afghanistan9407.html

Thank you Ella for that informative site. Was it in '97 when the Taliban took over?

Given the general theme of our initial article and the thrust of last night's national benefit - music - I've also posted a link from the andante website by David Patrick Stearns, the classical music critic at The Philadelphia Inquirer. The article is entitled The Sound of Consolation. How can music help us at times like these? Are "words of comfort" better equipped to benefit us rather than "sounds of consolation?" Does it depend on the individual, and how he or she is attuned to the world emotionally, intellectually? Stearns admits as such, calling it a "highly personal matter." Stearns also speaks of music as helping us to grow "bigger and wiser", a function we have already identified with literature.

He does a wonderful job of making a case for music that doesn't "co-opt your feelings" but for music that creates an intellectual space in which to work out your own individual responses. I love this and it's something that can be applied to all art: the fine arts, literature, music, as well as the popular arts like cinema and contemporary popular music (such as was featured last night). As much as I was tugged emotionally by Tom Petty's song that contained the refrain "we won't back down" I found myself going back to Neil Young's fine version of Lennon's elegiac "Imagine". I have always been wary of books and film that play too easily with my emotions (and I confess this includes "patriotic" music), much preferring an art that allows me to come to my emotions myself, and therefore more directly and genuinely.

Stearns says: "What's needed isn't validation of sadness and rage - that's available through the news media - but something that aids in the adjustment to and acceptance of a world that's forever changed." Well said, and I couldn't agree more. Do you?

Charlie

I followed your advice and just finished reading the Robert McCrum essay "Words of Comfort". I want to print it out and keep it. Would he mind? Whenever I read something that well written, it makes me wish all the more that I could write that well. When the subject is so outrageous as the Sept.11 tragedy, words other than those of rage don't come easy. I keep thinking of those firemen rushing into the flaming building to try to get people out. " Greater love hath no man.." losalbern

CHARLIE:

In your post #17, you quoted:

"Stearns says: "What's needed isn't validation of sadness and rage - that's available through the news media - but something that aids in the adjustment to and acceptance of a world that's forever changed."

I agree. While I was watching and listening to Billy Joey last night lamenting about New York, pictures kept going through my head. When my sister was alive I visited her in New York every year and we spent a great deal of time in Manhattan. That music I heard gave me the saddest feeling of poignancy I've ever experienced. A profound awareness of a kind of world that is forever gone. "I'm In a New York Frame of Mind" seemed to say it exactly, almost as if we were all saying goodbye. I hope that doesn't sound too maudlin.

Lorrie

Lorrie: I think we need maudlin. They say that tears are necessary for the expression of grief. I taped last night's show, and I intend to watch it, and cry, so that I may pass through this "valley of the shadoe of death" and come out the other side, whole again, but forever changed. This experience is so vast, no one can feel isolated from it, and this may help the world come to a new understanding and acceptance of our shared need to worship but our diversity in doing so. Sadly, the murders of our Sikhs has made them additional martyrs, to be added to the list of victims of the September 11 Holocaust, though their deaths occurred not in flames and mortar dust, but by bullets in places like the Arizona desert.

Charles what a great site - and the article is so poignent - yes my verbose nature has been stuck without words much less hearing other's say the words that soothe, encourage. But than, I remember having experienced personal cataclysmic events that took me years to understand and adapt to the changes in my life. And so these weeks my words have been stuck and I have turned to poetry to read, study and write.

I could say things in my attempts at poetry that I couldn't say to the people I see every day. But then I had an experience not often allowed in my business - I called a gentleman this past Thursday 9/20 that had been to an Open House on 9/9 I held open for one of the sellers I am working with. He and his wife came back to look at the house on 9/10 with a gleam of 'this will be our home' in their eyes. They were renting in the area.

I called them 9/18 with no answer and left a message. Called again 9/20 and Tim answered. We were on the phone together for at least 45 minutes as his fear and confusion and disbelief poured out. Clients never get personal with us and we are seldom ever intimatly close to their experiences. Yes, we often see their reactions to emotions of fear when buying but that's about money not life and loved ones.

His wife is a stewardess for Continental and had to go to work Tuesday. She was working a flight to London. I could taste his fear as he shared how the passangers were being made more safe but not the stewardess' or pilots, how the terrorists had to have someone on the inside of each airline company that fed them this and that information which includes the knowledge of the number of passangers, since no one, except that particular airline has privy to that information.

His savings was all in Coninental stock that was purchased as employees for $30 - worth $45 and now worth $17. That the airlines were like a rock not like the Tech industry that has always been volitive. He repeated so often in the conversation about how rock solid were the airlines, the mainstay of our nation.

This carefree landscaper who rode his motercycle each weekend with his beautiful wife on back can't buy now but, most important a photo was shown on CNN that day of the stewadess that was talking on the phone to the airlines telling them what she was seeing as the plane hit the north tower. To Tim her photo was a carbin copy of his wife's face and blond hair.

His story allowed me to put into words some of what has been stuck in my throat - the poem almost wrote itself - I had no idea where it was going - amazing even to me is the ending line. But that last line is what I think I've desided is a 'fix' and something I can be sure to make a treasure in my life.

The twilight of perfection when all life’s peices are trussed, A trembling insurrection Cries freedom is loose but just. The bastions of freedom cleft, Minds rewired bewailing They jumped, it fell, our grasp left. Black and flame our core now shale. In gloom the mustering stand Beneath the void Tribunal. Hallowed human caravan Stunned still in their last gospel. Have you seen, she’s just married, Please help find this child’s father. Water... buildings... air cracked Deaths noble message, murther!: Snake--wreath'd Alecto
And Megæra railing,
Howling Tisiphon
Evermore wailing.
Pictured on the TV screen Fair of face her golden hair. Seated in his favorite chair The doleful tale stills his scream. Lend your tears for my Maureen. High to London she serves them well. He rocks his muffled fear demeaned. Whose God propels us from this Hell? With vacant eyes he will look Deep within, his faith, his rock. For now all reason has forsook Their shielded treasure sweet love locked.

Oh, I'm so glad we're doing this and what a perfect article with which to begin. I'm gonna love this folder, er, discussion.

Language, music, consolation. Except for the sound of rain (and I'm not kidding, I'm a fanatic about rain), music reaches the unsettled place in me instantly. I have no choice about this. It's a primal, elemental response. I have a choice with words, language. I have to purposely engage language, relax, let myself begin to connect to the message or image. The only "choice" I have with music is the style. If the entire benefit concert last night had been country western, I would have watched, but might have had to hit the Mute button during the music parts, some of them. Folk, ballad, traditional rock, some broadway musicals, many operas, a symphony that supports a piano, Beethoven anything, a lone cello coming right into my breathing...oh, my goodness, I can lower my blood pressure within seconds; jazz, I'm just learning what I've missed, but it has my number.

Sometimes (the lights in the theater just went out and there is complete, deep quiet; someone begins to play one long note on a violin) when the long tapes of the destruction are shown, and I've watched far too many hours of them (but I've told myself my body would know when enough was enough), I imagined a black woman of slave times standing, singing to them, of what she feels. Sometimes, others are added and the sound is broader, deeper, and goes from old spirituals that know of pain but sustained life, to the 40s, 50s timeless slow jazz. Most of the singing is without accompaniment.

I have choices with the written word. I can goof off and miss out on what I most likely would have gained from Soul Mountain, the book. I don't know if it's fair to even say how language has consoled me during last week and this week. I haven't been able to read much. In general, though, language sustains, adds to, changes me permanently, so when I let it, I'm always grateful and still surprised a little. There are two forms. Private reading and what we're doing here. Both provide connection to life in this world....sometimes to let me know I'm not alone and sometimes to deepen my understanding of others or of where we live. I do know I grow more stupid as I read...no, really, the wealth of what I don't know is ever more apparent, the more I read. Someday, I will know absolutely nothing.

betty

Losalbern- By all means, print the article out and keep it. I'm sure he'd be flattered. Interesting thought, too: you seem to be saying that words of rage come easiest of all. I think this is true. Would others agree with this? Most of our first reaction to these tragedies would have been words of rage, then what? Words of sorrow for those lost? Then what? Words of comfort for those who suffered that loss? Words of comfort for ourselves, too, I think. Then words of admiration for the "heroes". These are encouraging words for ourselves at the same time. As Mrs. W says, it all seems to be an almost necessary sequence, a passage that we go through. One hopes that as a people we all get through the entire sequence of feelings and emotions and arrival at understanding that Mrs. W so eloquently writes about. Some seem to be stuck at an earlier stage.

Lorrie- The combination of words and music can be a powerful force. I know that when I've seen a particularly powerful movie, for instance, the song over the closing credits can just blow me away, if it's right.

Barbara has turned to poetry as her balm, as her way of expressing. And poetry, of all the ways we think and put words together seem to be one of the most important ways that our language can provide us solace now. And for some of us now, how else can words even come close to relaying our feelings, other than through poetry?

And that part of language which we recognize as poetry is similar to what comes to our hearing sense in the sounds of nature, isn't it. Of course, Betty. The sound of rain. The sound of thunder. The sound of chirping birds on a spring morning. The sounds of the ocean. These speak to us even more directly than poetry - even more directly than music. I suppose we don't get much more primal than that. I still remember some thirty or so years ago hearing what still remains to me as the almost perfect conjunction of music and nature as I'll ever hope to hear. Laying on the beach just listening to a particularly strong, constant surf, the tide rolling in….and on the radio comes Hey, Jude with it's fade out refrain. The one melded into the other so perfectly as to have been produced by some force beyond my understanding. It was a remarkable experience.

Betty says that someday she will know absolutely nothing. I loved that. Music can fill up that nothingness with infinite wisdom, no? That's it's genius. Gosh, don't mean to demean our theme here, the comfort of words. Our connection through literature is our raison d'etre here, after all. They're liable to kick me out and over to the Music Folder!!
Charlie

Quote from Sound of Consolation ----

"What's needed isn't validation of sadness and rage — that's available through the news media — but something that aids in the adjustment to and acceptance of a world that's forever changed.

Such adjustment isn't optional. And we need all the help we can get."

This article resonated with me. And I thought of all my e-mail pals to whom I could send. Who are struggling with findings ways of consolation. Not that they would necessarily find it thru usual definition of music, but find it somewhere.

And I believe it is a seeking process. An assertive way to live. To sit back and wait and wait will not bring healing. Some sense of finding a new light in a mist of darkness challenges us all. The days afterward I took my kittys out in the yard. And I played with them, watched the butterflys, listened to the birds sing, and enjoyed the music of silence from no airplanes overheard (here it is a constant background sound).

Then I was thinking how close anger resides these days. Just this afternoon I was happily watching the prayer service in NY when my local ABC network stopped the feed and went to stupid programming. Anger took over. I wanted to be with the people as the service came to an end. I did write a protest note. Thankfully I did get to hear the Harlem Boys and Girls choir just before shutoff --- absolutely beautiful.

Great article. Great discussion table.

~Marj

Thanks, Marj. I had not focused on the other part of that quote which we've touched on already - but it's exactly right, isn't it? We do need all the help we can get about now. From poetry, to music, to talking with friends, to hard background information on the issue so that we can be better informed and not react from instinct alone.

You remark also "how close anger resides these days". Very true. And understandable. What we much be vigilant against are those whose anger is NEVER far from the surface. Their rage cannot be seen anymore legitimate now because of this tragedy.

Charlie

A lovely poem from Veronic Shoffstall titled After A While - which speaks to our goodbyes.

After a while you learn
the subtle difference between
holding a hand and chaining a soul
and you learn
that love doesn't mean leaning
and company doesn't always mean security.
And you begin to learn
that kisses aren't contracts
and presents aren't promises
and you begin to accept your defeats
with your head up and your eyes ahead
with the grace of a woman, not the grief of a child
and you learn
to build all your roads on today
because tomorrow's ground is
too uncertain for plans
and futures have a way of fallling down
in mid-flight
After awhile you learn
that even sunshine burns
if you get too much
so you plant your own garden
and decorate your own soul
instead of waiting for someone
to bring you flowers.
And you learn that you really can endure,
you really are strong
and you really do have worth
and you learn
and you learn
with every goodbye, you learn.

Hi, Everyone... If you look for this discussion by scanning the Main Menu page of the Books folder, please be aware it's been moved up to Current Discussions and is no longer down in the General Discussions area.

If you use subscriptions to get here, it won't make any difference to your subscriptions and they'll continue to work just fine.

š jane›

An interesting essay by Robert McCrum as well as some good reminders of words that seem applicable in times such these.

For some reason the lines that kept running through my head the day after the horror of September 11 were not from Shakespeare (though I'm teaching him at present) but from Kubla Khan by S.T. Coleridge:

And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean:
And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war.

Maryal

The drumbeat has been much on my mind lately.

Thanks, Charlie, I think you fixed it. Forgot the old (br) (only with <>, of course).

Even though both articles focus on or make us think about what will bring consolation to us, I happened upon a reminder this morning that suggested our offering consolation to someone else often helps more than anything to feel consoled.

betty

Betty---You are so right. Those who have lost family members and friends need consolation more than anyone!

Maryal, can I attempt this ever-so-respectful disagreement? I think it's important to try not to rank who needs/deserves consolation....and important to just assume that most of us could be on a roller coaster of feeling ok for a few days, then feeling lousy for a few days.

What I was thinking when I wrote about offering consolation to others is that the candidates are all around us. (uh oh, she's gonna tell what happened last Friday) Last Friday, I was dreading my birthday on Saturday, partly because I had carefully said no to 2 really yukky sounding invitations, which required some crossed-fingers fudging in one case, cough cough. Then, on a whim, I called and invited my mother to come see me. It would take too long to explain why this would delight her so much. So, most of Saturday, I was dealing with my mother's happiness runneth-ing over. She looked beautiful in her happiness and did sweet and silly things that made me tease her. I covet those alone times with her and I told her I couldn't remember a better birthday, as I ate her flattened tuna sandwiches she insisted on bringing. Why does it take so much work to remember from one time to the next how good it feels to do something nice for someone else? The unthinking me might have said, oh no, do not bring tuna sandwiches, thinking we deserved something fancier, etc., etc., etc. Anyway, anyway, we all deserve extra care these days.

It does take extra effort (for me at least) to think specifically of doing something for someone else for no reason other than to surprise them - and surprise myself as to how nice it always feels. (I hope I'm not sounding too selfish here. I suppose I am a bit self-centered, but it's not terminal). The act requires some stepping back from ourselves and the everyday hustle and bustle and too often I don't take the time for it. The simplest acts are the easiest to overlook and forget to do. I wonder if it has to do with the pace of my life. We do need to let things in that don't seem indispensable. But they really are, aren't they?
Charlie

Just had a thought -- when we do an act of kindness or consolation it is as if we were throwing a pebble into the like of humanity. Then I realized, if the lake is still we do see the ripples we have caused but if the lake is rough with its own turmoil we do not see the ripples and in fact the ripple my be short lived affecting only a small circle of the mass. Like raindrops on the water during a storm of turmoil we really do need many pebbles creating small circles. With all these pebbles filling the bottom of a lake, when all is said and done, we have a larger, spread out lake mass - hmmmm

Betty--I don't think we disagree. We are just making different points. When a person loses a loved relation or friend, that person needs consolation. We have all been through a traumatic event and we all need to watch out for and console each other.

And we need to take care of ourselves, returning to "regular" routines like eating healthy foods, exercising, and sleeping.

Maryal

Words of Comfort. Words of war. It may be that at times like these, words are chosen more carefully and given greater scrutiny than usual. Our leaders choose their words very carefully (or at least attempt to). The word, the specific word, has been chosen for its particular resonance. And power to move. Move in a certain direction.

Our new war was first named "Infinite Justice". Apparently this didn't go over to well (with our clerics). After all, they said: Only God can dispense that kind of justice. Now I understand we are calling it Enduring Freedom. Enduring connotes 'never ending' and Freedom is the goal that we aim to maintain. With the experience of Vietnam, it is not surprising that the concerted effort to mobilize public opinion has concentrated most of all on the possible "duration" of our efforts. We are told no easy fixes are in sight. We are told that causalities are inevitable and that the price must be paid.

The change in terminology for this "operation" is the second major gaffe in word choice that we have seen already. Our President's use of the word "crusade" made a number of wordsmith's blanch. It's interesting to see the messages that are being sent in the choice of words. Those choices can sometimes tell us all we need to know about where we are headed.

Charlie

Quote from The Sound of Consolation:"Any proper funeral functions for the sake of the survivors, and that means closure. In any external, socio-political sense, that closure will be a long time coming in the wake of these recent world events. We can't wait for that. The solution is a less public, inner closure, one that allows us to go on functioning — and such a closure is elusive in light of events so abrupt and unthinkable. We are on new emotional terrain."

In reading the above article I was prompted by the above quote to evaluate if this is new emotional terrain ? I don't think it is. To me it feels like any grief.Now there is closure for most grief but not for everyone in all cases that is for sure. Consolation comes in small things -Hearing of a new child born makes us know that life is going on as always. Consolation comes in seeing people standing on the White House steps singing God Bless America. Consolation comes putting familiar music on and doing your housework, or working on your hobby, ever mindful that your hands are doing familiar things too and knowing that as Buddha said "All life is sorrowful" still, we carry on. I think it is now as it was in the second world war, there is no closure as it is going on, only suffering, and this war is liable to be a very long one. Individuals find various ways of coping and consolation comes in bits and pieces. Individual inner closure will come to those who are the busiest, the kindest, most loving toward the world and their near and dear ones as it always does. fp

Charlie, that was interesting. I was unaware that the name of our new war had been changed. I did read Ossama bin Laden's message and come to the realization that "crusade" had been a big mistake; but I had not thought of it at the time. I am a very good proofreader, and if I did not pick up on it, I sure cannot fault our president! We have used the word crusade for all of our combats forever, and we were not even a nation at the time of the infamous "crusades." With religion so involved here, our use of wording is going to have to be very, very carefully thought out and gone over.

I see what you mean, Maryal. I had been thinking that this is one of those times that people who feel empty, out of sorts, fearful, anxious, ambivolent (that's me), even seriously depressed....could be thinking, "but I didn't lose anyone, so who am I to complain."

I don't agree with the media's big push, along with all those worried about our economy, to "get back to our real lives." That's like a widow who begins to get the message, ok, that's enough grieving, it's time to be normal. Getting back to normal isn't a group process, either. Each person is on her own timeline and feeling better will come when it comes. I do like what Maryal wrote about taking care of ourselves. Paying attention to sleep and nutrition needs has a direct and immediate impact on emotional health. (We've known that forever, right? How things look in the morning after a good night's sleep can be drastically different than the night before.) Want to know what has the strongest impact on ability to sleep? Alcohol, but in the opposite direction than commonly believed. Someone who has a glass of wine to relax and feel sleepy at bedtime will experience a HIGHER level of alertness than before drinking the wine, as the effects wear off.

betty

Very nicely put, Faith. You have thought a lot about this it would seem to me. I wonder if only Pearl Harbor would compare, for Americans, as an event that would prompt the writer to say "new emotional terrain." Perhaps he was thinking of "his" generation when he said that. It's possible that, in that context, he may be right. Certainly his distinction between private and public closure is valid.

Welcome and thanks for dropping in.
Charlie

Betty- I hear you when you say "Each person is on her own timeline and feeling better will come when it comes." Sometimes I wonder if I'm that insensitive brutish clod that one hears about. I feel "better" already, but wary and fearful of the next events (not events from the outside, but of events of our own policy). Linda, my wife, on the other hand, is still devastated by all of this and I know it's going to take time - and lots of it to heal her heart (which is worn open on the proverbial sleeve).
Charlie

Faith, we were writing on roughly the same subject at the same time....and it sounds like we see things similarly. Grief and emotional upheaval are definitely private experiences and the process of healing (or even coping in the meantime) can be a singular, personal one.

One "but" that came to mind is that it DOES help that others are grappling with these things at the same time. There must be a level of consolation in that.

May I join you for a short time? I have read all the posts and everyone is so eloquent and their words inspire and soothe. I appreciate them. I wish I could find my balm.

I have listened to music, it grates on my mind and ear; I have read 5 minutes at a time and then I am up doing a nothing; I have gone to the store only to return home quickly with much forgotten. I have had dinner with friends and find no previous link; The TV is on it is off. No solace. I am a doer and in this thing I can no longer DO and it is driving me bonkers. I am feeling FLAT and that is not like me. I don't like flat! Anger ok, saddness ok but to be flat oh Me!

I think I know this enemy for I have been reading all I could get my hands on about the Mid-east for umpteen years and even have visited there. And all I can do is listen and watch without gratification of action.

Hope you don't mind this venting.

Much solace can be found in simply expressing your feelings. Since you are a doer, it might help to DO. Donate blood (I know they aren't in dire need, but do it anyway.) Start an exercise program. Knit sox for soldiers (it will be cold there.) Don't get caught up in the "value" of doing, this doing is to heal yourself. And, maybe, you should see your doctor. Many of us are suffering from anxiety. Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome. Depression. Many of these temporary maladies can be help with chemicals which affect the way the brain processes information and sensory stimuli. Whatever it takes. Today is one of my poorer days, I am weepy, it is hard to get through my work, but I KNOW that tomorrow will be better, or the next day. It will not always be like this. That, right now, is the light I need at the end of this ghastly black tunnel.

Going down to give blood was the last straw. They would not take mine "at this time" I am B neg (too rare) I am on call. Sit and wait.

But, Betty… there seems to be a concerted effort at "national" healing. What is that all about, then? Is it that solace that comes from the realization of mutual grappling?

Welcome dig girl. The helplessness part can be the hardest part of coming to terms, especially if you are and have been a "doer." Mrs. Watson's advice is better than anything I can offer.

Charlie

MaryPage- I almost missed your post. It became buried in the flurry of activity here this afternoon.

(Remember everyone - this can happen. If you are composing a message and someone else is doing so at the same time, you may miss one. It's always good to scroll back when you post to make sure you haven't missed anything).

Really, I don't blame Bush for that one either (that's what speech writers are for). I was more taken aback at the time by the wild west imagery of his Wanted: Dead or Alive. I bet that the speech writers have received your cautionary advice already.

Charlie

I'm still trying to take in your post of yesterday, Charlie, since I always, always, see your responses to each poster as thoughtful, kind, unusually inclusive and evidence of what I think of as active listening. Maybe you don't consider that as doing something thoughtful for others, but I do. On the other hand, I guess I need to believe you about this awareness and admit how shocked I was you wrote of it. Shocked as in the good kind. Wow!!

--------------------------------------------

Dig Girl, I liked your word "flat" and how well it fits what you described. I don't know any magic answers, except to suggest you ease up on what you expect of yourself, for now. Can your "do" list include taking short walks, sitting on the porch at dusk, calling friends? Just brainstorming. You probably have better ideas of reduced dos.

Thanks for your responses. Maybe here is an answer.

I got an email from a friend today. It said they are waiting for the other shoe to fall.

I have a little framed needlepoint that says: My daughter has 5 feet. The right foot; The left foot; Not that foot; The other foot; Wrong foot.

Which shoe will fall? I think that is the problem.

Did anyone here watch the three hour Spirit of America from Yankee Stadium on Sunday? I have been as out of sorts as everyone posting here and did find some solace there. I watched, wandered off into the kitchen to tend to my pot of homemade soup simmmering on the stove. I watched and weeped, sometimes from sadness and sometimes from being touched by the music and words of inspiration. Although I wasn't there, I somehow felt as if I had participated in something meaningful. All those prayers offered up by all religions and Bette Midler singing...along with many others. All the dignitaries too, seeming to find the right words to say. Has this already been talked about here? Am I waaaay behind everyone else? Wouldn't be surprised!

You're not behind, Paige, and am glad you brought up Sunday's prayer service at Yankee Stadium. It was helpful for me, too, go figure, because religion and I don't always mix. I also confess that during one sooo-foreign sounding musical Islamic prayer, I got past being irritated by that sound, my usual reaction, and heard a sincere voice making music. "Got past" isn't exactly right. I wasn't working at it. It just happened. Also, did anyone else have the thought, as Oprah Winfrey managed all those introductions and led the proceedings, that politics might be in her future?

Unfortunately I did not see the Sunday three hour Spirit of America from Yankee Stadium but up late I saw of all things Jenny Jones, who had as guests not only fireman but, the man that took the incredible picture of the plane flying into the building as well as, other pictures we have now imprinted in our minds. And also, the owner or manager of the bar where three of the hijackers ate, drank and played video games the night before the attack.

He was in such a state - unbelievable state - seems folks have been loudly blaming him for not realizing that someone causing a ruckus over paying a bill and drinking too much was enough of a problem he 'should' have called the police - this is something that he experiences every night but also you could see and smell right through the air waves his own self blame and guilt.

From the photographer was the statement that he pulled his lens back when he saw things he did not want to see or could not process before the tower fell.

All this is saying to me 'What is going on - What are we feeling - Why do I feel so bad - Am I really grieving for those involved - What am I actually grieving - Lose of life for so many at one time - or the way in which people lost their life - or the way that some people had to choose to die and actually accept they had no choice to live - or the fact that some people had no choice or control and innocently become part of a missile of destruction - What is frightening about this realization - What is it that has me feeling unable to feel vital just now? I wondered now how the people of Dresden coped - we know how the people of Britain endured. I know that seeing firemen during this recovery so compeled to give the essense of their life, all their energy and vitality is scaring me and I do not know why.

Am I really afraid - is the fear because my concept of the possible in life is altered. Am I finally accepting the lose of control that I imagined that I have any power over how death 'should' arrive? I know as long as I feel held back or allow others to take a lead under the guise of taking care of me then I am feeling fear and hesitating on living - so what is it that I am fearing?

Part of me knows I am more comfortable when things happen that compute or that I have an understanding that a happening is within the realm of possibilities as I know them to be, that I have some learned concept of what defects could exist in the behavior of others. Well I guess the answer to that is, who ever said life was comfortable.

Can I endure the dislike of others whose hatred is this great? Am I really grieving an exhaustion of hope that I could make sense of the human existence? Have I attached myself to a fixed positions, to opinions and a preconception as to what I think is just or how God 'should' control mankind.

One of my tenants has been not to brand evil in others, but to use the evil actions of others as the opportunity to see the evil within myself, in order to accept myself and then discover how I can rid my self of evil. I truly believe that the universe, including mankind can be seen in a grain of sand and therefore, if I do not accept that evil is within me, I not only do not know myself but, I am at war with myself trying to avoid acknowledging what is uncomfortable.

My evil may not prompt me to act as or to the proportions of others; it may come out in subtle ways but, it must be there if I am part of humanity. What false ideas am I fostering that would assume I need to feel fear, or hopeless or have expectations as to how we should die?

What great potential is there for myself and others, that this event will prompt us to step up to the plate? What strengths have I discovered within me, my family and friends, this nation, the world because of 9/11 and all we have experienced since 9/11?

These are the questions I mediatate on at this time.

Barbara: May I copy your post, above, to share at work? You have so beautifully expressed so much wisdom, I believe that it must be spread. This asking questions and making lists is perhaps the most productive thing we can do with an experience of this magnitude. I pray that out of this we will truly become United States, united peoples, lovers of all life.

Hi folks. Having a very curious mind, I have subscribed. I didn't read this first batch of articles because I have grieved so much in my life, I am rather impervious to it - callused, perhaps. My reaction to the whole thing went pretty much to anger (and a lot of concern that bin Laden not be given a chance to think we were responding with a holy war of our own - a danger which has only gotten worse in my eyes.)

I will stay with you folks long enough to see where your curiousity leads you and if it touches on some of mine.

Glad to have you with us Ben and thanks for subscribing. Hopefully we will touch upon something at some point to peak you interest – we’ll be changing topics on a weekly basis. And my original offer still stands: Please e-mail me with suggestions that you may have for interesting reading and discussion.

Paige- Not off base at all and right on topic! Good point, too. I do believe one off the purposes of these things is to give us a sense that we’re all going through this together.

Barbara. Right On!!

Thanks and yes, I never thought I owned my thoughts - the concept so many of us agree, 'to love life' but, even that thought now has a new meaning for me - to love life is to love it all - the maggots and the beautiful - is that what artists have been saying to us for the past 50 or more years with their disturbing art work. I think on that large piece done by Picasso that is essentially a line drawing with parts of badies and animals - What is love really - now I see love far more than the sentimental actions of the comfortable.

Benjamin I am sorry for your grief - I bet you are trying to find some solace and answers - I bet you are trying just to feel better - Benjamin I think it has to be a personal journey.

Did y'all notice that the sun keeps coming out and the sky is alternately blue or dark with clouds. Here in Central Texas a rare cold front blew in two days ago and the leaves are shining as they reflect a very clear sun and the immense deep blue sky. Nature never seems to stop. I am part of nature. Nature is screaming at me today. I think it is telling me to stop and notice the beauty in myself.

Betty, I think Oprah can do anything she puts her mind to! By the by, on her show today she is having Maya Angelou...one of my heros...among other notable women to speak about what has happened.

Barbara, you have given me new thoughts to meditate on also. Need to share something I just learned about. Heard this was covered by CNN and The Wall Street Journal, I missed it. I live near Sacramento, CA. It seems as if a sheriff's helicopter saw a mysterious speed boat on Folsom Lake, our main drinking water supply, speeding off into the night a couple of nights ago. It just disappeared. The fear was that our water supply may have may have been a victim of germ warfare. Samples were driven to UC Berkley where they were tested for anthrax among other things. Meanwhile, I'm here downing my eight glasses of water to be healthy. We were told nothing about this. Puts a whole new slant on this feeling of being uneasy in the world since Sept llth. An added note about my weeping through the Spirit of America on Sunday. I am not a weeper, more of a keep your chin up like the lady on Masterpiece Theatre kind of woman!

Thank you all. I find your postings awe-inspiring, inspirational and practical. But to me there seems a missing ingredient. I read of no giring of the loins, no constant eyes on the horizon for greater atrocities at a near date. I feel such things are possible and I don't want to be psychologically caught off-guard; I want to have thought about the danger and accepted the need to stand in the moment. What am I talking about? Somebody please come to my aid and discuss this aspect. Thanks again, you all have been personally helpful to me. ...........elizabeth

Elizabeth I think that is why we all watch so much news. We want to see the "girding of the loins". We want to know the preparations for war are going forward. We can't run out and join an Army, or plant a victory garden, or roll bandages for the Red Cross so to speak. Those kinds of things get people through crises' time and again. But in this new war where is the threat coming from? How can we watch for it? So we stay glued to the tv. And the fear is there.

Paige mentioned our Folsom Dam concern and we who live near there focused on worry about that from the first. In fact for most people there is a "targer" they are aware of near them and they think of that.

Barbara and Betty mull over personal questions of emotions,faith, and expectations for the future. As the days roll on I take more and more solace in rembering all the history I have read,and all the history I have lived through. I watch more of the old history channel documentaries for perspective. I am beginning to forgo news tv programs and find I can concentrate better this week. I am picking out new projects to start for Christmas and all this is helping.fp

Charlie I do feel that there has been a failure of language to help us as a society pull through these first fear filled days re: the Article posted which I just read. I remember the great and uplifting speeches by President Roosevelt and P.M. Winston Churchill. HOw their words could fill us with resolve, patriotic love, uplift our spirits and leave us feeling that any and all sacrafice to aid our country was not too much to ask. We have not had that. Pres. Bush had some very good speech writers and he did better than usual in his address to Congress but it was a far cry from what I remember from the past.fp

Paige- Same thing here. The Quabbin reservoir, Eastern Massachusetts' drinking supply has been "shut down" at least twice since 9/11. Mysterious planes over the reservoir, etc. It's all part of the mindset we have been put in.

Elizabeth- I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that expecting the worst is the best preparation for it? Certainly there is a need for a new vigilance, and the preparations are a validation of that. Do you all feel that we are becoming better prepared for these eventualities, and as a consequence the chances of them happening are lessened? Or do you now feel that all things are possible, that the dam has been broken and that we are vulnerable at every turn?

Faith- I wonder if it is beyond the powers of our leaders to move us in those ways anymore. There was a time….but is it gone forever? Gone the way of our innocence, of our belief in our invulnerability? Is it the quality of the leadership or a function of the distance we have learned to keep from it?

Earlier Paige had a "pot of homemade soup simmering on the stove." And it sure did smell delicious. She reminded me of another article I read recently. Words of Comfort…the Sounds of Consolation…the Serenity of the Stove? What about cooking as "almost always a mood-altering experience"? The engagement of the senses, the sense of control? The soothing balm of the familiar? If you "like to cook" this probably sounds familiar to you. Well, it seems to me that human kind is a coping animal and it comes in all flavors. Some things work for some, and some things work for others. But we're all (unless we've lost our way) essentially after the same thing no matter how we phrase it: processing the information for understanding, applying our own and our shared experiences to our own lives. To what end? To live good and peaceful lives and to perhaps make a contribution so that others may do the same.
Charlie

I have been boiling my drinking water for over 10 years now. I keep four 64 ounce pyrex bottles in my fridge at all times. It has been boiled for 10 minutes and cooled and refrigerated. I boil water every morning while preparing breakfast.

This will not kill everything, but it will kill all bacteria and parasites. I figure I have a chance to beat the rap.

Yes, I have been anticipating this for a very long while now; but not exactly what happened. Not by a long shot!

Another unfortunate word chosen for use is "homeland.", as in Office of Homeland Security. The first two things that come to mind when I hear this word are Hitler's Germany and Apartheid South Africa. Yes, yes, I know the word is very Euro and the connotation might only be found here - but HERE WE ARE.

It can be argued that the idea for this new office has as one of its purposes to comfort us. But I ask you this:

Is HOMELAND a word that is comforting to you?
Charlie

One thing I hope for is better understanding and acceptance of our diversity. When we can show the rest of the world that we have had a mighty blow, but not only are we going after the specific enemies who struck us, but we are not blaming others of the same religion, nationality, etc. Instead, we are becoming mightier and stronger (if that is not redundant). That we truly merit the leadership of the world we have assumed. That we are better than our foes since we do not condemn whole peoples for the crimes of the few. I would feel even better if I heard that we had started sending plane loads of food, medicine, blankets, etc., to the poor Afghani refugees in Pakistan.

Charlie I do think we have put distance between ourselves and "the government". And I for one am speaking from a "history" I have lived that perhaps people just now in their 50's havent.I know when I listen to my grandsons talk they have different concerns than I and rightly so. They, the young ones that I know, seem not in need of consolation. They dont want time off to grieve though lots of companies offered it. They are handling things very well and say that on the job people are pulling together to make things work.They say we are the greatest country in the world and we can handle it. They say the main job of the civilian world now is to maintain the economy etc.etc. which you also hear from the leaders on TV.I believe there is a distance between the generations as to how we react to these events of the past several weeks. Faith

The evening of the infamous day, Sept. 11, I had a simple dinner of a grilled cheese sandwich and tomato soup, and Im not aashamed to say I derived much solace from that always reliable "comfort food."

Lorrie

One of my very favorite meals, as well, Lorrie Dear.

Faith- When you talked about a sort of generation gap regarding the “need for consolation.” I think that point is well made – I had not thought about it, but II see it as true (as a generalization).

Charlie

It takes an enormous amount of energy to sustain intense fear, deep sorrow and bitter anger. We all need to sleep and sleep until we are refreshed.

When we wake up, we’ll have enough strength to turn away from the horror, the tears and the feelings of revenge. And we can…..and start... um… we could begin ... hmmm.. well, we could... work towards….. something. maybe we could try... uh… Well. I’m sure we’ll find something better than this.

That's really true though, judywolfs. When I was younger I would sometimes tell myself I was going to be angry with someone forever, but it was just impossible. It does take a lot of energy.
Charlie

In this weeks article, Peter D. Smith makes the interesting case that literature and science both endeavor to further our understanding of our place in the universe. I liked the article for its balance. I've always felt that one, neither literature nor science, has the upper hand as far as truth telling is concerned. Literature that has a deep love and respect for science can be an entry-way into the truths that science can teach us. I think of Barbara Kingsolver's Prodigal Summer read here recently as a good example. Kingsolver made a conscious effort to blend the two, and if not a complete success, was a valiant effort. Indeed, in talking about Goethe's novel Elective Affinities, Smith writes "Goethe establishes an affinity between human relationships and scientific theory." Kingsolver sets out to do the same thing.

One of the concerns of the sixties (what I remember of it as we say) was that our scientists were no longer receiving a well-rounded education - knowledge of the arts and literature were shunted aside in our concern to not fall behind in our technological achievements. I see no reason why we can't balance the two. It is imperative that we do so. After all, the balance and harmony of science and the arts seems almost a rule of nature. At least we should consider it so.

What do you think? Can literature reveal to you as much as science? Or does literature contribute little to your understanding of our nature, while science leads the way? Do you come down on one side or the other? Are you just more comfortable with what and how one tells us vs the style and truths of the other?
Charlie

Hi gang! I just found this area and this looks like a fine idea. I'd like to read The guardian Unlimited article. Could someone give me a link? Then I'll take a look at whatever one you are currently on or are about to read.

Nice idea here!

Linda

Before we leave our last read I must say I really like the idea that Faith shared about getting ready for Christmas - the comfort of familar carols and the collection of stories with trolls and love and sharing, that I usually do not bring down till December 6 -- This year the sense of renewal and the familar scents and handwork of baking and sewing and collecting leaves and writing cards - yes, my spirit soared for the first time when I thought of it all. I even made the connection how some of these new widows are expecting their babies -- life goes on and life replaces life -- these are the thoguhts that I need -- I am going for a long, quiet, no glitz, just a comfortable Christmas season.

Charlie the site will not upload for me - I shortened the URL to http://www.prometheus.demon.co.uk and got into the site - found the index but there is only one article in their index that will upload onto my computer - is this a site I need to join before it will allow me to read the other articles?

A powerful new article. It's look at science and literature reminds me of related inquiries on mind vs. body and nature vs. nurture. Even feminine vs. masculine. To over generalize, spheres of power that are seen as separate often move toward being seen as two parts of a whole, or at least related.

This article made me realize, for the first time, that the two best friends in my beloved Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series represent science (Maturin the doctor) and literature/art (Aubrey the emotional Captain who loves music). Maturin also collects specimens of plants throughout their travels and through him we see the ordered world.

Longitude is a contemporary book that combines science and literature. Also, WHAT is the series of short stories that are based on scientific discoveries. (I have it linked to The Shipping News in my mind because I read them together.) SHIP'S FEVER!!!!!! by Andrea Barrett

betty

Hi, Linda: I e-mailed you the url for the first article.

Barbara: Don’t know what the problem might be, it continues to load up fine for me. I have e-mailed you a copy of the complete article, though.

Charlie

That was a very interesting perspective, Betty… and neat that you could make the connection to your favorite series of books. Do you see a ‘balance’ in the influence on the reader between Aubrey and Maturin?

I'm just getting a blank page with a black box on it, Charlie, not an article and I've tried twice. Here's the URL I get when I click on your link:

http://www.prometheus.demon.co.uk/04/04smith.htm

Love the new picture - are we getting a new one every week? That alone will bring me in.

The site will not download for me either, Charlie--just seeing a small black rectangle.

Faith, I think you explained to me the thing I was "missing" and that is the rhetoric we heard from Winston Churchill and a few others that makes every listener feel invincible and determined to overcome all odds. .......elizabeth

Sorry- Don’t know what the problem could be. It is definitely not a subscription site and I continue to be able to access the article at will. I’ve e-mailed Elizabeth and Ella if you are interested. Anyone else, just say the word.

Yes, Ella. I have a couple more nice art prints up my sleeve.

This new article brings out the current challenge to Lit departments in universities. For those who love literature, usually folks interested in understanding people and history, it seems quite appropriate for science students to have a good background in literature simply because it seems appropriate for lit students to have a good grounding in science as well as most other subjects. Science majors and departments often don't see the connection. I read articles all the time in journals put out by the two honoraries where I still have memborship, Phi Kappa Phi (for qualified students without liberal arts backgrounds) and Phi Beta Kappa (for qualified students with good liberal arts backgrounds.) I am in both because I fell in the cracks as a Psych (considered a science) undergrad who was in a liberal arts honors program.

I see the difficulty on campuses and understand it, but the biggest change over the last 30 years or so may just be that 18-year-olds are now adults. When the first three years on campus were attended by children (under 21,) adults and departments could dictate what courses they took. Now they are adult consumers and simply can have a lot to say about what they are paying so much to learn. Literature, like music and art, may be things people prefer to study a little at a time over their lifetimes, rather than while they are not working and paying huge sums to attend college.

As a reader and a people person more than a scientist, I believe writing to be about life, including from a scientific point of view. But I still believe young consumers have the right to study science without having to do many hours of required reading and writing. Optimistically, I expect those young people to broaden their curiosity over time to include more reading and writing, even if it really starts to happen after retirement.

Both Goethe’s and Zola’s novels attempt to explain the natural world and the place of humans within it by reference to contemporary scientific ideas and paradigmsQuote from the article we are discussing(no difficulty accessing it). I have been trying to understand the place of humans within the natural world by reading all the things I can understand and much I cannot. I do not have a true scientific background. Still I read all the books regarding contemporary scientific ideas my sons and daughters bring into my life. I often think of A Clockwork Universe,(can not recall author) the book that woke me to some pretty deep thought about the nature of science and religion. And literature that tries to reconcile philosophy,art and religion with pure science often falls down on the job. We just finished a very deep discussion of The Brothers Karmazov and Dostoeskys writes of his young hero who cannot reconcile his Euclid Mind to his God Ridden Soul. In fact much of the book was a philosophical attempt to reconcile science and literature in the modern world. Literature actually grew from Religion and then there are connections re Philosophy to Nature or Science from the old Greek world, and that was the beginning of classic literature so I find no place that the two diciplines are really seperate. Perhaps I do not understand the question here.If it is a personal attempt to reconcile all the "ideas" that come into a persons life via literature or via scientific writings then I must admit I have some conflicting attitudes. fp

Faith, my reading (and I believe this) is that literature can inform us in a revelatory, more immediate way that science cannot. But without a good understanding of science, we can only intuit our place in an anecdotal way. I'm glad you brought this up the way you did. Is it literature's job to reconcile itself with science - a losing game as you have indicated? Or is it the other way around - science must understand that literature (and you make a good point that literature grew from religion) speaks to us in ways than science cannot - in valid ways? Is it a matter of "reconciliation" at all? No, faith, I believe that you have succinctly understood and added to the discussion very well. It seems to me that "pure" science fails to address our concerns as a whole - that literature has a vital role to play, as an ombudsman of sorts that can validate our real experiences of our surroundings. That "pure" science is, in fact, faulty thought.

Benjamin! What a unique perspective! You say you fell into the cracks. Indeed your concerns and your studies seem to have placed you right at the place where the "affinity" between the two pass into each other. I agree that about the most that can be done is to encourage our students to broaden their interests. We can encourage and expose, but we cannot really enforce effectively. You are, perhaps by nature, more optimistic than myself, however.

Charlie

for your email invitation to this forum but after reading many of the postings here, I fear that my level of literacy may not fit in well with the keen minds of this group. Neither can I qualify as having a scientific bend, although quite recently I went searching on the Internet to learn, somewhat loosely, what quantum mechanics is all about. Just call me "Joe Average". However, I did manage to follow your link to "Elective Affinity" with no problem and plan to read it very soon. Floaters permitting. Losalbern

In thinking about the essay, I wonder if we haven't lost something by most schools eliminating the core curriculum.

I think that Temple University is going to re-institute it.There's a lot of literature that blends science into it,if the author has done his/her research. Sometimes the science is so subliminal that the reader is not aware,unless you think about it.

A good example is Mount Misery by Solomon Shem,which deals with resident physicians in a mental institution.

Another example is Motherless Brooklyn, by Jonathan Lethem,where the reader practically gets a seminar in Tourettes Syndrome.

If you include technology with science,then there is a virtual explosion of exposure ,even in popular fiction. (Look at Tom Clancy)

Ed and losalbern - You both reminded me of another 'pop' novelist who works a lot of science into his writing - Michael Crichton. For instance his Timeline (including quantum physics, losalbern)read here awhile ago. Sometimes I get the feeling though, that novelists like Crichton feel they're adding an aura of legitimacy to their writing by including a wealth of obviously well researched science. As if they're trying too hard…I think I'd like better those that do it unobtrusively, as per your example, Ed.

Ed- I am not that close to academia. Is what Temple is contemplating any kind of trend or is it just an anomaly?

Losalbern- If there's one thing that I've learned over the past few years spending time at this site, is that very often - very often - those who feel that they don't have all that much to contribute have a knack for contributing a lot in unexpected ways. Give yourself time. You'll see.
Charlie

Thank you for the URL, Charlie, at the Guardian Unlimited. An interesting article. Someone sent me a poem a week or two ago by Emily Dickinson that showed her emotions at the time. All I can remember is a line something like, "I am not resigned." It was a beautiful poem for her at this time.

Many have mentioned Dickinson as a good poet for now. Then another acquaintance sent this article from The Chicago Tribune:

Poetry Soothes the Soul in These Painful Days

Reading is difficult for me now, but when I take the time it truly is a comfort and takes me to another place. I think sometimes that is a neccesity.

Now I will try and get to your current reading ASAP.

Thanks again. Linda

Exactly, Linda. It may be difficult to concentrate on reading, to get your mind off - but worth the effort for the healing ability it may have for you.

Charlie

I do not recall a poem of Emily Dickenson's like that, but Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote the following "Dirge Without Music", which I have loved and deeply related to ever since the first person I loved died many decades ago. Here it is:

I am not resigned to the shutting away of loving hearts in the hard ground. So it is, and so it will be, for so it has been, time out of mind. Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. Crowned With lilies and with laurel they go; but I am not resigned.

Lovers and thinkers, into the earth with you. Be one with the dull, the indiscriminate dust. A fragment of what you felt, of what you knew, A formula, a phrase remains, __but the best is lost.

The answers quick and keen, the honest look, the laughter, the love,__ They are gone. They are gone to feed the roses. Elegant and curled Is the blossom. Fragrant is the blossom. I know. But I do not approve. More precious was the light in your eyes than all the roses in the world.

Down, down, down into the darkness of the grave Gently they go, the beautiful, the tender, the kind. Quietly they go, the intelligent, the witty, the brave. I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned.

Thanks. I thought that might be the one she meant Mary-Page. Well...if I may, then

A Refusal to Mourn the Death, by Fire, of a Child in London

 
Never until the mankind making 
Bird beast and flower 
Fathering and all humbling darkness 
Tells with silence the last light breaking  
And the still hour 
Is come of the sea tumbling in harness 

And I must enter again the round 
Zion of the water bead 
And the synagogue of the ear of corn 
Shall I let pray the shadow of a sound 
Or sow my salt seed 
In the least valley of sackcloth to mourn 

The majesty and burning of the child's death. 
I shall not murder 
The mankind of her going with a grave truth 
Nor blaspheme down the stations of the breath 
With any further  
Elegy of innocence and youth. 

Deep with the first dead lies London's daughter, 
Robed in the long friends, 
The grains beyond age, the dark veins of her mother, 
Secret by the unmourning water 
Of the riding Thames. 
After the first death, there is no other.

Charlie

Thanks, Charlie, for emailing the article, although I profess very little understanding of the subject. I have a great affinity personally for literature, little for science, except how it impact our lives. When one thinks in early history of how scientists were scoffed at - "the world is round, not flat" - Darwin's theory of evolution, gravity, etc. and how far science has come to be respected in all aspects of life - medicine, technology, space, I am awed. I see no reason why the two - literature and science - should not be compatible.

"In the twentieth century, literature gave a voice to popular fears about the role of science in society as well as expressing profound wonder at a world transformed by science."

Charlie, can you give examples of "literature giving voice to popular fears?" Perhaps cloning would be an example? Stem cell research? Are these topics in the literature of today?

Other than to ask questions, I know very little more to say about this complex article, so I shall put a period right here...

Literature has come up with lurid stories of cloning 5 of the same man (a movie made of the book), all the way up to cloning an army of the same man.

These things stretch from ridiculous to impossible, but people want to believe them and base their opinions on them. The basic truths, that the majority of cloning attempts fail in the lab and that all clones must be implanted in women and grown and given birth to in the normal way, seem to have disappeared right over their heads!

Literature has predicted science in the past, Jules Verne being an outstanding example, but much more often the fancies it has concocted have led to gross misapprehensions.

Wonderful, Ella. Darwin's theory or relativity. Suppose that changed the way authors wrote about their characters? Of course. And thanks for bailing me out, Mary-Page. Early 20th Century American novelists were heavily influenced by these kinds of things: Theodore Dreiser, Frank Harris, Sinclair Lewis. In addition, authors will always seize upon, hungry for 'ideas' as they are, advances in science to create wild tales and possibilities.

The poems recently posted hearken back to our recent discussion about words of comfort and how poems are expressions of our attempts to understand events and experiences of the world. They are attempts to process, digest and thereby cope. At the same time we yearn to uncover the 'reasons' for the events which have impacted all of our lives, as we continue to gather information unto ourselves in an effort to prepare for what are perhaps the necessary next steps. We need to 'make sense.' We need to 'intellectualize'. We need to use scientific methods, as it were, so that our responses are worthy of our aspirations as a people. Thinking of science in the broadest terms, aren't we really using both literature and science here in this process? And isn't there that real affinity here? Aren't they both vital to a healthy way of coming to terms?

I would fear decisions made purely on the dictates of realpolitik, and national interest. I believe we need to first come at these problems from a perspective that has processed our experience of their manifestations. Only then can real solutions be achieved.
Charlie

Thank you for the poetry. Yes, that was the poem! (shows what I know about poetry! lol)

There is a book currently out that may fit the bill of literature and science. The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan. He mixes science and literature. Much in the way of biotechnology - pesticides, organic gardening. It is the world from the view of plants. "Something to ponder while you weed your garden," one reviewer says.

I see Clancy mentioned and the Follett book mentioned, but do we have writers today with the heft and intelligence of Goethe today?

I just saw someone posted about Sinclair. Yes!! The Jungle!! That was a great book, in my mind. It was a good read, but it also caused many things to change for the good in our country.

Linda- You're thinking of Upton Sinclair rather than Sinclair Lewis - I get those two confused all the time.

Charlie

In fact it is remarkable that we have such a real marriage between science and literature. I think of books of non fiction that are written like the great old romance novels(using definition for long narrative tales of travel and adventure) I grew up on them. (Richard Haliburton)and so it was easy to read Carl Sagan or Steven Hawkins writings not that I understood them from a mathamaticians point of view but I gain an understanding of what they meant the layman to gain.

The "science fiction" market is huge in this country too. Everyone has noticed the use of science in the modern warfare novels like Clancy's. But pure science, that book of Statistics that Betty mentioned, and others that we can all remember from academia, that is a different story altogether. I love to read psychology I thought. so I made the mistake of getting a book of Experimental Psychology and when I got it home I found a whole different discipline.The authors were talking about things I didnt understand at all like statistics and how to do mathematical experiments to prove a gestalt...that sentence had no meaning for me so I didn't ever read the book. So others are the combination..the psychologist becomes the literata and writes and then I can read that.

I have come to the conclusion that we need both in our college curriculum to expose students from highschoolers on, to Literature and Science and not try to keep them seperate but teach the cojoining of these disciplines. fp

Ah, Richard Halliburton, _The Royal Road to Romance_. This book has just been republished. I just got a copy.

Kathy

LOSALBERN - If you are still visiting with us, curious minds always contribute. Every great thinker needs a student or an audience - that is the way he clarifies his thinking. The great curious mind would be nothing without all of us who spend most of our time as the curious minds who are learning from it.

FAITH - Counseling psychology is certainly an art. For many years, much of psychological writing was of case histories - great reading and could be quite educational, but not scientific. Sometime along about the first half of the 20th century, Pavlov, Watson, Skinner and some other greats started working on the science of cause and effect in human and animal behavior. They may have started out with facts animal trainers and teachers had known for years. Since then, psych departments have emphasized the scientific aproach, but still, no amount of statistics or testing and measurement will help people through a crisis without the art of counseling. Now the scientific medical side of behavior is becoming better understood all the time, so psychology is evolving into more of a medical science with less emphasis put on behavioral conditioning. But still and all, if you remove the fancy vocabulary, good parents, teachers or animal workers still know a lot of it from observation and experience - and use it as an art.

Few creative thinkers completely avoid either literature or science. Often, scientist get ideas from reading, either classics or current science fiction. As I mentioned previously, good writers have always been curious about science along with everything else they can get their teeth into, so of course, they get ideas from current science.

In my previous post, I didn't mean to infer scientists don't read. I think most of them do. They just see no reason to take classes in college where somebody else determines what they read. As a frosh the first time (1953) my first writing assignment in English was to describe a car accident. I dropped the class - too close after a bad accident with lingering nightmares. The subject matter of an honors program lit class (1979) was death. All the books and readings chosen by the prof concerned death in one way or another. At 44, I didn't drop the class, but did any 18-year-olds? Maybe some budding great scientist dropped it like a hot potato because he was interested in changing the world before he contemplated his own demise.

Robert Haas, former Poet Laureate, answered to the question whether he had started writing about the tragedy by saying no, "...poetry is not like the sun, it is like the moon, reflective..." Science and literature in just a few short words. I am awed.

Charlie, I think you have defined my position in this very interesting discussion. I shall be your audience and your student.

I think of so many films, so many novels encompassing elements of science. I don't think anyone has mentioned the Jules Verne works. And can't remember what sci fi writer talked about a small handheld instrument similar to the Palm Pilots, etc. of this day.

And, being a fan of the Star Trek series and the Star Wars films, I see in them the bases of science as it is known and the dream of the writer as to what could be; told thru a medium of artistic expression.

~Marj

Benjamin posted above:

But still and all, if you remove the fancy vocabulary, good parents, teachers or animal workers still know a lot of it from observation and experience - and use it as an art.

Was thinking of how I work with my kittys. Using observation and experience. And my vet listens to that as we work on healing for whichever one is ill. She says that is part of the medical background.

~Marj

Am reading and learning from all of the posts. Another book that just came to mind - Rachel Carson's THE SILENT SPRING, a book that did much for science, the environment and the thinking of all of us.

It is unfortunate that some books of "popular" science are vilified in the scientific community as not being 'serious' science. Because as Faith points out, oftentimes, these are the best ways for the layperson to be exposed to this way of understanding our environment. Funny stories, Benjamin. Looks like you ran into some bad luck with your 'humanities' professors! We've talked mostly about how science is being more and more integrated into the literature of our times. Benjamin, rightly points out that it works the other way around also.

And hello, Kathy Hill. Hope you can join us more often. ...And my teacher, Phyll!!
Charlie

Anne Morrow Lindbergh's A Gift From the Sea might fit into this category. That is a lovely book.

Linda

I've re-read the article and all your wonderful posts and I am still feeling almost annoyed with the article - it sounds almost like it is trying to keep the argument alive that the two disciplines are at war in their separateness. As a writer shares his thoughts, if he is grounded or even has a fleeting understanding of science rather than only myth and magic, it would come out in his writing -

I am remembering That Carroll wrote in "Alice in Wonderland" about relativity before Einstein developed his theory of relativity - after all she is falling down a rabbit hole at one speed in one time dimension and yet grabs jars falling in another speed or time dimension. Compare these Victorian stories to say, "Gawin and the Green Knight" where everything is magical with much symbolism during a time when little science was understood except for celestial understanding.

Another issue that I think needs to be considered - science is essentially head work - logic and observation and repetition that can enable prediction - some scientists may even be able to turn a good sentence as a compliment to the author who brings his understanding of science to his work as he describes life around him.

But the big difference to me is, literature and poetry is about 'Everyman' as part of or holding within a universe, a universal god rather than 'Everyman' as part of a system that logically explains the universe -

Literature and poetry is more soul work or spirit work than the exclusive head work of science. Yes, I think the more rounded we are the more wisdom and truth we can bring to our work and studied discipline - but I think Literature has proven it can do its work without science and I doubt science wants a romantic or mythological or magical set of techniques used to explain its truths.

This simply reminds me that some have a strong body and others have a strong imagination - In a burning building I prefer to have a someone around with a strong body. Where as while listening to Puccini or seeing a movie I much prefer artists showing their strong imagination. This does not exclude the artist from being brave and capable nor, the strong man from being sensitive and a capable artist but, they each also have their special talents that work at times exclusive of each other.

Seems to me I read that football players train by taking ballet classes - I really rather watch a video of Rudolf Nureyev as Albrecht and let the Cowboys do their helmet and padded thing on Sunday.

We may have a lyrical poem about baseball or describing the beauty of a body moving on a basketball court but agin I do not think a plan for finding the DNA that may hold Cancer centered in the elements of design or poetic meter.

Benjamin B. Lewis, I enjoyed your timeline of changes within counseling psychology and agree with it. As Faith and Charlie have noticed, there's not much in literature that brings the science of psychology to the average reader. (Sorry for over-generalizing what you both said.) My view is that this ONE area of science is burdened with historical inaccuracies....in movies, literature and soft science self-help books. From a global perspective, maybe that's not all bad, simply because psychology is moving so quickly as a new science, that biases and myths linger.

From a human perspective, it's terrible that so many misperceptions are still with us. In the average bookstore, books on solving marriage problems are not written by psychologists who write scientific papers on solving marriage problems. The first has no standards to meet and the second has rigorous standards. Few movies and few novels include results of hard science when portraying conflict resolution in marriage....or even portraying an average ethical psychologist...those who DON'T sleep with their patients, etc.

Beyond counseling, the science of psychology is absent from literature in other ways. By counseling, I mean going to see a psychologist or social worker for 50 minute sessions. The science of psychology goes beyond counseling in studying our social culture, business culture, and severe mental health issues, just to name a few areas. Racism, sexism, "men's issues," "women's issues," are a few more.

Authors of fiction and non-fiction include outdated and inaccurate views of the human condition in hundreds of ways. For instance, novels often portray men as very self-confident in all aspects of sexual pursuit. In truth, men are just as worried as women about body issues, about how they are viewed by their partners. The inaccuracies about women are too numerous to list....but that's changing, now that women are doing what men have done for centuries...writing about women. Just as Benjamin wrote, we average people notice things, so women writing about women, even without consulting results of hard science, would increase accuracies of perceptions.

Within the field of psychology, much is written about the failure to "get out the word" about ongoing research. Left to commercial media, results are often inaccurately reported or selectively reported. Take a guess which of the following would be picked up for reporting: a 10 year study that reports there is no difference in boys' and girls' improvement in math perception over time, or a 10 year study that reports boys have a slightly higher median score than girls in improvement in math perception over time, but not statistically significant. "No difference" results are rarely reported. The second example is usually reported, but misrepresented.

Edit...Barbara, you and I were posting at the same time and coming from very different perspectives, I see. Hmmmm. Very interesting.

Oh....I just reread what you wrote, Charlie. I agree that there is a gap and not enough "popular" science. That's probably one answer to the field of psychology "getting the word out." My mentor actually wrote two books using the same research material, one for the science readers and one for the general public, on how couples with two professional careers manage. In the second book, she told many interesting stories about interviewing these professional couples, adding her own private thoughts. An example I remember....she was thinking, "No one knows this" when she was listening to several men tell about their worries about time away from children.

Seems this discussion wanders which, to me, is to be expected from curious minds. Perhaps the most productive curious scientific minds are those which become very focused for long periods, while the most productive literary minds spend a lot more time wandering between subjects and ideas, then bringing them together.

My mother knew quite early I had a curious mind. While I was in college, she asked if I ever had one question, asked when I was three, answered. It seems I was coloring with my brother when I looked up and asked, "How does the yellow sun turn green strawberries red? That was 63 years ago and I still haven't learned the answer. Oh, I have a vaugue idea about photosynthesis(sp?) and all, but I really have no idea how colors change. Maybe I needed a little more science in college instead of so much of the humanities.

May I jump in here? I read the Peter Smith article last week and found it quite dense. I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish other than show that he was familiar with Goethe and Zola. However, all the recent posts about science and literature have rung some bells for me. A couple of books I've read recently gave me considerable insight into how science has developed to what it is today. For instance, "Galileo's Daughter" by Dava Sobel (she also wrote "Longitude" a few years ago) recounts G's great struggles with his faith, the Church hierarchy and with others in the emerging field of astronomy. I came away with a greater understanding of how the modern idea of science developed (observation, hypothesis, experiment, publish, wait for others to reproduce results). It was not always so. This book is not a novel, but is a somewhat fictionalized account by a writer who well understands what science is all about -- and also how to tell a good story.

The other book is similar, "Ingenious Pursuits" by Lisa Jardine. I believe she's the daughter of a physicist. In this book she follows the explosive growth of science in the 17th and early 18th centuries. As a measure of how little was known in Europe of other continents, plant specimins brought back from Africa or South America were considered wonders and were cultivated and exhibited in greenhouses by wealthy patrons and supporters of the expeditions that found them. The wonder is that before this time, hardly anyone thought that perhaps plants (and of course animals) might be different from those known in Europe. This book also is not a novel, but like Sobel's book, it gives the lay reader some understanding of what science is and how it developed in those rather exciting years. One aspect which is still true today for the most part is the the urge for free exchange of ideas between scientists of different countries, regardless of what political conflicts there may be. gh

Mountainman. Welcome, and jump in any time. Dense, eh? I’ll put you down for 1 dense along with Barbara’s 1 annoyed!! In some ways, Smith does seem to be making a case against something that no longer exists. Historically, though, he probably has a point. And thanks for bring up Sobel, who has become popular of late. Simon Winchester is another that comes to mind along these same lines.

Benjamin, I’m glad that we have a forum here where we can use an article as a jumping off point for good discussion – even if we meander far from the original article. I’m very happy to leave our boundaries fairly loose here. I hope everyone agrees with that premise. I agree with you insight regarding literary minds v.s. scientific minds. I think that makes an excellent point.

Charlie

Benjamin don't you think that the inaccuracies about the human condition and more so about the practice of psychology is tied to the many that still see setting up a regimen with a psychologist as a mark against your character-

I'm remembering, it was not too many years ago that it was a red mark in you file if your manager learned that you or a family member went for counseling. I still have family members that look askance that my daughter and I saw a psychologist and my word for years - what a family scandal.

And the other issue I wonder, 'why it seems easier to copy the "pop" understanding of the dynamics and work of psychology,' is that most people fear digging deep and uncovering the source of their pain. As well, folks want to validate the life they have lived rather than, making the changes that would ultimately make sense after they do the work to uncover their inner selves. Therefore, making psychology a misunderstood discipline keeps them from their view of 'Harms Way,' facing their fears.

I think that writers who want to sell their material use the "pop" within themselves as well as, the "pop" they observe in the culture they are trying to reach. We have had a lot of miss-represented popular theory and understanding of psychology thrown at us in movies, novels and comic strips these last 50 years and so if a writer does not have an intimate relationship with psychology they will have within themselves a "pop" understanding of the discipline similar to their readers.

I think Betty is making a point that when writing for the broad market, in order to appeal to the knowledge and understanding of psychology within that market, you must write to the "pop" concepts held -

Which I think bodes for why we often find history had rewritten itself based on the concepts of right and wrong of the times - it takes a historian far removed and privileged to a change of values or morality to rewrite a more accurate history. And than is it really more accurate or again, is the re-writing as accurate as the culture will accept given the values and morality of the time the history was re-written.

It hurts to be miss-understood - to be ignored - for your work to be in-accurately portrayed - misrepresented - it feels like your value is being dismissed - your energy and contribution minimized - but I wonder - is this our ego judging how we think things ought to be - thinking that progress is made by virtue of "our" intelligence?

In prizing what we know we could regard our gift of a quick mind, that prompted our curiosity so that we became more educated and knowledgeable, and regard our worth as a magnificent gift that not everyone was given. And then see ourselves as seeds toward change, we can bestow these gifts on those who will listen rather than railing at the many whose gifts lie elsewhere. Even Columbus was jailed and it took the nation being riveted to the O.J. saga to begin the "pop" understanding of domestic violence.

All very interesting, Barbara. I’d have to disagree about history being re-written, though. When you say history “had rewritten itself”, I’m assuming (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re talking about historians rewriting history. Which of course happens. All the time. From my perspective though, an historian “far removed” has no better chance of writing “accurate history” than a contemporary historian. In fact, I wonder if the concept of “accurate history” is just a chimera. You may be saying something like this.

Charlie

History if it is just facts and dates is not interesting to students though of course there needs to be Recorded Events plus date for researchers. Who but historians and reasearchers who want to write more history would read just EVents/dates ..They the reader with a curious mind want not just the facts but commentary and explainations. Tell me there were 1000 witches burned in Scotland in 1666 and I want to know who they were and why they were burned and who ordered it and all about the whole culture where such a thing could happen. So History is close kin to the Narrative Saga,The Romance Novel, the Greek Classical Poems such as Homer and takes many forms of narration.I think individuals who read a lot of history understand that the story game of gossip is much alive in the world of history. And it is nothing like the world of Science when recorded. But as I know only pop science heheheh I can't comment very much.fp

Elective Affinities is the title of a book which tries to explain the world of love and attraction through science and scientific equations. It fails. The careless application of theories can lead to confusion is Smiths deduction after reading said book.

Attempts to understand the world maybe will never be reduced to Physics and its equations, we will always need literature to interperate the mysterys of life forces and/or natural forces. This seems to be more what the essay was about and this is my answere to the implied question of the essay...fp

I must disagree with Barbara re: science is all head work.

It's my view that art and science are inextricably intertwined. Much of scientific thought starts out with a great deal of imagination about how to approach a problem.

Artists have to know a great deal about science (whether or not they are aware of it) as part of their creative process. The science of pigments is something very basic to painting.

When Michaelangelo went to the Carrera quarry to select his marble,his selection was not based on a whim...he had to know something about the physical properties of marble.

How many Puccini operas would you be able to enjoy if the composer did not know anything about the science of sound as it applies to the human voice and musical instruments? (How about the science of radio,TV & recordings that allow you to experience the opera outside of the concert hall)

Science and Art cannot be separated. The prime example is Leonardo DaVinci.

Charles maybe that is what I am saying - what I meant by the first re-writing of history is the 'facts' or 'historical telling' seem to be, the perspective of the event according to what you believe - I am thinking on the Indian wars - and the First Thanksgiving - all immediately mythologized to reflect our - the western ideology - views at the times. I understand papers that President Johnson requested not be released till 50 years after his death were discovered and with Mrs. Johnson's permission they are now available. These papers humanize this man and others reading them denote a strong note of his compassion. Those characteristics I think were observable while he was President but photos of his lifting dogs by the ears etc. did not go down well in urban American therefore, our perceptions of Johnson were colored by our own values.

I think what I am getting at is, we all have a screen that we observe through - read and write with - we are not able to be educated in all disciplines from animal husbandry to quantum mechanics and it is this lack of specific knowledge that we bring to a read as well, it is the popular values and knowledge that we therefore use to express ourselves. (this is why I love discussing books in that we all have specific knowledge not shared by everyone reading the book - it is also what has always prompted my curiosity about specifics that I had not questioned and now is in my face - I just can't seem to read and have never understood how another could read without doing tons of research about specifics that the writer is exposing us to.)

Therefore, I believe not only is literature a reflection of the current - good literature allows us to continue to relate regardless of the changes in our collective value structure and collective knowledge - Even science builds on what was known - although even with good science we cannot use old theories of science to explain the universe or behavior - regardless, we are all in some way a reflection of a collection of "pop" values - some of us have discarded, because of education, some of the "pop" notions and understandings, but none of us is “accurate” - it is all just a chimera. ( Charles, I love the word)

Heck now that Bible scholars and anthropologists are being funded from the same coffers they are, for the first time in history, exchanging their research. Now there is a real question if Jesus really was one person that existed but rather a myth that captured the tenor of the times as many young men challenged Rome, the Rabbis and were crucified.

Bottom line I do not think writers set up an interaction of science and psychology to explain social, moral and spiritual bonds. That affinity is within all of us based on our exposure to each discipline.

Whoops Ed we are posting at the same time - my issue is that we are accurate and conciously choose to reflect science or psychology or history inaccuratly - to me it is no different than trying to get inside the head of a writer by addressing the symbolic word he chooses. Writers have told me that this was not a conscious choise on their part but an instinctive choice - none of us are born with these instinctive choices - they are as a result of the culture we live among, and the authors I have corrisponded with were all delighted to learn of the symbolism within their work and all have agreed it furthered the telling ot the story and aided the summation of their message.

It is that instictive combination based on the "pop" understanding of science and art that I think is active in artists - and the imagination of scientists but cannot be used to further the accuracy that science desires.

Faith, I see has cut through the denseness!! Bravo.

Ed, I believe that someone once said that Bach was one of the great mathematicians of all time.

Charlie

I have always heard that mathematics and music go together, and in fact, I knew one woman who taught both!

Certainly Science and Religion have been battling for thousands of years. History tells me that Science wins, but it takes a very, very long time, sometimes many generations, for the changes to come about.

Old religions, state religions of states which no longer exist, religions of peoples who have become conquered and their cultures swept away, these are all filed under "mythology". It does not seem to occur to most peoples today that the religions of today will meet the same fate, but History tells us they will.

Barbara is right, there are some wonderful books out now which have dissected the writings of our major religions and told us interesting things from that prospective (Science a big tool here!), as well as books which sort our Bible stories into possibly true, probably true, certainly true, most probably false and certainly false. The result of years of studies of history, topography, geography, geology, climate, cultures, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, and so on and on, these findings are truly fascinating stuff.

ED, great post, and I agree with you.

Science and Literature are nearly inseparable.

Dense and Annoyed

Charlie, in your post 113 you wrote, "Smith does seem to be making a case against something that no longer exists." So, does this mean that you disagree with all of my post 109?

If we subtract all counselling and therapy, there would still be the large field of science of psychology...straight experiments and publication of results in about 45 American Psychological Association journals (blind peer reviewed).

The stereotyping of Arab Muslims in Tom Clancy type books is the norm. My point in post 109 (I apologize if I was dense, not clear) is that the ABSENCE of good psychology science in literature MATTERS...in first grade readers all the way to bestseller lists. I'll stick to this one example of stereotyping for clarity. Jews, gays and lesbians, middle eastern ethnic groups, etc., etc...stereotyping causes damage. Zadie Smith's White Teeth is outside the norm in its careful attention paid to accurate portrayal of ethnic groups. Other fields of science may be blending nicely with literature, but not psychology. Even if you disagree, is this clearer?

Betty, now I am the one who doesnt understand. Are you saying that the Writers of psychology treatists are not producing Literature? Or are you seperating psychology from science in some way I can't define? Science, Psychology, Literature, Art are considered to be seperate disciplines?fp

Faith, Umm, I guess I think there are many disciplines of science, psychology is only one (physics, astronomy....) Yes, there would be psychologists writing books on psychological issues in a story-telling style (pop style but legit with footnotes, bibliography, etc.) Separately, and what I'm concerned about, is straight "literature" that ignores accurate information available on people, culture, society in general. Example. A visiting author to Books and Lit (here) included in her book and explained it to us by posting that it was a "turn-on" for a woman to be handled roughly by a man....forced, in other words. Other authors write about post traumatic stress disorder without doing their homework. The science is out there to be looked up, just as the science is there for (other) physical illnesses.

OK I get it. I have come across that very thing in modern novels that totally disregard the "scientific findings" re child abuse,or rape as in the example you gave, and I get upset with wrong information going into the general population in this way. One reason I hated the covers on the Dime Romance Novels of today is the wicked or evil looking men who are tearing blouses off submissive women. I just hate that.Perpetuating myth and calling it psychology is untenable and any erudite author who does it should be ashamed. So thanks I now get your point and it ties in with what my thought s were way back when we started this discussion and I was saying what a difficult time I had with trying to read "Experimental Psychology" and yet I had a book full of wonderful information call Psychology of Color and it was not about painting or decorating, it was about the effect of color on the mind, emotions, memories, etc. and it was full of tables and stats and experiments but most of the book was wonderful reading.FP

Faith, does it help to tell you that I went to school with students in my department who never will do any therapy with clients? They are straight experimental psychologists. They will work in labs with animals or people or work with businesses or cities or countries, or armies, etc., Maybe they're trying to figure out how well prepared our culture is to live in space, or to find out if there are quantifiable factors that can be identified for "healthy companies" vs. "unhealthy companies." These are the folks that found out that we as a human species are more likely to help an injured stranger if we are alone than if we are in a crowd. Remember the famous case in New York City when not one person came forward out of a large crowd to help a woman that was being repeatedly stabbed? As a culture, we were stunned that these "good" people felt frozen in place, so lots of universities kept wondering if there was something "human" about what happened. Tons of experiments were done and identical results were found...we're more likely to "help" during a crisis if responsibility CLEARLY rests only on one or two individuals. Ambiguity was the key concept. The human mind could not comprehend that no one was helping a seriously injured person, so the mind did not accept that she was seriously in need.....it was an ambiguous picture. Isn't that strange? Sorry, I'm getting carried away here.

Don't be sorry; it is interesting stuff!

As to a line between what is science and what is art: Washington State University, at the time I attended, gave a bachelor of science in psychology and a bachelor of arts in mathematics. Though not really expert in either field, I know enough to know both subjects entail a lot of scientific work but need a lot of creative art to be applied. (Personally, the BS seemed appropriate for me, because I talk more than I do anything else.) My earlier point regarding science majors not studying literature in college has nothing to do with my belief that there is a creative artist in all great scientists, or a bit of a scientist in every great writer.

Also, I agree music and mathematics are very related in our brains. The sense of pitch interval, rhythm, and memory for these things seem related to the sense of numerical differences and values. I am pretty sure that reading and making music at an early age teaches a concept of fractions. Those who understand some meaning of whole, half, quarter and eighth notes have to come into the study of fractions feeling a lot less threatened. Some of us even greet those little numbers and lines of division as simply a written language for our old friends.

Perhaps it is too simplistic and quite probably I am missing the point but it seems this thought keeps surfacing in my mind. Scientists attempt (even struggle) to explain the "how" of things and artists (in whatever medium) engage in an equal struggle to explain the "why" of things. And in their efforts they establish, willingly or not, an affinity.

PHYLL - Then along comes the audience again. We are the ones who enjoy things, sometimes finding out how and often wondering why, but always taking things in and enjoying them along the way. Or the creative - the ones who learn some whys and hows but always are asking, "Why not?" These are the folks I enjoy most (except when I was worn out raising four of that kind by myself.)

Has anyone read C. P. Snow? He was a British physicist who wrote several novels; he also wrote essays, served in the government, etc. I am curious to see what he had to say.

Betty- Perhaps I too, erred in an over generalization. No, I don't disagree with all of your post #109. And, being clearer (although on re-reading it was clear the first time) I probably have no disagreement at all. Specifically in the area of psychology, that would be rather foolish (and dangerous) of me, wouldn't it??!!

The 'science' of psychology…hmmm. Is it an art or a science? Is this an example of the affinity between science and the arts? A nexus here? At any rate….my sense is that novelists, poets, have always considered the area of personal relationships as part of their province. Therefore reluctant to give up that proprietorship to a fledgling science. Here may be an area where yielding to science has taken a back seat to the assumed expertise of the artist. Certainly, this has led, as you indicate to a body of historical inaccuracies. You make a strong case there with which I have no argument. (Aside to Betty- Oh will you never be able to forgive poor Barbara S??? Can I chuckle at this, even though I know that the roots are serious?? Hope so. Your pal, Chazz)

Ah, you guys are talking about perpetuating myths and our ambiguous perceptions. I love it. I am so loving this discussion. You're all terrific. I want to just sit back and enjoy this for awhile! Look at that exchange between Phyll and Benjamin again. (What am I , a Greek chorus??!!)

Mrs. W. Why, I don't know - but your question re C. P . Snow (no, I haven't read him) made me think of one of my favorite poets: William Carlos Williams - who was also a doctor.

Charlie

Betty that is interesting stuff and I read that kind of study reported in places like Psycology Today and a few books I have had. My own difficulty reading some books is a matter of individual taste I think. Ben is right too about all the crossover of the disciplines.fp

Read about an early combination of Literature and Science and it is by a women - The Square Circle of Margaret Cavendish is the 17th-century conceptualization of mind by means of mathematics.

The theory of a metaphor ("X is like Y." The primary literal term of the metaphor is called the "tenor" and the secondary figurative term is the "vehicle. In the metaphor the road of life, the tenor is "life" and the vehicle is "the road")

The use of the metaphor is the basis used by Margaret Cavendish in her poem “The Circle of the Brain Cannot be Squared,” to explore the significance of the use of mathematical language, and in particular of the metaphor to square the circle.

Margaret Cavendish is the first 17th-century female poet writing on scientific topics.

Mathematics in the 17th century influenced people's view of reality and is mirrored in poetic language. The metaphor of mathematical concepts provided the fixed backdrop for the explanation of the ‘UNKNOWN' realities like mind and emotions.

“To square the circle” was a unique use of poetic license for the metaphor UNIVERSE IS MATHEMATICS.

The reasons behind the poet's use of particular concepts to explain other concepts, highlight another important aspect at the basis of producing a novel metaphors, 'poetic choice'. Finally, cultural choice, that is, to the influence that common knowledge and beliefs shared by the members provide an explicit framework for the poet.”

I still believe the universe is basically mathematics. Understanding mathematics gives us the key to put in the lock and open the door to every other discipline and understand it.

MaryPage - Is the universe mathematics? I have always assumed mathematics was a language and tool for understanding and predicting the universe. The first humans to use numbers were probably discribing numbers of mammoths or days since an attack, but the first human mathematicians were probably astrologers. The number of stars takes more fingers than a guy has on his hands and geometry became obviously involved when some guy started trying to predict planting seasons as related to the moon and stars. Relationships in the universe were probably obvious way back then, but we needed math to start getting a handle on them.

The other evening, I was watching a TV program about teaching babies and preschoolers to read, to do math, and many trivia facts (which I don't push particularly myself.) One thing the very small children were able to do is distinguish at a glance how many dots are on a page in a random pattern, even though the written digits for a number, like 24, had no meaning to them yet. This made me wonder if our cave men ancestors didn't have this same concept of how many, well before they learned to count and had words or symbols for the numbers. If they had such a concept, then they may have seen many of the relationships in the universe before they had any way to analyze them.

I remember late last year, a number of books came out around the same time dealing with numbers and mathematics geared to the general reader. One such, although I never did read it, was Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea

Charlie

Zero is the invention of the Arabs, as are our number symbols.

While I worked as a bookbinder the last few years, we did some Microsoft instruction books in Arabic. I was doing qualitly control, so needed to know the page numbers. The digits looked very different from ours, with some of theirs resembling different ones of ours. I was able to figure which was which by observing the page nine and then the page ten. Since they use zeros (which I found out are dots) I could then find out what all the other digits were. If we are using Arabic numbers, as a teacher once called them, we have sure changed what they look like over the years. Whatever, they sure beat heck out of Roman numerals.

Alan Lightman's Einstein's Dreams, which I read last year, was a unique approach to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. A series of imagined dreams that Einstein might have had about worlds where 'time' is presented in different ways. It's a slim little book, but imaginative, and not merely a pop explication of Einstein's thought - this is science presented through literature. Another book read last year, Sherri Holman's The Dress Lodger has some very interesting stuff on the early art of medicine.

Other literature that focuses on science and its implications:

Shelley's Frankenstein

Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

ALdous Huxley's Brave New World

Berthold Brecht's Galileo

Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49

Frederic Duerrenmatt's The Physicists

Others?

Charlie

"Brave New World" is a small easily read fast moving book, but if it is read slowly with plenty of time for absorption, it is a tremendous book for discussion.

Robby

Wonder if they still pair Animal Farm and Brave New World in High School Lit courses, Robbie?

I know someone who read Zero and found it fascinating.

Linda

Connections

Spurred by Benjamin's post and his use of the word "relationship" in mathematics, I like thinking about .......mathematics is primarily (solely?) about relationships.....and literature is often about relationships. Everything is connected.

betty

Ah. We're coming to the close of this discussion!!!!

The gist of the last article - and the gist of our conversation for the most part - seemed to be that science and literature have come closer together in many respects. Not to say that backwaters don't still exist. But where there once was schism and misunderstanding, there is synergy. It would seem that the opposite is true of science and religion. Or as Frederick C. Crews opens his article, "It is no secret that science and religion, once allied in homage to divinely crafted harmonies, have long been growing apart." Religion explained the universe and man's place in it in ways that we could see or at least feel - in terms that also explained the order of things in heaven and earth. A pantheon. Comprehensive. It was a received knowledge. Science began to posit and - prove - other ways of looking at things. It was this proof that was the new element. How to deal with that? Man had already anointed himself as chosen and apart from the rest of nature. The quest for explanation, and knowledge - verifiable understanding - was the next step along the path.

One of Crews' assertions that touched a nerve with me is that man has always denied his "continuity with the rest of nature." This seems eminently true, and has always seemed so to me. Although there are and have historically been groups in our midst that seem to embrace and intuit our connection to the physical world around us, those groups have been dominated by forces with other views. Some groups seem to have a will to dominate: nature, their fellow man, and all the creatures of the earth. It seems to be in the nature of things that those that have the will to dominate do just that. Survival of the fittest? Only the strong survive? Isn't there a great irony here? Those whose impulse is to take their rightful yet humble place in the universe are hammered back down the rungs of the socio-evolutionary ladder. This only goes to show what me uncle always said: life ain't fair, McGee.
Charlie

So, you're wondering about the irony of "survival of the fittest," Charlie, in that those who dominate instead of living in harmony with the earth will prevail, or literally, survive. And I answer....is it really survival, when the destruction of our environment is underway? Those "fittest" are destroying the delicate chain of life of which they are a part. More irony. Finally, what does this say about the state of our evolution, human evolution, that we are unable to SEE/understand the consequences!!

betty

I agree betty - and that's part of the great irony also.

I think that most of us do see and understand that our environment is being destroyed but it is always the other guy that is doing the destroying and always the other guy who must fix it. It seems to me that to survive means that of all others and all things "I" am the only thing of importance therefore I will do anything to insure my continuing existence even if it means destroying all that is around me.

Shortsighted?---yes. Selfish?---definitely. But isn't it one of the basest of human instincts to protect ourselves and survive--even at the cost of all else?

I disagree. Just our own survival has never been the drive which keeps the world going. It is the urge for survival of our offspring which drives all life forms (which have been sucessful.) Remember, male spiders often mate only to become food for their kids. This drive is what makes for most "moral" life to have evolved - in humans and many other more complex animals. We form as societies, tribes, herds, whatever, in order to better survive, mate, reproduce, and bring our offspring to sexual maturity. Rules of (moral) behavior are necessary for the good of the group.

One theory in Psych, whose author I forget at the moment, is that we humans are a tier of drives. At the base is to breath, then to eat, etc. with the urge to reproduce near the bottom and moral concern for the world at the top of the pyramid. I personally am not sure that these motivations are in order or separate, but I see the drive to save the world as one which is natural but occurs after the other drives are pretty well satisfied.

First, I was raised by parents who leaned toward the compromise ideas in Intelligent Design. That is a comfortable way to believe for the intelligent person growing up in this scientific and yet still religious world. I kind of liked the NOMA idea, though. My reason is that, given rules of logic and arguement which require the people arguing must first agree on the same basic assumptions, I have never understood how theists can try to argue with athiests. All the many arguements I have read disregard this basic rule. If I don't accept a god or creation by a diety, no amount of arguing based on what such a god said or had written for itself will convince me of anything. If I do and believe in miracles, no amount of scientific arguement or proof will dissuade me from my beliefs because they put me beyond the limits of science.

One thing I already argued with in my just previous post, is in the second article: "All are blamed on Darwin, whose supposed message is that we are animals to whom everything is permitted." As one who has worked with and observed animals much of his life, I contend everything is certainly not permitted in most higher forms of animals. Any animal who will live in a group as an adult is taught many rules of behavior while he is young. The ones who are all on their own may have no such rules, but that is pretty well true for a human hermit, too.

You've made some good points, Ben, especially about the argument between atheistic theories and non-atheistic. But I will have to re-read your comments and think about them before I can agree with you. I keep wondering about the elders who drive the young from the nest when they have achieved adulthood and will defend themselves thereafter from any threat by those same young. Our defense of the young seems to be only when they are not a threat to us.

Phyll - In this arguement, I am calling "young" only animals which are not yet sexually mature. Our drive for the survival of the young is toward their sexual maturity, at which time their own drive for the survival of their young determines their life. (By the way, I believe keeping teenagers home and treating them like children is very unnatural, hence difficult.) Also, it is natural to drive out misfits. I am not putting down misfits, just stating facts. Bear in mind, some such misfits may go on to start a better group or tribe.

What we're doing to our environment is as natural as a herd of elephants tearing up and destroying the plant life on which their lives depend. Personally, I've always been unable to seperate the 'natural' from the 'man-made'. Unless some god created us 'special', then we're no more unnatural than a shrew, a spider or a lion and the Taj Mahal is no more unnatural than a robin's nest.

Were it not for one beast (man) setting aside land and formatting certain laws, elephants would have ceased their existence sometime during the last century. Saber toothed tigers, mastadons and passenger pigeons all went extinct as environments changed and as a new species honed his hunting skills. Just as surely as species have gone extinct in the past, so too will species go extinct in the future and homo sapiens sapiens will surely be one of them.

People don't seem to realize that it's all part of nature's 'plan'. Our climates and environments have changed drastically in the past and they're changing now (we're merely speeding-up the change and perhaps sending it in a different direction). All the CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere was in the atmosphere eons ago and we're only returning it. As the environment changes it will no longer support many of the present day life-forms (us being one of them) however new life-forms will evolve and the world will be no worse (or better) off than had we never existed.

Anyone who thinks that our extinction is necessarily a bad thing probably gets pretty dissapointed when he, after holding his hand submerged in a pail of water for a couple hours and then removing it, finds that the pail of water is exactly the same as if the hand had never touched it ----- or, if I may quote from Omar Khayyam who expressed it much more succinctly than I can:

The Moving Finger writes, and having writ,

Moves on; not all thy Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all they Tears wash out a Word of it.

This is a great discussion. I have never heard of the Seattle Discovery Institute and its band of PHD'ers before.
I'm a middle of the roader on this one and always have been. Science and spirituality abound balanced in my heart. Does it mean I don't care or I'm not smart enough to question the theorists? No!!
There are too many important, complex issues to be resolved in modern day medicine and science that I can't help but question why all of these people continue to challange one another and take issue of- which came first , "the chicken or the egg?" It is a moot question!

We are reaching a point in our scientific discoveries where soon no one will be able to doubt the truth. Okay, so they will make up reasons to. But it is all laid out for us now. I agree with much of what you say, ACUDOR.

IN THE BEGINNING

My small mind has a lot of trouble dealing with something of that magnitude. That we can "see" over 13 Billion years back in time is hard for me to comprehend.

I just think it's a miracle that I can read street signs while driving without any glasses.

I just wish I could read a book without them!

Linda

Benjamin said that rather than our own survival, it's the "survival of our offspring which drives all life forms." The instinct - the necessity - to procreate has the result of maintaining the species. Isn't this proven over and over in the study of life forms? Isn't this a primal urge, after all? Benjamin makes a good case for the implications of this (the forming of social groups, etc.). I like that 'pyramid scheme', Benjamin. They seem to go from involuntary drives, to primal/instinctual drives to more considered drives, more intellectual ones. These are the ones that seem to suffer, when in conflict with other groups - or can cause (what can be) damage to our surroundings and so defeat the purpose of these "drives."

Welcome to the discussion, Acudor. One thing that may separate us in some degree from other life forms is our attempt (really, our burden) at "awareness" - we contemplate the results of our actions, and assess their value and/or harm to us as a whole social unit. These are "drives" higher up Benjamin's pyramid.
(p.s. - my hand gets extremely wrinkled every time I keep it in a pail of water. What does it all mean?!?!).

Alf- You're just a practical/practicing realist at heart.

Thanks for that link, Mary Page. The telescope itself is almost hard to comprehend, isn't it? A "mind-bending virtual telescope". A 'gravitational lens' "some two billion light years away." Sounds almost like something out of Flash Gordon, doesn't it? Wonder if the images produced would 'hold up in court'?! As science advances, adjunct to what Benjamin said, it almost becomes easier and easier for thee creationist to deny this type of scientific finding.
Charlie

While musing on the question: Is there life in outer space? I was struck by the thought that our planet is infected with with what we call life. Instead of the usual clean bare rock that makes up the other stellar bodies we have this bristling contamination which is constantly reinfecting the earth.

However, unless I am mistaken, Ben seemed to say the instinct was to protect the young. I keep remembering the various documentaries dealing with animals who have been raised in an isolated environment, such as a zoo or laboratory, where they were not part of a family group and therefore, could not observe family behavior, have to be taught to care for their young. Wouldn't that indicate that the urge to protect our young is a learned behavorial condition and not necessarily an instinct? I think there is a decided difference between procreation for the survival of the species and the desire to protect our young.

I believe it is instinct, Phyll. I own a passionate concern that all will be well for thousands of my descendants going onwards into centuries of time far, far beyond my reach. This is my primary concern.

Mrs. Watson, I have thought that for years, and it pretty well sums up what we are considered to be in the GAIA THEORY. If you don't know it, look it up. It is fascinating, and I think you will eat it up!

I agree completely with Acudor that it is "Nature's Plan." Nature has its own method of homeostasis and in the words of homo sapiens, this is called war, pestilence, famine, fire, flood, etc or to be more specific -- ethnic cleansing, genocide, AIDS, terrorism, murder, suicide, infertility, sudden infant death, miscarriage, and other methods of balancing out the planet's needs during which time we think we are in control when, in fact, we are merely carrying out Nature's Plan.

Robby

I have always had this feeling that "Life became aware of itself," and that is the miracle and the mystery of the universe.

Now there are many diciplines trying to explain "life". Religion,Philosophy,Science and it is all sort of an evolution.

There is a wonderful movie where a poet a politician and a physicist meet on an island vacation spot and have long involved conversations. I it is a really interesting movie I wish I could remember the name. Acress was liv ulmann. fp

Nevertheless, we put out forest fires, build dams, try to find ways to peace, expend resources to conquer starvation, disease. Is this struggle part of "nature's plan" also? Or a misguided attempt to control our fate.

Faith, I agree and well put. (The movie was Mindwalk)
Sisyphus

We have found that putting out a forest fire (despite the pruning that nature wanted to do), building a dam (despite nature's desire to run the river in another direction), building levees (despite nature's desire to flood for fertility purposes), and creating jetties (despite nature's desire to erode a beach) -- often created new problems that nature finally had to rectify decades and centuries later.

We keep thinking we will "win." Apparently Nature hasn't yet enabled us to have the brains to realize that we are not in control.

Robby

MINDWALK. I remember that movie! As I recall, I felt it was rather inconclusive. I carefully watched it all the way through, but did not marvel at it.

Have read all of the first site about Darwin, and went to Barnes & Noble and bought FINDING DARWIN'S GOD by Kenneth R. Miller and TOWER OF BABEL by Robert T. Pennock. Now I need to read the second site, and these books, and I'm ready to go!

Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. Yet we continue to build the house on the cliff by the sea. We continue to populate the flood plains with our abodes. Why? Do we really think we will "win"? Is this some hubris born of our imagined mastery of the universe? Some will to immortality? Is this why we continue to set ourselvces 'apart' and not in harmony? Do we believe we are the chosen ones? I think the answer lies somewhere in Faith's 'self-awareness" - and that self-awareness also includes the image of our futlitity - and of our defiance.

Ready to go MaryPage? Don't leave us yet!!
Charlie

By the way, one of our Discussion Leaders (Nellie Vrolyk: Science Fiction Clearinghouse/Books of Science and Technology) is seriously contemplating mounting a discussion of Darwin's The Origin of Species. Please e-mail her if you would be interested in joining in that proposed discussion.
Charlie

Hello. I recently found this discussion, so will jump in with a word or two.

It has long been my hypothesis, no doubt shared by others somewhere, that gods were created to explain phenomena humans did not understand. Having started as a right-brained person who did not question the theology I was early taught, I married a scientist who disputed nearly every idea I had about life and showed me the factual proof of what he knew and believed. This is not to say that this scientist and his colleagues, whom I knew, were not spiritual persons. Spirituality and religion are often two different things.

It took a while, but I learned a new way to think. I'm on the side of Darwin and natural selection. I also agree with Robby's premise about Nature. There was an extremely interesting documentary on public television recently about natural selection which pointed out that the female of the species did the selecting. The glorious plumage of the peacock told her which male had the strongest genes. When feathers were clipped on a male, he was rejected by the females.

I've become interested in evolutionary psychology since I saw this program. Perhaps Robby would come in and explain something about what it is.

Yes, I'd be very interested in a discussion of Darwin's "The Origin of the Species".

Mal

I have long believed that the female of the specie does the selecting and I say this in a serious vein. Never mind examining each and every animal and bird. Just look at humans. The male rarely looks ahead to the direction his family might follow and how the woman to whom he is attracted fits in. The female almost always (albeit subconsciously) looks ahead.

How many times have we seen a couple on the street - she, an extremely attractive woman and he, a plain looking man with no apparent charisma -- and we say: "I wonder what she sees in him!"

Robby

A scientist I know told me recently that the instinct of males is to "broadcast the seed" in order to propagate his race (species). The female instinctively chooses the male, this scientist said, whom she thinks will be the best and most stable provider for the family.

Mal

My instincts really sucked...

8:)

dapph

Which shows that if things don't go well, it is always the female's fault. She made the wrong choice.

Robby

ha ha..

Actually, biologically speaking, I did very well. And I am grateful for that.

And I won't bore you with the details of the rest. This is a very good discussion, and I am enjoying reading it.

Sincerely,

dapph

Bless your heart, Dapph! You made me laugh out loud again!

I am getting concerned about numbers of book discussions I am already signed up for! I'm doing JOHN ADAMS, and that BEE thing and SHIPPING NEWS and I think we're doing GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING, and there is this discussion and the science one and I believe I am signed up for a couple of other books as well, and just can't remember which ones at the moment; oh, yes, SAVAGE BEAUTY, about Edna St. Vincent Millay is one of them. The whole pile will come crashing down on my head if I add any more right now!

Oh, by the way: Nature's Plan. Does this differ from God's Plan in any way? Or is it just another way of saying the same thing? Did we fall from Grace smack dab into the primordial pool? With so much chance and luck involved in this process we call life, I must admit, the word plan leads me astray.

Crews satisfactorily shows the impossible task before the Intelligent Design (ers). But Part II of the article is much the more interesting to my mind. The "moral anxiety" of which Crews speaks is a very ubiquitous phenomena in 21st Century life. The imperative seems to be to line up and choose sides these days. Black and white. Morality vs. licentiousness. Family values vs. self-indulgence. One wakes up from a nightmare that we are inching toward, dare I say it, The Party of God.

Crews cites a recent poll which reveals that "only 44 percent of our fellow citizens agree with the proposition 'Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals'." This surprised me. Which perhaps only goes to show how naiveté clings to life in the latter years. It also shows why, as Crews tells us, most of us readily see no conflict between their personal God and neo-Darwinian theory. Our brain short-circuits the conflict. The fuse is blown, the circuit breaker tripped. And perhaps, after all, it is better to leave it at that. Sort of a bi-polar belief system. Why attempt the synthesis at all as Stephen Jay Gould says? NOMA…I feel more kindly toward it than Crews does. Although I agree that it is imperative that we take ownership of our responsibilities to live etchically on this good earth.

Welcome Mal and dapphne.

MaryPage: Girl With a Pearl Earring, was not selected, naturally or otherwise (although a close second…..horseshoes and hand grenades, yadda, yadda). But that still leaves you with a mound of reading to do. My word, how DO you do it!
Charlie

From my point of view, "Nature's Plan" and "God's Plan" are not synonymous. The term God is a personification. Nature is not.

Robby

Lots of great posts especially questioning our use or abuse of the land - finally desided to chime in and as usual I don't have the nack of saying my thoughts in 30 words or less.

To me this argument it is like a tempest in a tea pot with neither side being the end all be all -

And so, according to the paper science has an idea that have brought fear "a cascade of fears," to the hearts of man - what is new about that?

Recently I’ve heard the most wonderful definition of "Fundamentalism" - a simplified all or nothing idea of a perfect past with an apocalyptic goal toward reaching their (fantasy) view of the past.

I can actually understand the fear of a fundamentalist - Accepting Darwin’s theory borders on their accepting life as absurd and therefore, they are only a necessary absurdity. Darwinism only offers the absence of anything that might help to understand ourselves as in, one's purpose, or one's place in the social scheme of things other than procreation.

We want to impose on the world our own projects, freely chosen, therefore become a creator of value for ourselves. Darwin offers no fixed priorities for choosing one project over another only the project of procreation. Christianity was supposed to elevate man from animal like behavior and giving in to ones sexual drives was certainly the big "no, no" toward becoming a civilized Christian.

Accepting Darwin, the Christian is confronting an incomprehensible world. Desperate for some reassurance that there is something or someone who can help them out, God, the all powerful, the in-refutable becomes the answer. Their memory, read literally, word for word in the Bible orients them and this present situation to what they once were--they can create no abstract historical narrative for their lives. They must be radically sure of who they are. They are making some form of affirmation about the world.

Reading much about language lately, came across this gem.

Platonism is the heart of the French language, and Aristotelianism is that of English.

Platonism tends to abstraction - the result a desire to seek and map out the "Idea". The consistent movement is away from the particular, the discrete, and towards the general, the universal. The more abstract (i.e., a concept, rather than a concrete physical description). It is the meaning behind the action. The symbol, not the thing symbolized, carries the weight. The word is the signifier of an eternal form.

The concreteness of English, however, is a mark of its "passionate Aristotelianism." At the heart of the English language, is a commitment to the phenomenal world, an intense and narrow aim that restores that almost obsessional detachment from the phenomenal world. The literal - what actually happens, on a purely superficial level.

What could be more Aristotelianism then Scientific Theory AND Fundamentalism. Two heads knocking together - of course, we must have the Law - UC- Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson who chooses "to retreat to the Bible for "proof" that nature is subordinate to God." !?!

What is justice - Plato argued that justice in the state is the same as justice in the individual - a harmony between the various parts for the good of the whole.

While Aristotle who defended slavery says that the law-abiding man is Just and the lawless man is un-Just - Virtue is Just therefore, the rich are Just; the man who commits adultery to gain money is Just while the man who satisfies his appetite is un-Just.

We have "Divine Right" and "Might Makes it Right" and the "Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" and the "Consent of the Governed" and "Man by Nature is Equal" therefore, in order to attain his ends he must be at war therefore. a man’s security is his strength. Then we have "Civil Rights" and "Human Rights" but the "Rights of the State" supersede.

Oh yes, we have "Justice is Fair" - least we forget Justice is blind and is only balancing the argument. The judge frames the arguement in a way to restore equality. Usually the "Justice is Fair" crowd want their version of the truth to be Just.

All that if we were to all agree that the Bible, not the Four Noble Truths or I Ching or The Constitution of this nation is the basis for justice!

From my perspective Darwinism doesn’t get off the hook either - does Darwin’s Theory take into consideration "Relativity" or "Quantum" leap? I’m not a scientist but I think Darwin’s Theory has its place as a stepping stone but is not necessarily the end all be all.

If the earth’s atmosphere is like a container and even "Et Tu Brute" is floating around in air, plant and mineral so that we still breath in Ceasers breath with our every breath, who knows, until DNA proves otherwise, all the current genes could have been established "In The Beginning and the Word was..." Now if we weren’t so arrogant as to assume God was an understandable but simply greater image of ourselves and rather view God as an idea, an abstraction of Power we could avoid this argument.

Ok I am wound up on this so here is more of my thoughts -

According to Joseph Campbell we have two basic world views:

Nature-oriented systems, which relate a people to their nature and the natural world of which they are a part. This type of system generally originated with a people group which remained stable enough to develop and maintain a connection to the natural world, and thus emphasizes harmony with nature. "Nature religions are not attempts to control nature but to help you put yourself in accord with it." Nature-oriented systems are often matrilineal.

Male and female contribute equally to the cosmic life force. All beings, including heavenly bodies and the elements of winds and rain, are brothers and sisters. Everything is alive, and each depends on all the others. In the world view of nature-oriented systems, the Earth "is not a place of exile," therefore there is no reason to "challenge it, defy it, refashion it, or escape from it."

Socially-oriented systems, usually developed by nomadic peoples, which teach the people of that society that the center of existence is the human group. In this type of system, Nature is, generally condemned in some way and viewed as fallen or corrupt, and thus emphasis is placed on the conquering of the natural world. "When nature is thought of as evil, you don't put yourself in accord with it, you control it, or try to, and hence the tension, the anxiety, the cutting down of forests, the annihilation of nature people...Because nature is thought of as corrupt, every spontaneous act is sinful and must not be yielded to." Socially-oriented systems are often patriarchal.

Campbell tells us this distinction is essential to the comprehension of any society, for, "You get a totally different civilization and a totally different way of living according to whether your myth represents nature as fallen or whether nature is in itself a manifestation of divinity, and the spirit is the revelation of the divinity that is inherent in nature."

Each type of system has contributed to the world as we know it. From the nature-oriented systems, we learn about the importance of respect for and harmony with nature. From the socially-oriented systems have come most of the world's scientific and technological advances.

Therefore, I have a hard time understanding the Fundamentalists argument that many of their beliefs are basic to nature. Sounds to me more like a power grab between two socially-oriented systems expecting Justice as, "Man by Nature is Equal" and so, in order to attain his ends he must be at war therefore, a man’s security is his strength.

From the paper we have this quote:

"...evolution is not a designer but a scavenger that makes do with jury-rigged solutions and then improves them as opportunities and emergencies present themselves."

In the face of the Black Plague during the middle ages taking so many of the brightest and best, although of nature, it certainly affected the gene pool. But what about man’s affect on man as the Holocaust especially, knowing the first incarcerated were the professors and intelligencia, in addition we have holes put into the gene pool as a result of "the Bomb" in Japan and then the death of so many of our young in war after war and so, I wonder, as elephants decimate the jungle but are the originators of new jungles rising from their poop maybe we are all as a result of the poop of mankind - in other words what is left after we have slaughtered the best and brightest.

Eliot also introduces an image of the scavenger. Prufrock thinks that he "should have been a pair of ragged claws / Scuttling across the floors of silent seas." Crabs are scavengers, garbage-eaters who live off refuse that makes its way to the sea floor. Eliot suggests that making something beautiful out of the refuse of modern life, as a crab sustains and nourishes itself on garbage, may, in fact, be the highest form of ar

I respectfully submit that is hard for me to believe that in this millennium era of scientific and technological knowledge and communication of the same we are still arguing creationism vs evolution, or that such a thing as Intelligent Design has come into being.

I can see all kinds of psychological reasons why humans needed gods or a god and some sort of magic to explain what they could not understand throughout history. I can also see all kinds of ways in which belief in those gods or a god has caused immense trouble, conflict and violence on earth.

No one will ever be able to convince me that the words in the Christian Bible are "the truth", especially when I consider that those words have been copied and translated over and over during a period of thousands of years. Who's to say tired monks in cells in the 7th century did not make changes before more changes came after that? I'll say exactly the same thing about other books used by religions, the Qur'an, the Torah, whatever book is used.

It seems to me that good and ethical behavior is a form of self-survival, and I feel that survival is the primary instinct in human beings. People learn after a while that they are hurt if they behave in a certain way, and are not hurt if they change their behavior to a more self-protective one. One also learns that people are kinder to him or her if he or she does not hit another person over the head with a bat.

Darwin was not just talking about sex in "The Origin of the Species", nor is his theory nihilistic or leaning to the absurd. Some understanding of natural selection is a great help in understanding other human behavior, in my opinion.

As far as quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity are concerned, I can't make a connection between them and Darwin's theory of evolution. Barbara is right that each discipline of science evolves through a kind of stepping stone process with one discovery leading to another. But to try and compare a biological science with physics is like trying to convince someone that a compôte of apples and oranges looks and tastes the same as stone soup.

Mal

hehehe as much as organized religion using the Bible as their rock of truth has to do with natural selection Mal - fear allows for getting lost in the woods doesn't it - but then I wonder if science is being just as pendantic by not seeing the cross over or harmony within its theories.

Barb:

Do the scientists you know tell you there is not harmony among them about their hypotheses and theories? The only discord I have witnessed among scientists was arguments about "Who published first?"

My former husband (an inorganic chemist and physicist) travelled to Russia when it was still the Soviet Union to discuss experiments with Russian scientists, for example. When musicians get together to play music, it doesn't make any difference where they came from or what they believe; they are there to play music. All the scientists I have ever known are the same. Their focus is on their scientific disciplines and what they are doing within those disciplines.

Mal

If anyone does start a discussion on Darwin's 'Origin of Species', I hope they include Cuvier's 'The Survival of the Fittest' as a 'must-read'. You can't understand one without having read the other.

The idea that the peacock hen is selecting her mate on the basis of his genes improving the line (or even her own little family) is to me absurd. I have to admit that that's exactly that idea they try to put forward on 'nature' programs but it simply doesn't fit with the facts.

First off, I refuse to believe that a hen (peacock or otherwise) has the mental capacity to understand that copulation leads directly to progeny or that she has even the most basic knowledge of genetics. Any farmer will tell you that the fowl in his yard (all of them) are attracted to anything that's bright or shiny. Many generations back, a pea cock was born with a slightly brighter or discolored tailfeather. This resulted in him attracting a few more pea hens than his compatriots. The brighter feather also appeared in a few of his chicks who, in their turn attracted a few more hens and resulted in more colored chicks one of whom had 2 or 3 feathers colored and he attracted even more hens than even his less-colored brothers ... etc, etc, ad-nearly-infinitum - and now we have peacocks with large colored tails. Just drop a few new predactors in the vicinity so that bright colors become a handicap and in a few generations pea cocks will be drap again ..... not because the female changes her preference, but because more of the drab ones will survive to have their own little even-drabber chicks.

Nature TV programs also say that a male lion, upon defeating another male lion and taking over his pride, will kill all the cubs in the pride so that the lionesses will come into estros and he can mate and thus ensure the survival of his genetic makeup. Surely no one really believes that a lion understands 'estros' or 'genetics'. What really happened was that one day, thousands of years ago, a particularly mean lion took over a pride and simply killed the cubs because he felt like it. This did however result in the lionesses coming into heat much sooner, he mated sooner and therefore sired more cubs than the males who didn't kill off cubs sired by their predecessors. Some of the mean lion's cubs inherited the mean streak and did the same and thus had more cubs themselves. After a few thousand years the 'mean lion' gene predominated and now all surviving lions appear to carry it.

I also disagree that the female selects her mate. She certainly does in some species (especially birds) but just as certainly doesn't in other species. The lion fights for and selects his mates. Horses and most other herd animals have the male selecting. I'm not sure about all marsupials but it's certain that both the koala and Tasmanian Devil have the male select his mates because both are what we humans would term rapists (they use force - pure and simple).

How do those who believe in 'progeny-conscious mate selection' explain the tallest humans, the Watusi and the shortest the M'buti [pigmy] who live in close proximity to each other in the Congo? I think it's because, no matter who selects whom, a smaller hunter has a better chance of moving undetected through dense jungle and thereby catching his prey (with which he feeds his family) than does the taller man. With a better fed family, more of the shorter man's (even shorter) children survive to move easily through the dense jungle and have more, still shorter children of their own. It's just the opposite for the tall Watusi who lives in a more open environment where height is an advantage in seeing and catching dinner to feed his family. NO MATTER WHO SELECTS WHOM, the shorter man will do better and become predominant in the dense jungle and the taller man will do better in the more open environment. This is true even if pigmy women were to prefer taller men ..... the short man might be selected last but because he can better feed his offspring, more of them will survive and, in time, shortness will predominate in his tribe.

Individually either party might select their own particular mate but, in the long run, Nature selects which species/tribes survive and what their charactereistics will be, and it's "Survival of the Fittest". (((Fittest doesn't necessarily mean strongest, tallest, cutest or brightest. It means most fit for that particular environment and whatever conditions may apply at that particular time.)))

Acudor says:--"The lion fights for and selects his mates. Horses and most other herd animals have the male selecting."

The female also has the ability to reject and/or fight off, which she often does.

Robby

The public television documentary I mentioned did not say "that the peacock hen is selecting her mate on the basis of his genes improving the line." I did.

Mal

I don't think so Robbie. The male, if he's in charge of the pride, will pester her till she gives in. He'll also kill her if he's of a mind to. And don't forget, she has, while in estros, an instinctive urge to mate as well. I doubt that any female lion in estros would be successful in not mating with the dominant male.

Malryn, I was referring to the many nature documentaries which I'VE watched and which almost always give the erroneous impression that animals have some inate knowledge of genetics. These programs seem to be postulating some intrinsic thinking process going on in the animal's mind. However, these actions/reactions are instinctive and instinct requires an absence of reasoning (i.e. if it's reasoned, it's not instinctive). For instance, a honey bee will invariably build it's comb in hexagons which just happens to be the most efficient and economical shape for the job. The bee however doesn't know what a hexagon is (not be definition anyways, and she's likely not very familiar with pentagons or rhomboids either). Evolution and 'survival of the fittest' dictate that the line of bees which predominates over time be the one that makes the best use of the space and materials available to them. Using hexagons probably results in about 20% more honey being stored and eggs being laid in a hive of any particular size than would any other shape. The triangle would be just as good space-wise but would tend to mishape the growing larvae. Over time, bees who create hexagonal cells in their comb would successfully feed and raise more offspring than would bees using any other shape and thus would prevail.

Bees undoubtedly started building their hives other than hexagonally. Perhaps they used squares or cicles. They probably did pretty well for themselves and would have continued on till today if one hive hadn't developed the hexagon. However, once a better mousetrap came along, the competition was doomed. Same/same with Neanderthals. They existed for at least 250,000 years in Europe and would almost certainly still be there if Cro-Magnon (homo sapiens) hadn't appeared on the scene. It wasn't necessary for Cro-Magnon to kill Neanderthal (although he might have), it was just necessary that he out-compete him.

Too bad this dilemma has tied together our soul, spirituality with the Bible and organized religion because, talking of natural selection only in relationship to plant and animal life seems to me to be distancing ourselves from being included in the Theory. This theory seems to me to only focus our success in life as procreators - Oh dear how limiting - how shallow is life if we bring children in the world whose main focus is to carry on the line.

I can see the nineteenth century morality at play here where the fittest were worthy, most often on the top of the financial heap, and the children of those serving wealth or without education or current employment were not worthy - power structures choosing who is worthy to procreate and carry on the human line is an element or out-take not addressed by Darwin, that I know of and yet, comes in to play heavily in the continuation of a thinking human as compared to lions, bees and birds in the wild. Humans may not be thinking continuation of the line when they are procreating but certainly the social power structure is.

Out of the argument addressed in the paper this is the issue that I see is the underbelly of the war between fundamentalists and scientists.

Malryn- Point of clarification: quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity were last week's concerns. Different topic - but one (science & literature, science in literature, etc.) - that has some commonality. We look to science, literature and religion as ways of explaining and/or understanding our common physical world. Some of us simply rely more heavily on one or the other and varying combinations thereof. I think that's good.

I'm sure the human species is the only one that sometimes consciously attempts to select the gene pool - whether this be through individual decisions or policies of state. On the other hand, I'm kinda depressed about my new found knowledge of koalas….

[And slightly off topic, but I was shocked to learn of the orangutan proclivities for rape. There are a number of new biographies out on the Leakey line of primate researchers and this disturbing fact is mentioned in a number of the reviews. A serious occupational hazard. On the other hand, why I was shocked to learn this, given the spotlight on rape/war over the past decade is just another example of my naïveté.]

The question of whether the male or female selects the mate is "interesting", but I'm not leaping to any social implications on the matter for the human species (assuming one or the other is true) - as much as we like to form comprehensive-inclusive-across-all-fields ways of perception - I'm not buying.

Charlie

When I mentioned quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, I was responding to Barbara's post #179.

Guess I'll make things easier for you.

Mal

I am hugging myself with delight at the rushing stream of rational thinking here, and hoping the zanies don't come along and, in effect, dam this thing up!

In watching the new series EVOLUTION, I was fascinated at the different direction, as social groups, our two nearest relatives, the chimps and the bonobos, took and the reasons educed as to why this happened. Basically it was food supply.

If Nature made procreation the determining instinct for a species, I proffer that nourishment is the stronger instinct for each individual within a species, and that the search for food has an extremely important affect on evolution.

I don't believe that procreation is an instinct at all. My guess is that you've come very close to the truth with your mention of 'the search for nourishment' in your last post. I think all animals have certain appetites which they aspire to have satisfied and those appetites include both a need for nourishment and a strong desire to copulate. The fact that the latter results in progeny is, to my way of thinking, wholly serendipitous (although I'd be very willing to entertain any arguments to the contrary and would love to be proven wrong on the subject - I'm a bit of a romantic at heart).

It's hard to believe that the sea turtle ((who mates and then lays and buries her eggs on an island and then goes thousands of miles away before the eggs hatch)) has any idea that an egg = a baby turtle. The mating was appeasing an appetite (or scratching an itch, if you will) and the burying/covering the eggs as well as the return to the sea were instincts. I'll betcha that even centenarian Momma sea turtles have absolutely no idea as to where baby turtles come from ((and the Papa turtle, if possible, even less so)).

P.S. Thanks Mary, for the word 'educed'.

Well, if it isn't instinct, then what makes a turtle do what it does?. Why does this creature bury it's eggs?. How come it doesnt just drop them any-old where like it does it's merde? And these "appetites" that you wont call instincts, how come all life has them, these "appetites" for nurishment,procreation and survival. And a major question speakin of evolution just what do you think drives life toward complexity? It is a major mystery and cannot be answered by Darwins theory alone. And physicists can not answere these questions alone. Nor can poets or priests, not even Taihard de Chardin who spent his life as a paleontoligist and a priest. Not yet anyway can the mystery be explained or sometimes I think it can not even be approached rationally . I for one love the study of biology and evolution and go along with the theory and yet irrationally I am also a person that responds to religious ritual and uses the comforts of religion as if it were provable,which it is not...

Faith

I suspect that what the human mind searches for is answers and whether the answers produce science or theology or literature is less important than that they resolve the anxiety of not knowing (however you define knowing).

This is all conjecture on my part, but I'll tell you what I think.

The turtle lays it's eggs in a hole and covers them because that's what it's mother did, (not that the mother taught the present generation but because it was in the mother's genes to dig and bury it's eggs and those genes were passed on to the next generation). Perhaps a million generations back, the turtle merely created a little hollow in the sand in which to lay it's eggs or perhaps it laid them right out in the open and then pulled some brush or debris over them. Perhaps there were very few predators that would prey on her eggs, especially immediately after the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago and mammals hadn't yet developed into grade A predators. But it doesn't matter precisely what was done a million generations ago. What matters is that undoubtedly one mother had a slight genetic mutation within her that caused her to do it just a little bit better than the majority did and that tendency was passed on genetically to her offspring. There would certainly be many mothers who had slight genetic mutations that caused them to do it just a bit worse than the majority did but their line would have died out. The mother who did a 'just a bit better than average job' would have more offspring survive than the majority and those offspring would also have more offspring survive. Then one of those offspring would have a beneficial genetic mutation that caused it to do 'just a little bit better' than even it's 'improved' mother had done, and so on, and so on, until the present day. It's 'survival of the fittest in it purest form'.

Your question ----- "And these "appetites" that you wont call instincts, how come all life has them, these "appetites" for nurishment,procreation and survival?" ----- would be better posed with the word """surviving""" inserted between 'all' and 'life' because, the forms of life that didn't have these appetites or which weren't strongly-enough driven by them, simply failed to survive (once again - survival of the fittest). More than 95% of species have gone extinct. The ones we see are simply those who were best adapted to survive.

Your most difficult question was ---" And a major question speakin of evolution just what do you think drives life toward complexity? ---

There are only three possibilities for each member of each new generation of each species. It either: a) becomes more complex. b) becomes less complex. c) remains at it's species' present level of complexity. If a) were to apply in even only one mutation in a million, with millions of species and each species having a chance at mutation with every new member born, greater complexity is bound to be the end result. Even with 999,999 out of a million mutations tending towards less complexity or towards maintaining it's present state of complexity, (who'd notice ?), greater complexity in lifeforms seems to be a numerical certainty. I'm having trouble with this one. I understand it myself (honest) but seem to lack the communicative skill required to get it across. If the preceding (probably completely inadequate) paragraph doesn't explain it to your satisfaction, let me know and I'll try again. I'm getting an idea for an analogy that just might do the trick but it would take a while to get it clear in my own mind and then to type out.

I believe we are all carriers of DNA which is the basic "organism." It is the DNA which has the natural "instinct" to reproduce. It is the ancient battle of entropy (natural breaking down) against syntropy (constant building up). In the process, over the eons, the DNA mutates into various kinds of genes, some of which cause worms and some of which cause human beings.

Because we have one particular gene or combination of genes, we have a desire to copulate, thereby doing what the genes "wanted" us to do in the first place.

It's like the old joke -- a chicken is an egg's way of making another egg.

Robby

I have a grandsoninlaw with a Ph.D. in Biology who works on retro viruses at Johns Hopkins. As far as they are concerned, EVOLUTION is proved right there in that lab. The HIV virus evolves so fast it has become one of the scariest things in our world today; scarier even than bin Laden, for instance! I am perfectly serious.

Buckminster Fuller wrote his book, Intuition,(1970), as "an expression of one of his most fundamental ideas: that humanity is suffering from a kind of cosmic nearsightedness, an inability to comprehend universal principles, due to concentration on special 'parts.' Only by using our full minds - our intuition, as well as our reason - will we be able to fulfill our unique role in the Universe."

Syntropics is the integration of intuition and reason into an understanding of the patterns which surround humanity. Through the application of Syntropics, individuals improve their ability to recognize micro and macro patterns as they are encountered. By recognizing these patterns, “intuitive predictions” can be integrated with logic and result in better forecasting.

Syntropy was described by Hungarian chemist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, a Nobel Prize winner, as a disposition toward elaboration in living things. The concept expresses the tendency of all organic matter to develop and unfold new qualities as it moves through time.

Robby

Thanks for that addition, Robby. I am familiar with the concept of entropy, but not so with syntropy. Perhaps this answers Faith's question. You also spoke of R. Buckminster Fuller's caution against our shortsightedness. Speaking on Gould's tenet that nature offers each species the liberty to fail or succeed, Crews writes:

The options we enjoy as a species that has staked its fate on intelligence and foresight are surely a gift of our staggeringly complex neural circuitry, which is natural selection's boldest experiment in trading blind instinct for feedback mechanisms that allow dangers to be consciously assessed and circumvented. [emphasis mine]

The instincts of our forbearers, it seems, have been superceded over time by a hard-wired, complex feedback mechanism trough natural selection. Because this has happened, one is led to believe that this is a good thing. Interesting though, that we still have an almost nostalgic fondness for our instincts. Our instincts are almost always good. Or are they?

And, welcome to the discussion, Jerryj. I agree (as does Faith, I suspect) that we each find our answers in different ways. It's the complex ways in which each of us process what we observe (to what degree and through what filters) that makes life ever so fascinating.
Charlie

I don't know that our instincts are "good," but I consider them more powerful than our cognitions. They reside in our "old" brain, in our "reptilian" brain. Emotions are the basic language. It is important sometimes, I believe, to put our "I" over our "E" - that is, use our intellect despite the tendency to operate solely through emotion.

As you say above: "The instincts of our forbearers, it seems, have been superceded over time by a hard-wired, complex feedback mechanism trough natural selection." This may be true but the "instincts" are still there striving to take charge, if you will. When they do, we often find ourselves reacting in a way that is no longer functional. Fear might have been a functional emotion in an earlier context but now merely causes us to have an anxiety attack.

Robby

That's true. Superceded was too strong a word. Our instincts are still there - at the ready, waiting to be appealed to, to be called upon. Wonder if the dominant ones of the tribe are the best at playing this card, working this reptilian brain (like that). In times of danger and stress we tend to "revert to type"?

Charlie

This evening I am watching 3 wonderful hours on TLC ("The Learning Channel", for those who do not know it) about our universe. We are now in hour number 2, and doing black holes. The set is called HYPERSPACE, and I highly recommend it. In hour one they told us, among much other information, that there are ONE MILLION stars in our universe for every grain of sand on our entire planet.

Gosh!

Acudor I understand a lot more than I can effectively write down but I believe the study of Evolution and the scientific world working with the theory as a base will lead us to a better world as per the quote below. Saving us from Darwin Part two of the Article posted by charlie: This quote" We are the most resourceful, but also the most dangerous and disruptive, animals in this corner of the universe. A Darwinian understanding of how we got that way could be the first step toward a wider ethics commensurate with our real transgressions, not against God but against Earth itself and its myriad forms of life."

Robby syntropy is the concept that was in my mind as I had read about it in one of my science mags but I have not the memory nor vocabulary to explain what I remembered reading about the tendency toward complexity,etc. I love your logical and erudite posts.I even love your funny posts.:)fp

I wonder your posts on 'how come' if these sea turtles did the 100th monkey thing - as the story goes something about a monkey on a small island getting at a banana by pealing the skin and teaching this to her young while somehow, without teachers, monkeys in many areas of the world at about the same time learn to peal skin on a banana extending their source of food. I believe this is also something observed on an Island in Japan something about monkeys keeping warm by spending the winter months in and around some hot springs and this was only recently learned by one or two monkey where as now in winter the springs are covered with monkey's keeping warm.

I believe this is one of the simplistic examples of "Quantum Mechanics" and has been an example of how the expression "Its time has come" is further explained. So I wonder do y'all think maybe one sea turtle buried eggs in the sand and without explanation many also had what we humans would call a 'brain storm?'

Am I confused - is instinct in our DNA? Are we born with instinct? what emotions are included in instinct? Is instinct simply man's prehistoric behavior toward taking care of ourselves when various emotions pop into being?

Barbara asks:--"Is instinct in our DNA?"

A minor item (and perhaps not so minor) and I don't want to sound picky, but I don't think of it as "our" DNA. I, as an individual, don't own my DNA. My DNA owns me. My DNA moves on. My progenitors and I and my successors are merely carriers. If there is any such thing as immortality, it exists in the DNA. At least, that is how I look at it.

Robby

Some of the posts here have reminded me of Father Teilhard de Chardin's concept of the "Universal Mind" and I believe he also wrote of "Collective Memory". Of course, the brilliant priest, although not excommunicated from the Church, was exiled to St. Andrews-on-the-Hudson in Poughkeepsie, NY. The Church would not condone such thinking!

Also: This quote re: science v. creationism I found to be intriguing:

"Princeton physicist Robert Jastrow wrote of the commotion that resulted from the proposal of the Big Bang theory ("God and the Astronomers"). Himself an agnostic, he commented that it was very disconcerting to have struggled and sweated for years with fellow astronomers and physicists to reach the mountain top, only to be greeted by theologians who had been there for centuries."

Good one, Phyll.

You know, I believe that some synthesis is possible, between science and religion, if one is so inclined. Those in-denial Young Earthers who engage in wishful thinking , though, just remind us that the human mind has evolved to the point where it is capable of believing anything – despite evidence to the contrary. Evolution comes in all shapes and sizes.

Phyll and Barbara - Again, I am not an expert in the field, but I spent a lot of time working with monkeys in the primate center at Washington State (1979 thru '82.) First, they have a drive to raise their babies. The mothers who don't do well with the first because they haven't learned from mothers, often do pretty well with the second or third child. Like us, monkeys have instincts (which I call inheirited memories) but also do a lot of learning from others and experience. I've known a lot of women who seemed to have an easier time with a second or third baby, too. Same reason? All of this comes back to Barbara's observation that one monkey learns something while another figures it out. Both smell the fruit and want to make it available. One had the chance to save time by seeing someone else do something (in the human case, it might be we see it, hear it, or read about it) another had to work it out for himself. All us primates have instincts, the abilitly to copy the behavior of others ("ape" others) and the ability to reason things out for ourselves. Fortunately for both specie, neither of us are stuck figuring everything out from scratch.

I have often conversed with other mothers, sometimes in groups, about how we were much more knowledgable and relaxed with our babies after the first one. We go on to try to figure out how our attitudes impacted on the final product, so to speak, and whenever I have summed up such conversations with the remark: "Perhaps we should have thrown the first one out as just an experiment", it has been greeted with a lot of appreciative laughter. Parenthood is not all instinctive.

Ok - back to me real, not confrontive but coming from ignorance - if DNA is immortal is instinct also then immortal - what does our instinct control - is instinct in reaction to certain feelings or what stimulates the intinctive reaction - and what is the difference between instinct and not remembered when and how but learned behavior passed on from parent to child?

I understand fight, flight or freeze but I also understand a baby has only the fear of falling or is that now incorrect and a baby has no fear - Is instinct only in response to fear -

As I remember it, an infant has two fears -- falling and sudden, loud noise.

Robby

Today I and all other life-time readers of The Washington Post are mourning our dear Herbert Block, also known as HERBLOCK. He drew his first cartoon one month before I was born, and his last in August of this year. He was 91. The POST has, of course, given him an Editorial column obit.

I loved HERBLOCK, but I would not be telling you this in this forum if it were not for one of the last lines of that editorial, which made me cry. The line was this:

"When the greatest scientist of the 20th century died, Herb drew the globe and appended to it a plaque with this message: "Albert Einstein Lived Here."

Wasn't that perfect!

A great cartoonist does more than just draw.

Robby

Sheecsh - tried to search Instinct and found all these instincts -

Maternal Instinct - Animal Instinct - Digital Instinct - Basic Instinct - Defensive Instinct - African Instinct - Killer Instinct - language Instinct - Mate choosing Instinct - Survival Instinct - Romantic Instincts - Hunting Instincts - Instinctive Memory - Sexual Intinct - Violence intincts - Math instincts - Music Making Instinct - data-gathering Instinct - Fear Instincts - Pain Avoidance Instincts - Primal Instinct - Breastfeeding & Attachment Parenting Instinct - Instinctive Friendship - Woman's Instinct - Girls Instinctive nature.

Then I found this interesting argument -

Evolutionary psychology is the attempt to understand our mental faculties in light of the evolutionary processes that shaped them. Stephen Jay Gould calls its ideas and their proponents "foolish," "fatuous," "pathetic," "egregiously simplistic," and some twenty-five synonyms for "fanatical."

Evolutionary psychology is "even more fatuous," according to Gould, for thinking seriously about the environment in which our ancestors evolved. That is "outside the primary definition of science," he says, because claims about that environment "usually cannot be tested in principle but only subjected to speculation."

How we lived as foragers which is the basis of our evolutionary history Observing their seemingly simple life, many people have wondered what pre-literate foragers do with their capacity for abstract intelligence.

Because the first link was a 'letter to the editor' and since it is 'not-at-all-complimentary' towards S. J. Gould, and, since the name of the original letter-writer is not included ---- I thought I should mention that S.J. Gould has a nemesis (sort of a stalker) 'out there' who just goes around nit-picking anything and everything S. J. Gould says or writes. The nemesis (whose name I simply cannot recall) is a very smart man and might be right in many cases however I have to conclude that he's got to be wrong more often than S.J. Gould. S.J. Gould can use 'all the possibilities' from which to formulate ideas and conclusions to which he's about to come; whereas the nemesis appears to be limited to only those ideas or conclusions in which he can find fault with S.J Gould.

I've read a lot of Gould and quite a bit of the nemesis and S.J. certainly appears (to me, at least) to be the more logical and correct of the two. ((But then again, who am I to know))?

The second link has a couple paragraphs that I especially liked:

" For more than 99 percent of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived as foragers, and it seems safe to assume that *as they evolved into us, they lived much as foraging tribes do today, without any of the trappings of modern civilization. Observing their seemingly simple life, many people have wondered what preliterate foragers do with their capacity for abstract intelligence. * The foragers would have better grounds for asking that question about modern couch potatoes. A foraging life is a camping trip that never ends, but without the Swiss Army knives and freeze-dried pasta. *Living by their wits, human groups develop sophisticated technologies and bodies of folk science.*"

...........and

" According to a saying, if you give a boy a hammer, the whole world becomes a nail. If you give a species an elementary grasp of psychology, biology, and mechanics, then for better and worse, the whole world becomes a society, a zoo, and a machine."

-----

When you mentioned some of the 'instincts' which had appeared when you did a search of the word, the following thought came to me. One of the instincts you mentioned was 'parenting instinct'. I'm sure we all know that, even within our own species, parenting instinct would appear to be very variable. The extremes being one's total abondonmnent of their child - to - sacrificing one's life for their child. In the old days, if a parent abandoned his/her child/children, then the child would likely not survive to have children of their own and therefore, if instinct is passed on genetically, the poor parent's genes would not proliferate and who knows, perhaps someday become dominant, within our species. Now that we, as a society, take care of abandoned children, those children with the 'bad parenting' gene will survive and might, in some far-away future time, result in the end of our species. Don't forget that bad parents often (usually ?) have more children than those parents who want to take excellent care of the fewer children they do have. Just watch some of the talk-shows and see how many young men brag about how many children they've fathered with different mothers. Also look at some of the alcoholic or 'druggie' moms that have child after child and abandon them or have them taken over by Children's Aid Societies and other such organizations.

We're a strange bunch. We know HOW to advance our species genetically but one of the most serious charges the world brought against Hitler was his desire to build a super-race. Many people nowadays want laws that would force mothers to carry even a known very defective fetus to term. Personally, although I'm very much against Hitler and Nazism, (if you'll pardon my choice of analogy), I'm not so sure we should have thrown that one baby out so completely with the bath-water.

(((By 'that one baby' I wasn't referring to Hitler. I was referring to, at least considering, some research into improving (or at least maintaining) our genetic heritage.))

Back in the dim past, when I was in college, we were told that the march towards civilization as we know it, began with surplus of food (foragers need to follow the game therefore can't accumulate possessions), allowing for division of labor - leisure, leading to trade. The transition from foraging to planting required mathematics.

Humans, not unlike other apes, start out with some instincts, two of which are to watch others and to ask questions as soon as they can. In other words, our instinct to learn is probably inborn. The learning and thinking quickly become so obvious in our behavior, it is easy to forget these things started out as instincts. I prefer to call instincts genetic memories because I believe that is exactly what they are. How many of us still prefer to live in a shady area with an open area in view and water close by? This was the probably a choice camp or cave area for our ancesters and we still pay a lot extra for the land if it has a similar situation, whether we hunt, fish or climb trees for safety or not. But most of our instincts are only starting places. Our minds and lives depend on a lot of learning and thinking from the minute we are born on - probably more so than any other animal (even though we receive a huge amount of care from parents as a general rule.)

Rebroadcasts of a couple of the shows from PBS' Evolution (which originally aired in September) series are on this week (this all depends of course, on you local PBS station):

Show #3 - Great Transformations/Extinction!, is on tonight @ 10:00PM and the last show in the series, #7 - The Mind's Big Bang/What About God?, is on Thursday night a 10:00PM. Of all the shows the last one on the struggle between Science and Religion may be most pertinent to our discussion here this week.
Charlie

The other day, someone on some seniornet site I visit posted something about the orginal quote the title of To Kill a Mockingbird came from. We were trying to remember tonight while we watched the movie again, but darned if we could. If the one who wrote that post is on this site, please tell me - email if you like. Thanks.

Don't know if this is the quote you were looking for Benjamin, but early in the book, Miss Maudie says:

'Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up peoples gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird.'"

The Evolution hour that was supposed to be on tonight was pre-empted for a Frontline piece on terrorism...

hehehe They sure do dive bomb and heckle after dem cats don't they.

Which of our species natural attributes would be the most difficult for Natural Selection to modify. I think height would probably be the easiest/simplest/fastest and this is borne out by the fact that the average Englishman is several inches too tall to fit into his ancestor's suit of armor from just a few short centuries ago. Whether taller is better or 'worser' isn't the point. Natural selection has obviously decided that Englanders should be taller and she's done something about it.

Which of our natural traits, in your estimation, would be the most difficult for Nature to 'select' for?

I '''think''' I know because, the one of which I'm thinking hasn't changed in millenia (if ever).

ACUDOR, much more recent, in fact, in my lifetime, is the Japanese experience. Just since WWII, when they became exposed to our ideas about diet, the entire population has gained a great deal of height.

It often hits me there are all kinds of proofs of evolution all around us, with the brakes being put on by the desire for religious certainty being so much stronger than the Joy of discovery. I have a difficult time with modern peoples being so desperate to cling to the dreams of primitive men. The same people would be absolutely appalled at the thought of having to live the way those nomadic tribes did, but they want to hold on to their mind sets in the form of their fairy tales. Their religions and astrologies live on. It is so ludicrous.

Really good question, Acudor. I’m sure I haven’t a clue, but Ill take a stab at it. “Natural” traits, eh? Do I even understand what THAT is? It would seem to be something that is “neutral” - having no particular positive or detrimental effect on survivability. I suspect it may have something to do with the desire to comprehend our physical and spiritual worlds in some comprehensive way. Does this really make us more “fit” to survive? Some may argue the opposite!

Thanks, Charlie. If and when I ever get all my books unpacked in this house, I will be better able to find things for myself.

Acudor - Maybe the trait which makes folks accumulate and collect is one hard to select for because it can be both for and against the human population's good. A person or tribe who were good for collecting may have fed and clothed themselves and their kids better, but if the collecting got out of hand, it might have prevented or made much more difficult moves to new caves. Me? Several cave changes in the last few years have let me know I am definitely well into the latter category.

Kidding aside, I would assume the traits hardest to select for would be those determined by many different genes, so effected by and effecting several different other traits or behaviors. In planned breeding of dairy cattle, almost every trait I wanted to select for could be increased only with loss in some other trait - often nearly as desirable. Man can arbitrarily breed for certain traits like that very easily, but in a natural environment, the reduction in the other traits would weed out the cows who were lacking in other important traits. For instance, the great ability of the Jersey cow to make a lot of very rich milk makes her more likely to experience a deadly lack of calcium in her blood right after she delivers a calf. She and the calf would both die without special diet management and often an injection of calcium in fluid right into a vein.

The trait for which I was looking is our species' lifespan (not to be confused with life expectancy). There have probably been a few centenarians in any of our societies since civilization began. Any society can have a centenarian. Socrates, Caesar and Confuscious all probably knew people who attained the ripe old age of 100.

Unlike lifespan, life expectancy can change drastically and swiftly. In 1900 the life expectancies in North America were about 45 and now they're about 75 (give or take a little - also add a few years for the ladies). Life expectancies vary from country to country but lifespans don't.

Ben, you threw me a bit with your "hard to select for because it can be both for and against the human population's good". You're right. I hadn't thought about it from that standpoint until you brought it up but though a longer lifespan would be good for the individual it would also be detrimental to society (old people still eat but they don't contribute as much as younger people. i.e. hunting, gathering, having kids, etc). I'd been thinking along the lines that our lifespan hadn't changed because old people don't have children. If we had children in equal numbers throughout our lifetimes, then old people would have more children than people who died young, but we don't. Parents whose family histories included mainly ancestors who died in their fifties would not suffer a 'weeding-out the bad genes' effect because they'd have just as many offspring as the parent whose ancestors were predisposed to live much longer. A trait, be it good or bad, can only influence a species if it's benefits/hazards can be preferentially passed on to one's descendants.

It would be very easy to quickly extend our species' lifespans but most people are against such engineering. All one would have to do would be to harvest eggs and sperm from people, wait and see which ones lived to be the oldest and use their products for in vitro fertilization. Keep doing that generation after generation and you'd have people living for 200 or 300 years in very short order.

How much does enviornment and food affect man's biological system? When you spoke of change I just wondered iƒ altering the landscape through drought, de- or even re- forestation or climate warming or cooling, all affecting the available animal and plant life forcing man to go elsewhere to forage or to change their living and eating habits; Does this have an affect on man's biological looks or health creating either healthier or weakened off-springs. I also wonder with such changes usually the myth and creation stories change or are affected; How much does what a man thinks and believe affect his biological apperience and ultimatle extension of the line?

A factor affecting the age of menarche in young girls is believed to be electric lights. Girls are entering puberty much younger than their grandmothers. Also, it seems as if the change in nutrition which results in larger, taller people may be negative, since larger dogs have reduced life spans, don't they? Don't most centenarians have small frames and short stature?

Mrs. Watson:--My aunt recently died one months under a hundred and my relatives on the other side of the family lived into their late nineties. I am 81 and feel fit. I am 6'2" tall.

Robby

I have been wondering for some time if the much earlier puberty of young girls today could be a result of all the early sexual posturing that goes on.

Little girls who can barely walk are wearing bikinis. Five year olds are constantly wearing fingernail polish, not just for the rare "dress up" play day. Children of these ages are seeing sex on tv and in videos. They become much, much earlier aware of the opposite sex.

In my day, most of us did not start thinking boys were anything but horrid little critters until at least 8th grade. We did not own 2 piece bathing suits until we were 19, and those were not bikinis. We didn't have a clue about sex until well after high school.

I am neither preaching nor complaining. I just wonder if these cultural changes have not contributed to the earlier physical changes.

My grandkids are not are not watching sex and violance on tv. Their tv is blocked from all that kinda stuff.

Let's see. Heavier people have less bone loss then thin people. Maybe that is why we are, on an average, heavier now then ever.

dapph

Isn't sexual maturity in humans probably delayed "artificially" by our cultures? Aren't we the most slowly developing creatures to puberty of all?

Charlie

I wonder if it is culture or biological or diet or heritage - growing up among mostly people of German heritage it was typical that menarche was at about age 16 where as many of the girls with Mexican or Italian heritage came to menarche at age 13. Of course culturally there was many differences that included the girls whose heritage came from the southern part or Europe had their ears pierced as young children of age 3 to 5 and they also wore makeup much earlier.

The fact that there were more teenage babies out of wedlock among the girls that matured earlier I think was more a case of goals for their future were dim because of a teenagers awakening to the lack of opportunity during the 40s and 50s available based on looks and heritage. I'm talking of the time pre-pill when self esteem for a girl was often measured by an early marriage or having babies. Obtaining a BA was actually an opportunity to obtain an MA.

I guess through out our discussion of evolution I am still not convinced for humans this is a biological gene that will program us to reproduce alone - I still feel that other factors influence this drive to reproduce. Those factors I think are enviornment and social taboo whether religious or social and also opportunity of all sorts. The opportunity to explore unknowns worlds or fight in wars could limit opportunities for reproduction just as further education seems to limit family size; I think because energy is used for furthering other dreams and not just limiting ones value to growing a family.

I think humans are more than our biological and instinctive makeup and in that way there are other cognitive factors to consider that are not considered when we observe the evolution of animal and plant life.

By the way does anyone know, is there any evidance if hunters were more or less prolific baby makers than gatherers, settled farmers?

I think the predominance of sex within our culture including, amongst other things, TV and clothing fashion have a great effect on the age at which girls reach puberty. I may be wrong but it strikes me that the effect might be subconscious and work similarly to ...if I start thinking about food, I often become hungry whereas if I'm not thinking about food, I can go for many hours without any feelings of hunger...

Does anyone know if boys are maturing (physically) at a similarly younger age or has this effect only been noted in females? If my 'thinking of food' contention is correct, it should also be working on boys since they watch as much TV as girls and, though they're not wearing the sexy fashions like the girls, they're certainly exposed to the sexy fashions that the girls are wearing.

Mrs Watson. I too have noted that most centenarians are of 'small frame and short stature' (Robbie being the exception) but, which is cause and which is effect. Is it that really old people are built that way or is it that mostly people built that way get to be old?

Case in point:

I'm in my 60's and have osteoporosis. I've lost over 3 inches in height (down from 6'3"). Bone-mass-density tests have revealed that my hips and spine have lost about 30% and 35% respectively of their original mass. Though I still stand pretty straight, I'm sure I'll be stooping soon. I guess I'm going to be one of those frail old men that you see getting around with the support of some kind of artificial walker. In my case (if I live into real old age) I won't be a smaller-built person getting old, I'll be a large person who gets frail ..........'perhaps (?), in order to get old'...

Dapphne. No. Heavier people, generally speaking, have MORE bone mass than lighter people. That's why doctors advise people with osteoporosis to do frequent 'weight-bearing exercises'. Added weight makes the skeleton grow in order to support the added weight.

You know, I never thought about my osteo in relation to evolution before. My mother and sisters also have osteoporisis (only osteopenia so far, in the case of my youngest sister) so I've known for some time that it's hereditary. Until this minute I hadn't thought about it in evolutionary terms. Why hasn't osteoporosis been weeded-out of the human gene pool? I'll tell you why. It's a great example of what I was saying about lifespan in an earlier post. Since the osteoporosis strikes, almost always, post-menopausally in women (menopause and the consequent lowering of estrogen is THE main cause of osteoporosis in women and an age-related lowering of testosterone is a major cause in men) it doesn't strike at an early enough age to get weeded-out. My ancestors would have had just as many children as the ancestors of someone with a strong skeleton. By the time the deficiency in bone mass became a problem in my line, the children would have already all been born and carrying the gene. If osteo struck at 16 or 17, my weak-framed ancestors would not have been able to hunt and gather as well as most of their kind and more of their children would have starved and the fault would most likely have been erased from the human gene pool.

Yee-Gads! Now I've got the feeling that I should have a great big "REJECTED" stamped on my forehead.

ACUDOR - In many cultures, older people, gay aunts and uncles, any others who aren't actually having children can still be contributing quite a bit to the survival of the children to puberty. This may account for some of these so called "nonproductive" traits surviving all this time. I think of wolf packs where the pups are always from the alpha couple but all the pack contributes to their raising. Maybe this encouraged more diversity in wolf genes surviving, which might even have something to do with the ease we've had in developing so many different variations in all their dog relatives.

MRS. WATSON - While my three girls were growing up, I read somewhere that weight has more to do with puberty in girls than any other one thing - I believe the normal weight for the first signs was around 105 pounds. This makes some sense to me because weight seemed to determine puberty onset in my heifers and also with when pullets started laying. With the little chicks, we did leave light on 24 hours a day because light kept them eating and growing. Maybe you are on to something with electric lights keeping kids awake and eating longer hours. Though personally, I would guess vitamin D for better bones and growth, then TV which keeps people up and eating, are more responsible (for girls reaching 105 lbs. at an early age) than just the lights alone.

When studying living beings it is extremely difficult to separate cause from effect. I believe that the life style, including wearing bikinis and nail polish, has little to do with biological processes. Same with weight, girls maturing earlier will grow sooner to adult hieghts and weights than girls maturing later. We can all remember those poor souls in high school who were still stuck in chilren's bodies while the rest of us were tall, hippy and busty if female, shaving and deep voiced if male. All the nail polish in the world wouldn't have changed their internal biological clocks. Robby, your ancestors gifted you with both the height genes and the long life genes. My point about large size being a negative factor was based on the concept that truly outsize animals, whether human or other, are "monsters" and do not live long (the eight-foot tall woman, for example). Marfian syndrome, or something like that; Lincoln had it.

Literature and Science. Science and Religion. Religion and Politics. Is there an unintentional pattern developing here? Eleven years ago this article was written. Long time. You can see it's dated a bit right off - "there is no Cuba, no Vietnam" - Lewis writes. He writes of the Soviet Union. But there is September 11, 2001. He mentions Iran and Libya - but not Iraq, Somalia - or, of course, Afghanistan. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that the central ideas Lewis brings forth have a relevancy to us even today. At the very least, I hope this kicks off a dialogue amongst us about the root causes of this deep dissatisfaction - perhaps even hatred - for the West by a great deal of the Muslim world. And of course, how MUCH of the Muslim world feels this way is another subject of great bewilderment. No one seems able to answer this question exactly.

Another caution - and we should remember this: the rejection in its entirety of Western 'values' is not a universal cornerstone of the Muslim world. We have many common values and beliefs - at least common origins for some of our beliefs. Trite perhaps - but it is sometimes good to remember what is common to us rather than focus on what separates us. The moving tribute today at the Pentagon was striking for a number of reasons - but one of them was the similarity to scenes we've seem in the Arab world. The crowd standing in unison, holding little American flags and singing in unison "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", has been replicated in certain essential aspects in the Muslim world in our recent history. The "cosmic clash of good and evil" of which Lewis writes as commonality between Christianity, Judaism and Islam has been much in evidence in our 'secular' state (and how secular is it really?), even as we have called upon our resources to fight the "Evil Empire" that was once The Soviet Union.

So "secularism" is confronted immediately. Is the relationship between politics and religion in much (though not all) of the Muslim world different from 'ours'? We take a secular state almost for granted. In much of the Muslim world, a religious based political structure is not at all uncommon.

"Modernism", is the other main theme here, included in his look with a troubling historical perspective. Lewis speaks of a battle that has raged since the 7th Century. He cites many political and cultural reasons for this historical enmity, including "imperialism" - at least the particular understanding of the term as used in the East - as the culprit. What immediately came to mind were the alleged missionaries under arrest in Afghanistan - and the unfortunate use of the word Crusade by our President in an early speech after the tragedy.

Succinctly, Lewis says that "Ultimately, the struggle of the fundamentalists is against two enemies, secularism and modernism." What do you make of this perspective?

The Frontline documentary was a good overview, but spent little time on the central question before us. The website, though, seems to have some excellent links. If you're looking for me, that's where I'll be!!

Charlie

Here's one view.
Why do they hate America?

I, too, am puzzled by "Muslim rage." Also by Christian and Jewish rage. The holy books of the three major religions of the western world are all hodgepodges of devotion, wisdom, and anger, protraying a God of Love who cares for His people, a God of Wrath who destroys our enemies, and sometimes just as a Monster whose gratituious acts of violence defy all understanding. From this perspective, Muslim rage is not historically more severe than Jewish or Christian rage. In the Middle Ages, Christians assaulted the Muslim world and in the contemporary Middle East, Jewish rage cruelly oppresses the Palestinian people.

In my search for answers, I do not expect to find a single, simple solution for the rage we're witnessing. There are multiple causes. In fact, I do not expect to find an answer at all to the question of why so much rage. We simply don't know. And, although in general I seek answers just as everyone else does, I cannot accept just any fanciful answer that might give comfort to my prejudices. Perhaps we will have to live with uncertainty, unsure of why events unfold the way they have. Perhaps we are at a point when intellectual exercises are not the way to go. Perhaps it is action that is needed now.

Humane action, to be sure, but acts, not thoughts and words, are probably the way to freedom again. Certainly we should not let our quest for answers lead to fanciful solutions based on idiosyncratic interpretations of ancient doctrines and bearing little relation to reality. Caesar wisely noted that Casius was dangerous because, "He thinks too much." We don't want to become dangerous, too.

I can mentally understand a Moslim rage, but it isn't any bigger than my own personal rage at the things their way of using our country did to me and my family. A young well-to-do moslim man from Sudan thought our ways were wonderful, our schools were wonderful (he was getting a doctorate in Math from a western state university) and our women were wonderful, so he married my second daughter and planned to stay in the western world. The had my second grandson, probably my brightest grandchild - he was walking and starting to talk before he was nine months old. But the man's father got a serious illness and wanted his son and grandson to come back to Sudan. Given the strong religious beliefs, of his duty to his father and the assumption he owned his wife and son, he wanted to take them back. My daughter had no intention of becoming that sort of wife, so divorced him. He kidnapped my grandson at about age two. The boy is now over 21 but we have never seen him since. And our wonderful state department, etc. will do nothing for any of these young American citizens because so many of those nations produce oil. The mixed feelings the Moslim people have for us is directly responsible for the several hundred kidnapped kids, so it is very hard for me to feel any sympathy. I believe our colleges should refuse acceptance for any unmarried male students from those countries until those kids are returned, pure and simple. Ok, I guess I am saying maybe our ways pushed on them cause some rage, but their ways pushed on us can cause a lot of rage over here, too, and I have plenty of it.

It's not like it's a foreign emotion to Americans. I think it was perhaps on the last episode of Evolution on PBS where they were talking about a U.S. christian college trying to sidestep the obviously wrong dogma from the christian bible. They're saying that 'maybe a day wasn't a day' at the time that god created the universe or 'maybe god decided to use evolution as his method of creating man'. The students at this college are all christian (mostly fairly fundamentalist to my way of thinking) and some were studying geology and biology. They can plainly see that evolution has occurred and that the geological formations on this planet prove the planet to be much older than the 'young-earther christians' would have us believe from the biblical accounts. The parents of the students appear to be frightened that the facts, once proven scientifically to the students in class, will cause some doubt as to the validity of their bible. ---- Well, D-U-H! --- One woman whose daughter is attending that college said straightforwardly that she'd sooner have her daughter die than that she should lose her christian faith.

Or look at Falwell, Robertson, et al. Given their druthers, they'd be hanging homosexuals and secular humanists from telephone poles.

These Americans fear their religion is threatened and they've turned this fear into a hatred. That a woman could so hate 'anything other than christian belief' more than she loves her daughter says a lot. Now imagine the muslim world where the all-pervasive American culture is being broadcast (mostly through TV, music and films) unstoppably through their cities, towns and villages. In defense of their religion and/or culture, they're willing to kill (or die). It's as simple as that.

Mainline muslims throughout the world say that their religion is a religion of peace and, in a lukewarm fashion, say that Bin Ladin was wrong for what he's done. Why isn't there a veritable cacophony from muslim clerics/pulpits worldwide? Why aren't they saying the Bin Ladin is an infidel for what he's done. Instead it seems they all say that he's a devout moslem but that he's (perhaps ?) misinterpreted the Koran. I think GW Bush was right. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. It's time the muslim clerics in America, Europe, Asia and even the Middle East, pick a side instead of sitting quietly in the middle speaking condescendingly to both sides.

Christians who see through Falwell and Robertson also have a duty to make it known that those two are an abomination in the eyes of their lord.

By the way, Islam is no more peaceful than christianity is:

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/5142/negislamindia.html

Interesting article from the Atlantic. I think "they" hate us for all the reasons provided in the article, especially for what we symbolize--the "modern," progress, new ways of thinking that provide a formidable challenge to anyone who places his/her belief in an ancient system, especially if the system is rigid. And so the radical Muslims seek a return to the past when they controlled a great empire, when women were firmly ruled by men, when children did as they were told or paid the consequences.

I don't think that the average radical Muslim hates "us" so much as he hates the U.S. and what the country symbolizes.

----- This past week, my plebes have written short papers on Osama bin Laden, Islam, the al Qaeda and terrorism. One of the papers on Islam begins "I never knew that there were religious groups besides Catholics and Protestants that existed." Yes, it is possible to be nineteen in 2001 and not know about Islam. I will question said student later today and see if he hadn't in fact heard of Judaism!

Maryal

Religion has always been puzzling to me. Intellectually, I do not understand fanaticism. This world wide unrest which seems to pit Muslim against "Other", I couldn't get a handle on it. However, a discussion on the News Hour (PBS) shed some light for me. Is this truly a religious war, or is it a class war? I'm not speaking of the Bin Ladens, but the ragged hovel dweller who storms the US Embassy. Class vs. class makes more semse to me than your god vs. my god.

When I finished reading the article, I was depressed all over again - it seems a way of life since 9/11. I have nothing more to add to what Malryn, Jerryj, Acudor, and Maryal have said or the articles they have brought for us to read. Benjamin, you have all my sympathy and sorrow for the wrong that has been done to your family.

I do have a question. Which of all the religions that most of us recognize is the oldest known to man? Perhaps I knew the answer to this at one time - but too many years have passed since World History courses.

We all know that the Christian world has made many mistakes in the past, as have all the great religions in the world. We are all just human and err in our attempts to promote a civilized world, as we vision it to be. Many churches today still send missionaries to the "heathen" so they may be brought into the Christian fold. Heavens!

One of the articles pointed out the fact that Bin Laden believes we have desecrated the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia by our presence - and are still doing so today. This is hard for us to understand as there is no "sacred ground" in our country; however, to many of us our churches are sacred and could we forgive those who destroyed them?

Would it help this situation if we agreed to remove all Americans from Saudi Arabia? Should we try?

My daughter was in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War and witnessed the hatred of the Arabs - it is very real! She is a nurse with an Army Reserve Medical Unit and went over there with the idea of helping our wounded; however, their field hospital was filled and overflowing with POW's who called the nurses "whores" and other filthy names because they were dressed like men. Never did they get a thank you for the care they were given and it was good care and good food.

She has many stories to tell, but the one thing she, as a nurse, hated the most about the experience was the fact that no matter how ill the patient was, whether he had IV's on and other tubing, when the chant came for prayer, up they all came out of bed and knelt on the floor to pray. Their diligent work had to be done all over again.

In this article that Charlie has given us to read, it states that it was after WWII that Muslims started immigrating to America and the Arabic countries began to see the benefits derived from American goods - and, at that time, wealth, power, success were not considered sins! Hmmmm!

But as the article goes on to explain it is only when their society did not gain the wealth and power they had hoped for that they turned in the opposite direction, away from the west, toward their past dignity and glory which was their religion.

Why didn't they succeed? When conquered Japan, a broken and utterly devastated country, did succeed and became a world power?

Why?

Japan was helped by us, yes, but the Arab countries, most of them, anyway, have all that oil money!

I believe I heard that there are some 7 million Muslims in America, am I correct? What could they be thinking of all of this? Do any of you know any Muslims? I know they are keeping a low profile as is to be expected and the President has made it clear that all Muslims are not enemies of our country, just the terrorists.

Other than his crude remarks about the "Crusade" and the "Wanted Dead or Alive" remark, he seems to be handling it well, do you agree?

Jerryj- From the historical perspective, the long view, you're right: this rage that manifests itself today is not beyond the pale, really. But it's manifesting itself today in a specific way and in a very specific direction. And though action may be needed now - and I agree that it is - that will not bring a final solution to the problem. The problem. That's the crux of it. What IS the problem? You want to ask.

Benjamin- What a nightmare. I understand there are many similar stories - but that one's yours and the worst of all. I am sorry.

Acudor- You said that "Christians who see through Falwell and Robertson also have a duty to make it known that those two are an abomination in the eyes of their lord." But we don't see that ether, from religious leaders in this country, do we? Much more lukewarm than that. Much like the lack of more vigorous condemnation which you decry from the Muslim clerics around the world.

Maryal used the phrase "what we symbolize" and it seems to me that the key targets for these terrorists were some of our most visible symbols. Not necessarily symbols of what we really stand for, but those secondary symbols of the most egregious kind to the terrorists. The WTC were symbols of the American dominated world financial empire. The Pentagon, symbols of our military dominance, the last Superpower. Our other symbols, the capitol, the White House, our symbols of democracy and freedom were thankfully spared.

Mrs. W- I believe it is essentially a war of have's vs. have nots. The have nots have embraced a virulent form of religious fanaticism, in what they see as their only hope to better their lot. The manipulators of these people, would love to turn this into a religious war.

Ella- Hinduism? (to answer your question). Not sure. That would be my guess. You asked another interesting question about Saudi Arabia: Would removing all Americans troops from Saudi Arabia help? Probably not. In the Gulf War, bin Laden wanted to be the defender of Saudi Arabia against Iraq. The ruling Saudis thought that by throwing in their lot with the Americans they would be better off. This also, sticks in the craw of bin Laden The presence of women in our armed forces in the land of their holy sites was another "error" in their eyes. Malryn posted a link mentioning the same thing.

I agree, for the most part (and this is hard for me) that the President had done a credible job thus far in confronting this issue. The contrast to his resolve and the paralysis of Reagan after Dar-es-Salaam (sp?), the Lebanon barracks, etc. is truly remarkable. There is a long way to go, however. It doesn't get any easier from here.

I note that V. S. Naipaul has own this years Nobel Prize in Literature. While I have read much of his fiction, I never did read his Among the Believers. I regret now that I did not. Has anyone here read it?

Charlie

Ella--As to which of the religions we still have with us is the oldest, both Hinduism and Judaism have their roots back there 1500 BCE or so. Both came from earlier religions, so it is really a hard question.

Yes, Charlie, that's exactly what I meant this morning. It's not US it is the U.S. and what the extremists think we stand for. They are wrong, of course. But the Islamic fundamentalists really do believe that we are the enemies of God (Allah).

If they understood us better and wanted to hit a symbolic structure, they would have had the Statue of Liberty as one of their targets. And in Washington, maybe the Washington Monument. Looks like they were going for body counts as well as symbols.

Maryal

I am so sorry about your grandson and if I were walking in your shoes I could feel only rage against Muslims, as well. I have such mixed feelings on this whole issue and I swing back and forth from day to day. I have lived through too many wars and my family has felt the direct effects of war through so many years that I am sad that we are once again fighting on foreign soil. I know that the common Afghani citizen has not brought about this conflict just as the common American citizen did nothing to bring about being attacked but it happened and we have to do something to impress upon the Taliban that it must not happen again.

Charlie, as I said, I have such ambivalent feelings about this subject that I will lurk for now and listen to all of you. Maybe someone here can explain my contradictory feelings to me.

Phyll- I think it’s the rare person amongst us that does not have ambivalent feelings on these matters.

Benjamin- oh the pain - my tears do not help but they are real - I am so sorry.

I have said this in other discussions - that this to me is no different then the dynamics of a batterer as the O J incident allowed so many to become aware of the behavior. It is easy for a batterer to justify their aggression. Now we have witnessed the incomprehensible expresssion of rage.

As with most of us, we have emotions that we easily justify with beliefs or law or finding quotes that fit - Heck I have even herd batterers quote the Bible as their justification. I wonder if charismatic leaders are simply men with a messed up psyche or ego accompanied with issues of grandeur and that rather than these grandiose ideas staying a fantasy they are smart enough to bring their ego needs into the forefront of history.

But then, our own handling of this that has included bombing. I have mixed feeling - of one power trying to overpower the other with violence. Somewhere in seniornet, it may have been Mal, shared a letter written by a Rabbi in Pa. that shows all the behavior that we condemn if committed by the Jews or Palestinians is the behavior we are now using against Afghanistan.

Yes, I agree there is a clash of cultures and lets face it, most women in this country are outraged as to how the woman in Arab nations are treated. I don't care how many have come into these seniornet sites and tried to convince us of the protected and esteemed state of Islamic womanhood. There may be Islamic women that are esteemed but I think we have a different concept of freedom for women. This idea that a mans sex drive is so uncontrollable that a women is responsible to cover herself to take care of the men so they do not have impure thoughts is making women responsible for a mans self-control. This is what we would call co-dependent.

It is one thing for cultures to have different values but another, to rage because values different then what is culturally sanctioned can be discovered through technology. Maybe that is it - since men expect the women to protect them from themselves maybe they expect other nations to protect them from the effects of the diverse cultures active in this world - sounds like they are angry because we will not acknowledge that we are not responsive to attend to the protection of their culture that is kept in the dark about the differences among people. And they can abuse anyone that does not share their beliefs.

Now our own situation - it appears to me that business is typically only after the resources, bottom line costs and profits to the owners, that may be thousands of stockholders. As a result the business goes after what they want like a bull in china shop and then governments are left to clean-up the mess.

We want oil - they want our money - we do not want their culture any more than they want ours but, when business sends the average Joe into an area to work or become educated both sides are uncomfortable and want to change the other. Hmmm do we go back to being isolationists so that we are not bombed.

I also can't help wonder how much all of this has to do with the drug trafficking that has made many now very respectable in this country and in Britain wealthy. Also are we still training terrorists in the ‘School of the Americas’ in DC?

Fundamentalism and cultural presumptiveness - in all its forms - is dangerous, misleading, counterproductive, destructive, self-defeating, divisive, and dismissive of non-ism solutions. Narrow world-views lead to narrow thinking. Thought processes colored by pre-determined bogey-men are bankrupt.

Each time we come to a fork in the road of our reasoning, it's my view that we ought to thoroughly consider the most difficult alternative. Simple answers simply don't apply to complex problems. Lazy logic results in faulty understanding, results in half-baked solutions, results in exacerbation of the root problems.

I'll say it again. We are extremely adept at attacking the manifestations of the problem and uniquely tentative in avoiding the root causes.
Charlie

I've said before that it is important to separate Islam from fundamentalism for a richer understanding of the complex problems before us. Our inclination is to process the easiest information, certainly what fits into our general socio-political filters. If it fits what we already believe, if they facts can be bent to conform to our particular demonology, then we must be sniffing around the truth of the matter. It occurs to me though, how close this is to an imperialist mind-set. We need to demonize to rationalize.
Charlie

I started reading at the beginning and suddenly realized I was only on #76 and the number of posts have reached #252..since I am helping my daughter move from Fredericksburg Va to Williamsburg and will leave at 6am tomorrow I dont have the time to read all. I have put this in my preferences and will come back

I want to say I have found some solace in others having difficulty in coping with this terrible tragedy. I write poetry ..I like to think I am a poet. Every event, the moon rising, the sunrise, the flight of birds, the lost loves, death, grief and humor have found me with a poem. For the first time in my life I am numb. Nothing I would write seems important enough after Sept 11th.

Locally a poetry group meets at my home monthly. Thursday was the first time we have met since before Sept 11th. Only two from the group had a recent poem. They felt a need to write, not about Sept 11th but something positive about life. I looked at them and saw a serenity I envy. Even now I find myself overwhelmed with sadness. I have slept more, napped more and been so cranky and out of sorts I dont like myself. In every thing in my past I have been able to see something positive, a future if you will. A door always open beckoning me to learn something new, feel a new feeling, rejoice in each day. I hope I will see that door again. But I have to confess it seems locked and shut tight.

Yes I am doing things ...helping my daughter, sharing my culinary skills with neighbors and friends, getting ready for winter but beneath it all is a sadness I have never felt before. It makes me catch my breath and I know what I really want to do is curl up in a corner somewhere and cover myself with a blanket. Please understand I am not afraid. Life will go on. Perhaps not the life I imagined and I will smile and laugh but I see a side to myself I have never seen before.

anna

Beautiful, anna. We have moved on from that topic and wish you were here to share with us then. But I am very glad that you found us and was able to express so beautifully your feelings. It was - and is - a time for us all to put our shoulder to the door and open it together. Thanks.

I quote from a David Brooks column in The Daily Standard:

Two of the most brilliant explanations of Osama bin Laden were written 11 years ago. The first is an essay that appeared in the September 1990 issue of the Atlantic Monthly by Bernard Lewis called "The Roots of Muslim Rage." The second is a lecture delivered by V.S. Naipaul as part of the Manhattan Institute's annual Wriston Lecture series on October 30, 1990.

V. S. Naipaul's OUR UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION

When you see true believers talk - whether it be born again Christians or Muslim fundamentalists - you have the eerie sense that they just may be capable of anything. That they have a unique ability to rationalize almost any act if it conforms to their truth. You know, as in Barry Goldwater's extremism in the defense of liberty……But they also have the innocence of foundlings, albeit twisted. Like all people who have reduced their outlook through a particularly distorted prism, burnished by their personal and or collective pain, all questions lead to the same answer. They are born again and have no past - no history, Naipaul touches on this phenomena. In his writings and in his lecture. "Philosophical hysteria" he calls it. They have been colonized by their own faith he saya. "No colonization could have been greater than this colonization by the faith" .

Charlie

"The lecture was called 'Our Universal Civilization,' but it is really about time and perceptions of time. Those who believe that almost all fundamental political disputes are really arguments between theories of history will find much to their liking.

"Naipaul starts by describing a young man he met in Java who wanted to become a poet. Not a lot of money in that, but Naipaul asked him, 'Isn't your mother secretly proud you are a poet?' The young man replied, 'She wouldn't have even a sense of what being a poet is.' In her worldview, all poetry had been written. It was passed down through the ages. Having her son come up and tell her that he wanted to be a poet was akin to having him tell her he wanted to grow up and rewrite the Bible. This woman's conception of history was static, whereas her son had moved into a different culture.

"When Naipaul used the phrase Universal Civilization, he was talking about that civilization that believes in the future, in progress, in the unfolding of human accomplishment. That civilization started in Europe, and once had racialist overtones, but it has spread.

"It has enemies, however. Naipaul goes on to describe his journeys through non-Arab Muslim lands. What was striking about these places was that they were not originally Islamic. They had been something else. But that pre-Islamic past was everywhere denounced and erased. In the virulent form of Islam that Naipaul found in, say, Iran, the glories of Persia were being denied and abolished. In the beginning was error, apostasy, disgrace. Then came Islam and truth. End of story. 'Faith abolished the past,' Naipaul reported.

"The style of religion he found was a complete way of life. 'To possess the faith was to possess the only truth; and possession of this truth set many things on its head. To believe that the time before the coming of the faith was a time of error distorted more than an idea of history. What lay within the faith was to be judged one way; what lay outside of it was to be in another."

For more of this article, please click the link below:

Naipaul's Universal Civilization lecture

Charlie, we posted at the same time about the same article!

Mal

Anna, I understand the kind of paralyzing sadness you feel. In a way this time reminds me of long ago when the Great Depression and incurable illness almost brought this country to its knees. I have been reminded of polio epidemics where hundreds and hundreds of people contracted this terrible illness, myself included, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more died. I was lucky like the President of the United States and survived.

I remember the closing of homes and schools and churches and some workplaces. People were warned not to go to movies or to beaches in the summer. Does anyone else remember living through this very difficult, anxious time?

Today I picked up the Durham, NC newspaper and read an article about a woman who was killed in her car last night when a deer ran out in front of it. It brought me back to the knowledge that the future is never reliable or dependable, that a deer or something else can stop us dead in our tracks at any time.

I am talking to myself here as much as I am to you. The thought in my mind since September 11 and each following day has been that I wouldn't stand a chance. I am old now and semi-crippled; I cannot run.

As a result of that thinking, do you know what I did today? I picked up my crutches and went out to my car. Then I drove to the supermarket, chatted with friends while I was there looking around at lovely flowers, fresh baked bread and wonderful food, and had myself a very nice time.

Mal

Dear Fair Anna, the only people I worry about now are those who are absolutely back to their old selves, who claim not much impact...or interest. The rest of us, who are all over the map or are up and down emotional roller coasters or are numb or in a fog or fine for a while, then not....I'm not worried about us at all. Your poetry will come when it comes. You say you've written your "positive" in poetry. Does it appeal to write of the numbness? Not that you "should" do this, but it might help someone else if you could. And it would honor where you are. If you cannot, then don't.

When you get back, you don't have to read all the posts, just read the current week's article (new one each week, always in a link in the heading) and join in!!! In the meantime, just BE numb, talk of it as much as you can to whomever and trust that you will, little by little, begin to feel like your old self again.

Anna, I watched an interview of Tom Brokaw tonight (a letter addressed to him was opened by someone on his staff...now she has the Anthrax infection)....anyway, Tom Brokaw nearly lost it. He was fighting back tears and what he finally said didn't make much sense...that the letter was for HIM, so how unfair it was that she was sick. He looked tired and stressed and awfully sad. I sat here thinking that maybe half of our 280 million are tired and stressed and awfully sad.

Have fun with your daughter, don't work too hard...or work hard, whichever works best, and we'll see you when you get back!!

-------------------------------------------------

I just caught up reading about 75 posts, but got such a mood boost, MaryPage, about your advanced age of 19 and a two-piece bathing suit. Don't know why that tickled my funny bone, but thank you.

--------------------------------------------------

The movie Not Without My Daughter has haunted me, Benjamin. It's about what happened to your grandson, or the general subject. When I was reading your post, I kept saying, no, no, no. I've heard that your daughter's experience has happened to quite a few U.S. women and one woman (I read about) said that a death of her child would have been easier. This one subject, what happened to your daughter/grandson and to other women, is a perfect example how political and complex is the relationship between the U.S. and the middle east. And something else, but all I can think of is the work "sick." (Oil, children, etc.)

------------------------------------------------------

The question is, why are they so angry with us? I think I can say, yes, I understand why they are angry, even while I say understanding isn't agreeing. I have experience with family members who have narrow thinking and eons ago, I was married to a fundamentalist preacher. He preached for a conservative split from the Church of Christ. Yes, there is something even more conservative than the regular Church of Christ. No musical instruments in church service (make music in your heart, don't you know). No dancing, drinking, etc., etc. No "orphans' homes." (Each "church" should take care of its own.) No mixed swimming. Nobody gets into heaven except those who follow this strict interpretation of the bible. Literal, literal. (Gag, gag.) That was so long ago. It was my first attempt at adulthood and, let's face it, my brain was unplugged. But I do remember the life of people who believed what they believed and new information was suspect and tuned out. What they believed was the last word. Every answer was known before a question was asked.

All of that was not much different than, say, my grandmother's (mostly harmless) reliance on the Methodist Church. Her faith, her friends in Sunday School, her view of man as the head of the family. A simple and serene life, much love and service to family. She was SO happy when I quit smoking at age 28, because I would look more like "a Christian lady" again. That was one of the few times in my life that I actually felt angry with her and said, "That's NOT why I quit smoking!!"

Ownership of Women. Women are more like property, as are children, in most of the middle eastern countries. So, we are about 100 years ahead of them....at the end of the 19th century in the U.S., a divorcing man retained all property of the marriage and was awarded custody of the children. The woman was given back to her father.

From THEIR point of view, I do see how we must look to (a lot of) people in the middle east. From their rigid view of society, we must seem to them how a pot-smoking woman in a low-cut, slinky dress would seem to my grandmother. I've stopped to smile, thinking of my grandmother going to get a long sleeve sweater and insisting that the woman must be cold and may have forgotten her jacket.

Mrs. Watson mentioned class. I agree it must be included. After all the usual things are said about class, it seems to me that this is also one more piece of how little we both know of the other. Do the angriest Muslims or Arabs or Persians know that we do a lousy job feeding the hungriest people in our country? Or that we have hungry people? Probably not. We're probably less spoiled/snobby and more insensitive than they know. Do they know that we don't ALL live in large houses, but that so many of us VALUE living in large houses? And why is it, after all this time of watching large anti-American protests, that we are just now seriously asking what it's all about? I'm speaking of the average person there, not the incomprehensible murdering monsters. That level of desperation, of loss of touch with reality, is somewhere beyond our reach. Maybe it's possible to change the ground where seeds of that kind of insanity grow, though.

One connection we have with middle eastern countries now, that we didn't have, is the pain and disruption of terror. Strange place to start a friendship, but it's not impossible.

betty

Osama bin Laden stated it very well in one of those films released. He soundly chastised America for its alliance with Israel, and he blasted us for having troops on the holiest land of Islam - Saudi Arabia. My understanding is that the Qur'an states that one foot of a non-believer on Islamic holy land is reason enough for Jihad. As I recall, Osama bin Laden also said something like we had treated Middle Eastern countries like third rate places for the past 80 years, looked down our noses at them and were much too condescending, superior and imperialist.

At one time Persia and other countries near it were the height of civilization and intellectual progress. The west began foisting its ways on them, ways that are unacceptable to Islam. The false portrayal of America in movies and on television didn't help.

Women in Afghanistan before the Taliban were doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors. They were a threat to fundamentalist followers of Islam, so have been put down. This is no surprise. Look how long it took for women just to get the vote in this country.

I read that the Northern Alliance consists of many conflicting groups. There is no guarantee that Afghanistan the country or its women would be any better off if they came into power.

Having read posts by fundamentalist Christians on SeniorNet boards, I can see that what has been said about closed fundamentalist Islamic minds can well be said about fundamentalist Americans, too. What they say on message boards here leads me to think their rhetoric and beliefs are as dangerous as those of any fundamentalist Muslim.

V.S.Naipaul has said that religions are the scourge of humanity. At the risk of offending many, I'll state that I'm inclined to agree. Blind adherence to fundamentalist faith can lead to international arguments. Those arguments lead to war, since no one yet has found a way to solve problems without inflicting injury and death. Trying to negotiate or discuss differences with people who use the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, or some other book as their source for decisions and defense is hitting one's head against an immoveable brick wall. The answer? Blow it up.

I am perturbed by reactions to our freedom of speech, something we have always held dear in the United States. Today an objective comment about Islam, for example, or about the President and government of this country seems to some Americans to display bad, unpatriotic feelings. How can one understand the motives of those who attacked us and correct our own mistakes without examining all sides of a problem in an objective way and discussing it?

Mal

Betty- the new-found connection of which you speak - one of "pain and disruption" - may have opened eyes here. May have unintended long term benefits. I agree. That would be ironic, in a sense, because I certainly don't feel that was the 'plan.' A religious war, is exactly what was hoped for here. It's been said the bin Laden's problem is NOT with Israel. It's with Israel's alliance with the United States - his problem is with us.

I disagree that religions are the scourge of humanity (and am not sure that Naipaul said that specifically). I believe that religion, for some, brings meaning and peace to their lives through another system of belief and reality. It brings a moral code to their lives. Now "Blind adherence to fundamentalist faith" [or at least a fundamentalist interpretation of a faith] can certainly lead to all the troubles we can imagine. That's been proven throughout history.

Mal: Hear, hear on your last comment. That needs to be said. And remembered in the days ahead.Thanks.

"Academy board member Per Wastberg told Reuters that Naipaul was critical of all religions. 'He considers religion as the scourge of humanity, which dampens down our fantasies and our lust to think and experiment.'"

V.S. Naipaul, Nobel prize winner

I guess I disagree with Per Wastberg, then and not Naipaul. As the head of the academy, Horace Engdahl, says: "his view of Islam is a lot more nuanced…What he's really attacking in Islam is a particular trait that it has in common with all cultures that conquerors bring along, that it tends to obliterate the preceding culture." This is the way I've always read Naipaul (in Guerillas, A Bend in the River, The Mimic Men, A House for Mr. Biswas, In a Free State, Miguel Street) - as a giant of post-colonial sensibilities. That's the connection with religion that he's interested in, the real scourge that has concerned him.

Malryn referred to "the false portrayal of American in movies and on television". Unfortunately, it has been a pattern of our society that what Hollywood and TV portray as the norm comes to be accepted as such. Hollywood Squares got a big laugh not long ago out of the idea that if virginity were a requirement for Miss America contests, they would not be able to find any contestants. I believe that Mal is right that Hollywood and TV give a false portrayal, but it is becoming more and more accurate as people accept that portrayal.

I don't believe any of this is the cause of Muslim rage; but is definitely gives them something to point to in claiming we are a depraved people, and they are morally justified in hating us. ..Babi

Babi---You just used "depraved people" to describe how we are seen by fundamentalist Muslims. Well put. I think that is exactly what they see.

I have always understood rage. I have always thought that fundamentalists of any stipe were potentially dangerous people. No room for compromise or new ideas in a closed mind.

Maryal (not Malryn whose name is similar--Hi Mal!)

Hi, Maryal!

Mal aka Malryn, whose name is similar to Maryal's.

Oops, sorry, Maryal.

I always flinch a bit at the current usage of the term "fundamentalist". A fundamentalist is basically someone who accepts the fundamental doctrines of a belief. While they remain firm in their adherence to those fundamental doctrines, it does not necessarily denote a closed mind. On the other hand,sometimes it does.

People of extremist temperaments can always find justification for their acts, and religion has always been a handy nail on which to hang said justifications. The religion itself almost never supports or condones such actions. Instead of focusing on the person(s) inolved in some atrocity, we focus on the 'justification' they give, and blame that. Maybe blaming religion and "fundamentalists" is too easy. The root of the choices people make lie in themselves, and nowhere else. ...Babi

Babi---I'm using "fundamentalist" in its perjorative sense--one who believes in an absolute interpretation of a religious text--which is, I believe an impossibility since we always interpret when we read. In every religion there are differences of opinion as to what the holy text says/recommends/means.

I have no quarrel with "fundamentalist" if it means one who returns to the foundations of something as long as that person does not claim to be speaking for God, Allah, the Qu'ran, the Bible.

~Maryal (who is still not Mal and yes, Mal, my name is "Mary Alice." My college roommate gave me the nickname.)

Babi- You make a good case. I can see how jarring it must be to someone who has a fundamentalist view of their religion, to see the term used in this way. Malryn is right, though - I believe we're (mostly) using the term in the way she describes.

And my name is "Marilyn", Maryal. As I said in a Political Issues discussion, my younger brother couldn't pronounce Marilyn. He called me "Malryn", which soon was shortened by my family to "Mal".

That's who I am!
Mal

Mal---I wish my nickname went all the way back to childhood! And I love "Mal." I knew one Mal before--short for Mallory in her case.

Maryal

Your discussion of Fundamentalism reminded me of the season's first airing of "West Wing" It was to all intents and purposes a lesson in civics 101. A line i will never forget was a staff member's question to a group of high school students who were criticizing muslims: terrorism is to Islam what _____________ is to Christianity. One of the students answered "Fundamentalism (I don't recall other responses) but the staff member wrote "KKK". It blew me away.

Perhaps other religious leaders don't criticize Christian fundamentalism more vehemently because our constitution protects the right of belief for ALL our citizens, not just the ones we agree with.

Also: I hope at least some of you saw the news report about an ex-follower of Bin Laden's who learned to read after leaving his ranks. He stated that when her learned to read, he explored the Qu'ran and was unable to find any of the hate messages he had been taught to believe were there. He said the leaders of terrorism recruited young illiterate boys from destitute families and taught them to believe in Jihad and to hate not only the U.S. but all western peoples. This man emphasized again and again that no such thing is to be found in this holy book. That leads me to believe that the well educated men who were the suicide bombers must have found political and economic reasons for believing their leaders, and/or never actually read their own holy book.

This discussion was recently brought to my attention and I've just completed reading about one-third of the posts. I'm delighted to see the topic undertaken in such an articulate, intelligent and non-beligerent manner by posters who clearly want to learn about the issues at hand. Bravo!

Nurturing Young Islamic Hearts and Hatreds

As seniors we are often isolated due to loss of loved ones and our own growing infirmities. Just being tired after a normal days busyness and needing more rest periods is isolating.

What I have found in the discussion groups is a way out of that islolation. A way to talk about our concerns in an intelligent and sane way. And I thank you for providing that.

For those with all the kind words I am going forward. There are some minutes that I feel I am so successful and then a picture or an interview with those who have lost so much will put me back.

For the suggestion I try to write about the dark feelings as I did once about my lighter ones I want to tell you I did write one late Friday night before I had to leave on my trip to Fredericksburg. It is called The Afghan Woman. Perhaps I need to study more of the Islamic beliefs but when I see my wonderful daughters and my daughters in law and how they have combined thier education with a loving, giving persona. How they manage to be a good employee and still a good mother, daughter in law, daughter, nieghbor, friend it distresses me to think any belief would deny them the right to being human and caring.

Saturdays paper had a whole section on Islam. A professor of Islamic studies at the College of William and Mary which is near to me gave a rather long explanation. I found nothing there that would make me feel the thoughts of Bin Laden are true to Islam. In fact there was much there that I can see is similiar to my belief as a Christian. As a matter of fact according to the professor ( I dont have the newspaper in front of me and I wish I did) Islam does not try to convert anyone to its beliefs. And the beliefs of Christians and Jews are considered valid. It seems to me ( and yes I do need to study this more) that they accept us and our beliefs.

Again I want to thank all who wrote in such a loving caring manner. Who gave me good suggestions and encouraging words.

One thing I think I have garnered from all of this.We should look backward but dont let what was wrong in the past keep us from moving forward.

from anna who is still tired from a very long day...4:30AM to 11+PM when I finally FELL into bed.

It may be that what it will take in the region is a commitment to help foster an atmosphere in which solutions to the problems can be arrived at amongst those directly affected. It may be that we'll have to let "our interests" take a back seat to solutions that may not seem to conform to the traditional view of our political best interests. This will be hard - and unprecedented. It may be that anything other than this will only reaffirm radical (and by default) mainstream Islam's view of the West.

Welcome Lady C and Persian.

Mahlia- I wonder if you could address our perceptions of religion and the secular state as compared to much (though by no means all) of Islam's perception.

Charlie

Mahlia, if you do respond to any of the posts and I hope you do, can you answer this - would it be helpful in the present situation if the U.S. would remove all our military soldiers and equipment from the country of Saudi Arabia? Do the other Arab countries resent our presence in their holiest of places? That was one point that Osama Bin Laden made in his recorded speech.

When I attempt to ask this of others they feel America needs this presence in the Middle East and that Saudi Arabia also requested we stay there as a precaution or a defensive measure from Iraq.

Charlie - your question is so broadly phrased that even an Islamic scholar (which I certainly am not) would need to break it down into segments of not only religious understanding and practice, but the influence of cultural issues (i.e., the numerous tribal conflicts in Afghanistan, the infiltration of Arabs into the non-Afghan culture, which is highly resented by native Afghans), the role of desperate poverty, lack of housing, sanitation, water, crops, and medical attention throughout rural Afghanistan.

The Taliban (and bin Laden) want us to believe that the actions we suffered on Sept. 11th are (in their minds) the result of good (Islam) vs evil (Americans particularly, Jews and Christians). Although bin Laden and his devotees pitched their PR in the realm of religion, the public comments from the Islamic leadership are becoming more vocal (whereas they were not so forthcoming in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11th attacks and that made Americans wonder why). The Middle East does not move at the nanosecond time frame that Americans expect. There is much consultation among regional and religious leaders, Heads of State and respected scholars. Even so, many of the comments heard in the Islamic world condeming the attacks are coupled with comments that rile Americans, namely the belief that Americans should have provided more support to the establishment of a Palestinian State and the fear that the Americans will repeat history and abandon Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Taliban is destroyed. The latter are viable concerns, since previous American decisions supported the withdrawal of support from these regions. Although the USA and Pakistan have had reasonably good relations over the years, except for Pakistan's support and public acknowledgement of the Taliban as a government in Afghanistan.

Recent condemnations have been made by Saliah bin Mohamed Lahidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council in Saudi Arabia; Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, Grand Sheik (religious leader) of Al-Azhar University in Cairo; Abdol Makid Khoei, Secretary General of the al-Khoei Foundation in London and a prominent Iraqi-born Shiite Muslim scholar; Sheik Rached Ghannouchi, London-based Chairman of Tunisia's an-Nahda Movement, a moderate Islamic movement; Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council in Qatar and one of the Middle East's most prominent Sunni scholars; and Sheik Hamoud Bin Oqla Shuaibi, a dissident senior cleric in Saudi Arabia.

The link that Mal provided ("Nurturing Young Islamic Hearts and Hatred") explains clearly the depth of desperation that the Afghan youth are encountering; the role of the Islamic schools (madrasas)in encouraging the "hatred" of the West; the ignorance and bigotry of the teachers; and the lack of opportunities for students to learn in a broad-based, intellectually stimulated environment. Even young children, if given the opportunity to learn about other cultures and thought processes, can develop a richer sense of the world than the youth of Afghanistan who are limited in their education. When people are hungry and frightened and they are offered sustenance, they don't ask questions about who provides the food. Nor if the food is offered in the madrasas and in exchange the students have to listen to teachers recite the same information repeatedly, they are not inclined to argue or question.

The same applies to the Islamic religious practices in Afghanistan. Someone in another discussion asked why there were only children running out to pick up the food packages dropped by American planes. The poster wanted to know where the parents were? There are thousands of orphans in Afghanistan; children are let to fend for themselves; many have no adults in their lives for guidance or comfort. They mature quickly (although not well)and their manners are rough, their language crude and their sense of self-preservation is strong, until they, too sucumb to starvation (notice the lightened hair ends of many of the children - a clear sign of malnutrition).

Many of the teenagers and young men who have been conscripted into the ranks of the Taliban are not necessarily joining because they believe in the organization. They do not! But they have been threatened, coerced into joining and fighting at the risk of having their parents or other relatives killed in front of them; their women raped or mutilated; and their elders incarcerated. "Fight or die right now," is a common threat.

I realize that your question pertained to "religious and secular," but it is not as easy as that. As far as religion is concerned, I think we've discussed the various issues that arose among the global Islamic communities who do NOT support terrorism in any form (certainly not the Taliban or Al Qaeda)in other SN discussions (i.e., ISLAM, TERRORISM). However, if you have specific questions, I'll try to respond to them. If I am unable to do so, then I'll try to provide resources where answers may be found.

ELLA - yes, in the Arab world (even among the educated leaders and statesmen) there is a great sense of repugnance about having American soldiers in Saudi Arabia. This is one of the most central issues that Americans finds difficult to deal with because to us, we are providing a barrier to any further attempts by Sadam Hussein to infiltrate, attack or damage the Gulf region. Our men and women who serve in Saudi Arabia are located away from major cities, more or less restricted to their own compound and forbidden from interacting with Saudis (except for their military counterparts and only at certain levels).

There is simply no comparison about this feeling in the USA, where we are accustomed to training military personnel from foreign countries within our nation; where we have hundreds of thousands of foreign students and businessmen; where intermarriages among people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds are common; and where there is a definite separation of Church and State. The intensity of the negative feelings about American military in Saudi Arabia simply cannot be compared with anything in the USA! And that is as straightforward and truthful as I can answer your question.

However, to the Americans, it is equally important to assure the economic balance of Saudi Arabia. Yes, here's the OIL issue! And make no mistake about it, that is a MAJOR player in the issue of American troops in Saudi Arabia. The Royal Family has "quietly" continued their authorization for the Americans to remain; they do not like to discuss the topic; the Saudi diplomats try to talk "around" the issue and the Americans have been asked to not bring up the issue publicly. There is "cooperation from the Saudis" (comments from Bush, Powell and Rice) and "a strong and friendly relationship" between Saudi Arabia and the USA (same sources). In two recent interviews, the Saudi Ambassador to the USA, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, absolutely refused to answer this specific question on a public forum.

But there is also another issue and that is the absolute dread of the Gulf States that Iraq (with backing from Iran, although they were at war with each other for so many years) will turn on them AGAIN, perhaps this time with nuclear or chemical weapons. Iraq's move into Kuwait in the early 90's was enormously frightening to that little country. Saudi Arabia knows what's in Iraq's arsenal and they do not want any part of it, just as surely as they do NOT want to be threatened with the Iranian branch of Shi'ite Islam from Iran. It is a VERY complicated situation. Bin Laden's liaison with Baghdad is well known in the Arab world, but is NOT thoroughly discussed (or publicized) in the Western press until just recently.

The communication styles in the Middle East are 180 degrees different than in the USA, so it is very hard for Westerners to understand the various complexities at work. There is no such thing as "direct communication," to which Americans are accusstomed. Instead there are "multiple levels" of communication, each one meaning a slightly different thing. The "subtle discourse" of the Middle East is an acquired habit and often confusing to mainstream Americans, as well as to seasoned diplomats.

Doc Mahlia....How did we get so lucky to have you in Books and Lit, Mahlia!!! How ironic it seems now that we were bugging you for complex explanations of this and that (Iranian vs. Persian) BEFORE Sept. 11.....in a book discussion, then in two other folders I can think of (and others I don't know of?). I'm certain that many of us are 2 steps ahead of the average U.S. citizen in our understanding of the middle east region because of your generous, patient, tolerant answers to our questions.

This thank you is not a subtle hint that you've given enough and that we've asked too much of you, though that probably was true some weeks back. No, I'm wondering if there is a way to catalogue your previous answers, so you could say, when you wanted to, "look at these posts....#782 in author, book, etc., etc. Plus, don't you think an invitation to the Social Issues "Democracy" and "Terrorism" discussions (outside of Books and Lit) would also be appropriate? I think that's where I've learned the most from you. Finally, this topic and our interest(s) will be around for a while. Your inside information from your world travels and profession and your husband's background and profession and assorted other family resources (whew) will continue to place you right at the top of our best references.....we should think about creating a central resource folder...with you as author or supervisor or final editor, or what?? Or maybe you've already thought of this, or someone is already working on this with you.

This is my response to an early warning system, my red flags. Your answers everywhere for months have been so clear, informative, eloquent......I just don't want your batteries to run down before we have a back-up plan.

betty

The Clash of Ignorance

From my work in the crisis and suicide prevention for awhile during my college years, I am remembering something. Anger and frustration tend to show themselves differently in women than they do in men. Men very often show rage - killing others when they kill themselves. Women most often act depressed - seemingly turning the anger inward. If this idea is true, maybe women will never really understand a man's rage or men never understand a woman's depression. In this discussion as well as many others on SN, I have noticed many women expressing a depressed reaction since the 9/11 attack. For me, depression is hard to understand, while a little fear and a lot of rage seem natural. Are fear and frustration as much behind men's rage as anger?

Mahlia also has an informative forum under Religion - Islam. I second Betty's remarks wholeheartedly. Mahlia is glad she doesn't have to use her voice here. At least we can save her that.

Karen Armstrong has written a book about Islam which is highly regarded by many. She recently wrote a two-part article which I think would also be good background for us. It is full of history and is quite well-done, as you will see. We would be interested on your take on it, too, Mahlia.

September Apocalypse: Karen Armstrong, What Next? Part I

Part II

Linda

BETTY - thanks for your words of encouragement. Certainly we are going to be in this period of "heightened awareness" for some time and it behooves everyone who is interested to learn as much as possible about the source of the Sept. 11th attacks. However, although I realize that I may have a bit more personal experience with the Middle East and Central Asia than other posters (EXCEPT Tiger Tom, who is a former FOS posted in the region during a long career), I believe that a lot of one's learning ability (and thus better grasp of the topic) stems from an individual's willingness to learn. Thus, if my comments are informative, that's only HALF the battle. Readers must be willing to not only read the comments, but mull them over in their own minds, reach conclusions for themselves and then make decisions based on their own sense of logic, ability to accept new (or unusual) ideas about topics they may be totally unaware of or previously found only of passing interest.

Thus, my sense of "preserving" or "collecting" some of my previous comments - archiving, if you will - should be a decision made by the Charlie, the Discussion Leader in this group or perhaps in conjunction with other colleagues in the Books leadership. Personally, I am NOT aware of whether SN is technically organized to archive specific posts, but someone like Marcie Schwartz should be able to answer that question.

LINDA - thanks for the links to Karen Armstrong's pieces in the Guardian. They are extremely informative and right on target about the History of the current situation. This is NOT something just came up overnight; in fact it has been ongoing for many, many decades. The overall feeling that our Western press is now talking about - deemed "the hatred towards America" or "the rage of Islam", etc. is only the contemporary terminology for a deep-seated resentment that is buried at the core of many societies. Not everyone will be interested in or appreciate the concepts of ancient history vs Sept 11th, but to bypass the "roots" is to do a great disservice in understanding what happened one month ago.

MAL - as always you've provided some fine links. Edward Said's article in The Nation ("The Clash of Ignorance") reflects his own strongly-held (and often publicized) theory that culture is a major factor in the conflicts, NOT just religion. His criticism of Huntington's work (although highly respected in academe) also makes sense post Sept. 11th. This piece - like Karen Armstrong's - may be a bit of heavy reading for those not deeply interested in history, but they should not be missed for the serious reader.

Not an expert at all, but I have some tiny additional perspectives. First responses.

MAL, yes, I certainly remember the polio scares and the overreactions.

BETTY, what an incredible experience, your being married to such a person! Love all your comments.

MAL, when we first started the TERRORISTS discussion over in Politics, I posted that the thinking of the radical Muslims is parallel in my mind to the most fundamentalist Christians. I was accused of blasphemy, ungodliness, unAmericanism, and you name it! I still think, and agree with you, they are the same thing in different costumes.

LADYC, Welcome! I've been away at a SeniorNet Bash, and am delighted to come back to find you here. The WEST WING line about the KKK being one Christian equivalent of these Muslim terrorist cells was a very early thought of mine, and I posted that thought in the Political discussion TERRORISTS. Again, you cannot imagine the filthy flack I got from those who just don't want to hear it! I was one tickled woman when I heard them use the same logic on WEST WING!

BEN, we women do feel rage, but most often we immediately quell it. Some women never learn to manage their emotions, but most of us have been carefully taught not to allow ourselves rage, and we skip right on to depression. The one follows the other, even in men. I am writing this from life experience, and not from anything like the expertise Betty (PhD in this stuff!) owns.

ELLA, so glad you agree with me about preaching to the "heathen." This has always really, really bugged me. My reasoning was quite simplified. It consisted of me hating having the Mormons or the local Baptists or the Watchtower people (my mind has slipped on their name at the moment!), etc. come to my door to attempt to convert me. I have resented it intensely. I then extrapolated this to muse upon how any group, tribe, clan, village, town, city or country must very much resent other peoples coming in and arrogantly presuming to dictate that the religion they are preaching is superior to the indigenous one. Boy, this really makes me boil! Take note here, BEN!

Also, ELLA, there IS and has been controversy over "sacred ground" in this country. Most of it has had to do with Native Americans. They consider the whole of THE BLACK HILLS, for just a tiny example, to be their sacred ground; and it has been for thousands of years. The Mormons also have a few places they consider truly sacred, as they are a religion founded right here in the U.S.

ACUDOR, you made me laugh about the rejection stamp, but Hey! You are far from rejected here. I agree with almost every word you write.

Finally, another bit of seasoning to throw in the pot of reasons for the rage. Do you remember the rat civilization we had to study eons ago? I cannot remember the names, terms, places, etc. Just the gist of the thing. Was it NIH, or some other place? They put rats in x amount of space, and they were happy, busy little things. As the population exploded, and the space did not, they became angry and violent. The progression of this behavior was fascinating. I know! I know! There are those who refuse to believe we can draw parallels between humans and rats, but I am convinced not only that we can, but that we are experiencing the effect of over population in what is going on now.

Additionally, religion is a factor here as well. Many (not all!) religions have been purposefully pushing their adherents to have as many children as possible as a tenet of the Faith. At the same time, the Faithful are encouraged not to question anything they are told is "God's Will!"

BEN, after anger and depression comes nausea!

I hope it will be possible to archive the information available to us from Mahlia. I have long thought it deserved to be preserved. I have saved a few pieces, esp. of personal experiences, for my own files.

Ben, my own admittedly minimal reading in psychology included the nugget that fear ALWAYS underlies anger. Whether you you got scared to death to find your kid on the roof and blew your top over it (once you got him/her down), or some guy pulled a knife and threatened you (fear>>>>rage!). And yes, women do feel rage, also. MaryPage was on target when she said the woman's inability to express her rage was what most often led to the depression. I do believe, tho', that women in general are better able to find other ways to deal with fear/anger than by striking back with more anger. Depression/or rage is not the only response possible. ... Babi

I plead ignorance, and laziness for not going to look this up, but some New Age author has said that there are only two basic human emotions, fear and love. All other negative emotions are derived from fear. That makes all the sense in the world to me.

MAHLIA - thanks so very much for answering our questions, although there are many more. It is a complex situation and I will quietly keep reading and attempting to comprehend, not only the factors involved at present, but the solutions offered - if there are any. I feel great pity for the orphaned children and their lack of a future and for a society that is so illiterate. It seems a sin to enjoy dinner and a warm home when there is so much emptiness on the other side of the world.

As we all continue to learn about the regions of Central Asia that have either been victims to decades of war and unrest or, more recently, have joined with Western allies to attempt to curtrail some of the atrocities, it will help to remember that "alliances" are not always new.

For example, the USA has had a slowly developing rapport with Uzbekistan, which is only now becoming public. Thus, it makes sense that of the independent 'Stans surounding Afghanistan, Uzbekistan would be the one to approve an American military presence.

It also would be helpful to think in terns of what Afghanistan used to be (before civil war, Soviet invasion and Taliban take-over): a country where women were educated, practiced in the highest professions, maintained their dignity in their homes and their chosen fields, pursued higher education abroad, owned and ran businesses in their own names.

And, from a leadership standpoint, remember than even in the days of the former Afghan royalty, there was enormous poverty in the rural areas; opportunities for education were NOT as widely extended outside of the large cities as could have been; corruption was rampant (just like in the time of the late Shah in Iran). Although the former King is now being courted by many factions as the only person able to return to Afghanistan and bring some semblance of order out of the wide-spread conflict, his previous reign tolerated great corruption and the lack of social services to the population throughout the country.

There has been a lot of commentary about Pakistan's cooperation with the American leadership (and indeed it is very valuable to the West), but Musharaf follows closely on the heels of previous leaders who "worked both hands" (a phrase in the Middle East which is similar to our "don't let the one hand know what the other is doing") as far as corruption is concerned. In a recent interview on 60 Minutes, National Security Advisor Condi Rice urged that we "consider the anti-American demostrations of several thousand people in countries of seveal million" to be disproportionate to the over-all thinking of the people. That may be readily acceptable around a conference table in Washington or at Camp David, but when you see those angry, screaming mobs on TV or in the newspapers with vicious hatred clearly on their faces, it's hard to be detached and remember "the millions."

I mention the above issues not to place additional blame, but to balance out the thinking points and to hopefully bring about a better sense of understanding of the region and the issues which are very problematic, not only to the local residents, but to the Americans and their allies. As we all know, there are many layers of complex issues to comprehend and, hopefully, to merge into this ongoing very interesting discussion.

BEN - I would like to comment on your earlier insightful post about women's depression. In this very unusual time for the USA, I've noticed that expressions of depression seem to come many times from individuals (both men and women) who feel that they are helpless to do something constructive to ease the suffering, protect the innocent, comfort the families of victims, etc. However, in my area (metropolitan Washington DC), people of both genders and all ages (including many, many Seniors)were out in force to comfort, lend extra hands, and constructively work along side trained officials to "take care of our City." The local Red Cross command centers, as well as those stations set up by the officials of various jurisdictions (particularly Arlington, VA - the jurisdiction nearest the Pentagon)were teeming with individuals who were definitely NOT depressed, but engaged for hours on end in whatever way they could help.

Certainly, among the women in the Washington DC area engaged in police, fire and rescue and EM rescue, the women were NOT depressed, but fiercely intent on their jobs. They went about their business in a methodical, highly trained manner. Among the female police offices there was a "controlled" sense of anger, because they did not have the freedom to wildly express their feelings. Among the EM rescue teams, the women worked hard and at the same time often took a moment or two to encourage, comfort and "nudge" (as only women can) their co-workers to "get on with it." There has been a great "tamping down" of emotions or as the younger folks say "suck it up," but it has been in a controlled manner, NOT indicative of depression, but definitely self-control.

I have had an unusual upbringing in a multicultural family, so I am NOT a good example of an average American-born woman. However, among the American women I do know (whether as friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc.) of various ages, there is a deeply rooted sense of "getting a job done," whether they are still working or retired and volunteer their efforts. I definitely agree that women handle anger, frustration and stress in quite different ways than men do, but my own personal sense in being around American women of many different backgrounds is that depression, although a serious concern for some, is NOT the major way women respond.

Among Seniors particularly, who are after all are the women who served in the military or were the spouses of men who did, there is a certain "strength of character" that definitely comes to the forefront in times of danger or emergency. Women who are, perhaps, otherwise quiet spoken and mild mannered, can make a complete about-face when their families are threatened or in danger; they automatically become "protectors" and outspoken in their manner. Perhaps it comes from being the gender who gives birth to the children, raises them (often in recent decades as single parents), emotionally supports and encourages the men and in many cases "keeps the home fires burning," while also balancing professions, serving in public office and managing demanding volunteer projects.

I certainly recognize that depression is a prevalent issue in the USA, but I believe it is a severe problem for men as well as women and, unfortunately, among youth, too. And those who have ready access through financial stability and/or solid medical insurance will more easily be able to cope with the help of professionally trained counselors over a longer period of time. But equally, I believe, it is also a matter of individual personalities and how each person handles their depression from the initial stages of recognition through to addressing the problem head on with sound counseling. This, too, is a many layered, complex issue.

Thanks for your thoughts, Mahlia. All posts by anyone are part of the database. You can, if you choose, do a search of "Mahlia" (or anyone else for that matter) and read everything she's ever posted on SeniorNet in any discussion. (well…."ever". Don't know how far back it goes but, you get the idea.)

Charlie

ELLA - may I say with respect that I do not believe "it is a sin to enjoy dinner" when there is so much suffering. To me the access to regular food intake allows you (and others) to have the energy and brain power to recognize the many ways to help those who are less fortunate. "To those to whom much is given, much is expected" would about sum up my thoughts on this issue. In the USA, we have access to enormous resources of financial support, creative mechanisms to take an idea and turn it into something positive that will help others (i.e., the American children who are donating their coins and dollars for the Afghan children; the kids who are sponsoring car washes and bake sales so that they can donate "more money") and local, State and Federal infrastructures that can be affected by "the People's voice" if we, the People, choose to make our voices heard.

So enjoy your dinner and warm home and then make sure that your kids, grandkids, neighbors, friends, congregants in your church or members of your clubs and other organizations utilize their resources to help "those less fortunate." I'm sure you already do, so this is really "preaching to the choir."

CHARLIE - thanks for the information on how to SEARCH. I think I'd better change my name, since I haven't always been as diplomatic as I'd like to be (especially in the Terrorism and GLobal Politics discussions). I'll just have to plead that it was "the Irish" taking over.

HAHA, diplomatic in the Global Politics discussion? Whatever got into you??

Charlie

babNH- Seems I have heard that too somewhere ("there are only two basic human emotions, fear and love."). I think of hate, but suppose that derives from 'fear'.
Charlie

Ben, MaryPage, Babi, Babs, it's interesting to think about all our different experiences with emotion, isn't it? I had noticed the same thing, Ben, about women here expressing thoughts on depression.

Two things came to mind when I was mulling over today's posts. First, the full range of emotions are felt by both men and women but the culture we live in doesn't support a full range of expression (telling people) of these feelings. It's more socially acceptable for women to express tender feelings (love, sadness) and for men to express feelings of anger. In small children, boys who cry and girls who get angry still make many adults uncomfortable. That's where the teaching begins.

Many adults today are relearning to express whatever they feel, but my personal guess is that it is more socially acceptable for a woman to express anger than it is for a man to say.....that he's sad, depressed, lonely, heartbroken, etc. As a culture, we still have those "tender" emotions mixed up with whether or not a man is "strong." (And angry expression mixed up with whether or not a woman is "a lady.") That cultural learning most of us did (and society continues to support) is deeply embedded. Every time I WANT to express anger, I check myself, weighing the price of being seen (again and again) as that angry woman, that feminist (dirty word), that complainer, "shrill," unfeeling, unladylike, unChristian, unattractive, the list goes on. The men have an equally devastating list.

The 2nd thing I thought about is depression. Depression can be either a speeding up or a slowing down. In the DSM manual that psychiatrists and psychologists use, symptoms listed include anger, irritability, anxiety (speeding up), sluggishness, low mood, apathy, sleeping more (slowing down). Plus many other symptoms, not all of which would be needed for a diagnosis of depression.

I wanted to point out that anger is not the opposite of depression but is often (or can be) included in depression. Anger as an emotion doesn't mean pathology, however. It's just an emotion and, given recent circumstances, seems like a perfectly reasonable reaction, to me.

betty

Edit....I worked on this post, left, worked some more....only now see Mahlia's and Charlie's post on same issue...great thoughts!!

May I compliment you all? We’ve touched on a number of potentially sensitive subjects in the short time this discussion has been up. The level of discourse has been very gratifying. As we’ve moved from topic to topic, different people have stepped to the fore with insights gained from their work-life or their general experiences – their areas of expertise. Another example of gathering of resources and thinking about issues from a broad perspective on a reasoned way. Well done, everone!

Charlie

I will have to go back and read to find out things I need to know but one question that may be to simple. Why didn't the arabs use their oil money to build their country. Do they not want prosperty for the lower class. No, I do not understand...

Actually, one of those little countries over there shared the wealth. Every listed citizen is rich from the oil. Then they had to import non-citizen Arabs to do the dirty work! Those countries who keep the wealth in royal or aristocratic hands still feed and clothe their populace. Islam is a religion that requires charitable giving.

If you wonder why they do not build Interstates and Universities and factories and so forth to the extent that we do, there is really no way to explain without over simplifying. Some reasons: they don't even desire to be like us, they are not at all into capitalism, half their population does not drive or get much, if any, education (the women), the weather and topography do not encourage such enterprises, their cities are already quite modern and up to date, and satisfy their desires. Also, there are heaps of things we have in the way of material goods and freedoms, especially freedoms, that their very controlling religious leaders do not condone. The wealthy spend a lot of time traveling to Western countries and living just as we do while there. Tradition is the principal culprit here, but another factor is that these are very, very small countries with very large populations. Oh Gosh, as I began, there are just too many reasons. We need One World, with every country helping every other along. First we would need to get every country to be willing to help, and every country willing to be helped! Not going to happen anytime soon!

MAHLIA - if you come back this way, can you tell us what kind of government, who was in power and what time frame you were talking about when you made this statement - "It also would be helpful to think in terns of what Afghanistan used to be (before civil war, Soviet invasion and Taliban take-over): a country where women were educated, practiced in the highest professions, maintained their dignity in their homes and their chosen fields, pursued higher education abroad, owned and ran businesses in their own names."

Is there any organization, such as the United Nations, that can help Afghanistan develop this kind of government again, should the U.S. manage to topple the Taliban? What, in your opinion, might happen if the Taliban is dispossessed of the governing of the country if no one steps in to help the citizens who want stability?

Oil money? What about the drug money?

Follow the Money Trail

The question being: Whence the rage?

Lewis boils it down to two major factors. Secularism and modernism. Of the two, the question of "modernism" with all that implies, is what interests me. What does "modernism" mean to oil sheiks or military strongmen, or religious leaders? What does it bring along with it that poses a threat to what they call stability? How does personal freedom tie in to modernism, if at all? Can modernism be contained, held within certain parameters? Or does it call up a dynamic of its own? Can these regimes modernize and remain in control? Is the very concept anathema, especially to the mullahs? Is the energy to modernity an historical imperative that will not be denied? Is the rage a last gasp effort to forestall the inevitable?

Charlie

HANNAH - point of clarification in your #300, please. Which Arabs and which country are you inquiring about?

ELLA - the time frame is late 1960's through the mid-1970's. The former Afghan Royal Family's last heridatary representative, King Mohamed Zahir Shah, now 87 years old and a resident of Rome since being deposed by his cousin in 1973, is from a family which ruled the country for many years. Afghan gained independence from UK control in 1919. Following the King's departure, there was a Communist instigated coup, the Soviet invasion in 1979 and continued presence until 1989. In 1992, the Communists were toppled and the Taliban takeover began in 1996, spreading from South to North.

Recently, the King sent a communique to the UN Secretary General asking that he place before the Security Council the serious need for UN forces on the ground in Afghanistan, ready and alert, when the Taliban is overthrown, so that civil war does not erupt again. The various tribal leaders (and there are many)with their own agendas, long memories of previous insults will certainly scramble to take over Kabul and establish some form of government. The King is NOT interested in resuming power again and he has made that quite clear, but he also does not want to see continued chaos in the country. Although his own leadership of Afghanistan was not without blemish and a heavy amount of corruption (similar to what happened in neighboring Iran during the period of the Pahlavi Shahs), he is resepcted by various factions - mostly I assume because it is well know that he does not have any desire to return as "King" and also a cultural respect for his age and lineage.

There is a tremendous amount of information available through the CIA World Fact Book, accessed through the National Geographic (subtopic "War on Terrorism"). Sorry, I still have not learned how to set up a link for the convenience of the posters.

MARY PAGE - are you referring to Kuwait or the Emirates?

CHARLIE - what type of "modernism" did you have in mind? There is a vast difference between what the West (particularly Americans) consider modern and that interpretation in the rural areas of the Middle East and Central Asia. On the other hand, there are up-to-the-minute modern facilities in Saudi businesses and research labs; shopping malls and large grocery stores with the same type of products you might find in an American store; cells phones and highways; universities with excellent facilities and faculties, etc.

It's the thinking processes of the region (and how they are arrived at), not so much the material goods or the conveniences (or lack thereof), that I believe needs better understanding among Westerners. In this regard, I'd like to refer posters to an article entitled "Peer Pressure Spurs Terrorists, Psychologists Say," in today's issue of the Washington Post newspaper. (Again, my apologies for not being able to make this a convenient link.) It's insightful in understanding that religion - especially the radical interpretation of Islam - is NOT the only reason for terrorist behavior.

I don't think it was Kuwait I was thinking of, MAHLIA, but honestly, I can't remember. I think it starts with a B. I've been so busy today that I haven't had time to research anything, and just threw out stuff stored from various readings. I'm pretty sure it was not Kuwait.

Mahlia, send me an e-mail of what you want posted and I'll put it up for you.

Anywhere - anytime - will be glad to oblige.

Linda

MARY PAGE - Bahrain might be the one you're thinking of.

LINDA - thanks!

THAT'S IT! That's the one. That's what they did, and it was a hoot because once everyone was filthy rich, no one wanted to work!

Not that I would not have liked to have been one of them. Love money, hate to work for it!

MARY PAGE - I'm not sure that anyone outside of the country's leadership (and extended family) were "filthy rich," but the populace in general was accutomed to the tribal hierarchy of the Emir and the Sheik(s) taking care of them and making the decisions for all concerned. What Westerners call "a welfare State." This is particularly unappealing (and not well understood) to Americans, accustomed as we are to "the Voice of the People" reflected in our government and the freedom to make our own personal and family decisions.

I fear that all our palaver about the sources of Muslim Rage and Christian Rage and all the other efforts at figuring out why we are targeted are simply exercises in futility. There simply is no explanation for this thing we're experiencing now. Never before has anyone seen a concerted and efficacious effort to wipe out the greater part of mankind. Yet, I think that is exactly what were are facing.

You have noticed that the situation grows more serious every day with more and more cases of anthrax exposure being reported. Any number of other bacteria and chemicals are available and easily injected into our air, water, and food supplies. We can expect to hear of these new agents before long.

At present, we are not getting the whole story from our government, I suspect. Partly because they don't know either, but also because like a story teller foreshadowing castrophe, our leaders are breaking the news to us slowly. Senator Daschle today said that none of the 31 people exposed to the anthrax spores sent to his mailroom are sick. Wait a week and let's see if he's singing the same tune.

Please let these forbodings be only the ravings of my febrile brain blowing a gasket and spewing out apocalyptic nonsense. But I fear, I fear.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry....

I agree that they do NOT tell us the truth. Not now, and probably not ever.

Shall we throw in the mix the multitudes of moslems that are protesting around the world. Funny, I haven't seen nor heard of any of that today. Do you suppose that they have stopped?

Still... We must not think "gloom and doom", not now...

That is depressing, and there is nothing that we can do about it!

(I do that too! 8>)

But we ARE beating the crap out of those talibon unfortunates.. They do not have a snow balls chance in hell..

We are like the jolly green giant, look out below!

We have this big ole planes that can wipe out when the enemy relocates at night. .

They can not see our planes, but we can see them.

It is a night vision thingy. They are like so 'in our sight'..

But what are we going to do with a country that is trying to poison the world in the name of Allah?

I think that we are going to stop them, then re-arrange them, and before long they will think that they have alway been free.

Or not....

8>(

dapph

Karen Armstrong was interviewed on NPR today. Here is a site that may enable you to hear the interview now or tomorrow and a few days thereafter.

http://freshair.npr.org/dayFA.cfm?todayDate=current

Linda

Mahlia- I had no particular version of modernism in mind. I'm questioning what the concept even means here. And if there is an urge to "modernity" inherent in man no matter where he resides. I tend to believe that people are more alike than not - after the surface is scratched. Is this naïve? I find this idea helps me better to try and understand different cultures. We all have the same basic common desires and it is always fascinating to see how these have manifested themselves in various places of the world - for reasons of socio-political structure, environment, quirks and imperatives of history…

Well, things seem to deteriorate a bit day by day in some respects - and yet there are still hopeful signs. Despite the bombing and military action, there seems to be an observable restraint not foreseen by the manipulators - their plans have gone slightly askew. We are seeing their best shot, and they have miscalculated. Not to say there is not more terror to come - it unfolds before our eyes. The real war is being waged on other fronts and it is a struggle that we have only just begun to engage in.

Mahlia, you say that the populace in general has been accustomed to the tribal hierarchy of the Emir and the Sheik. Accustomed to their voices not being heard. That is the new war that our eyes are opening to. Perhaps quicker than the eyes of the ostensible rulers of the lieks of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Bahrain. That was then and this is now. There is a real fight taking place for the heart of Islam. Someone said, and I think it might be the truest thing I've heard said about the events of Sep 11 and those subsequent: Islam has also been hijacked by the terrorists. This is as much a fight for the soul of the religion as it is for the "free world", for civilized society.

Part of our strategy in this other war is to begin to listen to the people of the Arab and Muslim world. This will include listening to and hearing some things which we find surprising, hard to understand, even hurtful. But this is a time for listening to the right people. We must turn our ears from the traditional sources that have told us what we wanted to hear and listen to the hard things. This is a time when a great, broad segment of the Muslim world needs our encouragement and support. We cannot turn from them now. Don't we understand that this is also part of the plan? I'm not talking about listening to the leaders - the oil sheiks, the Taliban, the military strongmen. They have not heard the voice of their people either and so can not transmit to us their will. Neither can bin Laden or Al-Jezerrah. There are legitimate concerns that we need to listen to - concerns that have little to do with the stability of the sheikdoms, the flow of the black gold, or the security of our traditional allies.

I see positive signs in these areas, and am heartened by that, as I am saddened by the paranoia running amok amongst us. Dapphne, Jerryj, this effort to "wipe out the greater part of mankind" is ill-conceived and doomed to failure in its concept. Your fear is warranted and shared by us all. But I firmly believe that ultimately, we have been drawn into one war that we cannot lose - there is a certain point where terror run amok looses it's distinction as an effective weapon of war and becomes just poor tactics that must of necessity imperil the very survival of those who set the wheels in motion of their own destruction. The other war, the war we are just awakening to - and we have much to learn here - is a war that we can lose - but we must not. We must not for the peace of the generations to come - both here and in the Middle East and South Asia.

Charlie

Very well said, Charlie! "This is as much a fight for the soul of the religion as it is for the 'free world', for civilized society." I can appreciate the concept that Islam has been hi-jacked as well.

Let's not project. Let's live our lives, pray and do all we can for our country.

Reminds me of an article I just read a few minutes ago:

Chicken Little Media

"This is no time to go wobbly."

Linda

Well said, Charlie. VERY well said.

Bravo Charlie, well said. I totally agree with your message. And that is great too Linda, no time to get wobbly is right. I have heard more people saying the right things and the wise things right here in Seniornet than I do on night news. Faith

Indeed there have been some very thoughtful comments here; encouragement to "stay the course" and fight for what we believe in; think in terms of generations to come. I recognize those who experience the fear and the seeming inability "to do anything." But there ARE things that average citizens can do without being in the forefront of the police, fire and rescue, hazardous investigative teams. We can continue to LEARN: read, listen, discuss, question, consider, accept/reject and then continue again and again. Talk with the younger generation about WHY some of these things may have happened. We, as the elder generation, know the history better. We've already lived it. Share information, not stereotypes; explain, don't condemn. Ask how the youth of America are feeling and LISTEN to them as they try to express their conerns. Don't be frightened by fear; it's a normal reaction. WE CAN DO A GREAT DEAL! Don't despair and don't become overly depressed.

When I think about the good that will come out of these events - and yes, there will be some good points - I am reminded that NOW is the time to step back and watch how those lessons and hands-on training will be utilized by professionals; how our leaders can act to reassure communities throughout the country; how our scientists and other professionals with biochemistry backgrounds can put their knowledge and experience to use for the entire Nation.

Yes, there is Evil in the world, but there has ALWAYS been Evil in the world. And courageous people to combat it. So let's allow the folks who have spent their lives preparing for situations like the one we have now actually use their skills. Applaud them, encourage them and DISCOURAGE the rumors, excessive fear and the sense that "we" cannot do anything. Folks, there is a lot that we CAN do!

CHARLIE - yes, indeed, Islam as a religion has been hijacked, just as surely as the planes were. Islam has been attacked by radicals who are NOT insane (as some have claimed), but precise killers, who are trying to convince others to follow them. Some do, but many millions of Muslims throughout the world DO NOT! The killers will be stopped. The Taliban is only one faction of terrorism, but it is the one that we are dealing with right now; others may follow (Listen up Iraq, Iran, Sudan and others). When (not IF) the Taliban is eradicated from Afghanistan, then the international community will come together and deal with the civilian needs of that country, beginning with restructuring.

I like the example of Chicken Little. It reminds me of the folks who complained that the UN would not put troops on the ground in Afghanistan. But decisions at the UN can be changed; battle strategies can be revisited; methods of elimination of terrorists can be readjusted to meet the needs. We don't write in stone any more. There are numerous options that we have to work with. So let's give credit to our leaders, our operations people in the field, our military planners. And as Americans remain convinced that as an Air Force Pilot and a Marine Commander said tonight on TV: THIS is what we train for!

Did anyone read the news article about Bush and his statement that this war could well last two years or more?

I think we are in for the long haul. It is time for the media to act responsibly again--I think they've been a little over the top for a while now. Remember all the reporting about Elian? Remember the JonBenet murder case? Remember Condit? Talk about getting in the habit of making (relatively) small stories HUGE. Now that we have real hard news, reports of Anthrax exposure, missiles and bombs all over Afghanistan, I sense a new calm in some of the newscasters.

There is no reason to panic about anthrax. There are other, far more dangerous possibilities, but we need not become fearful about them either. Fear is exactly what bin Laden and company have in mind. Now is a time for calm and level-headedness.

Maryal

I don't think this war will be completely over and settled until my grandchildren are old.

Powerfully said, Charlie, in your words of reason and hope. In another (televised) discussion of how Islam has been hijacked, there was an example of how our country is different from several countries of the middle east. Someone observed that the legitimate "leaders" of Islam were not "speaking up," not appearing on the news, saying, "WE represent 95 percent of Islam and Islam is not in trouble at all," etc., etc. Another answered that this picture of leadership was western, not middle eastern. Interesting.

The piece of news that caught my eye today was an interview with ????whose introduction included "working on bioterrorism longer than anyone else in the U.S., and possibly in the world." Low key guy, very informative on the relative danger of anthrax and other biological and chemical warfare. To the question of who could be responsible for this wave of anthrax terrorism, he didn't hesitate at all. He said, "Either Iraq or Iran, but I tend to think Iraq more likely."

-------------------------------------------------

Jerry, when I see pictures of thousands participating in anti-American protests, it helps me to remember that there are millions of muslims who are not protesting. The small percentage that we see should encourage us.

--------------------------------------------------

One other thought on depression. This is not necessarily an UNorthodox view, but more of a picture in my thinking that has grown over time. I think of the body having a kind of overriding wisdom. For example, at those moments when we cry, we aren't doing much thinking....the body just knows it needs the relief from crying. I have a picture in my mind of the body under stress for a length of time, then it says, "That's it. I'm sick of this. I need some extended rest for a while. I need to shut down." Then it shuts down. It sleeps a lot (this is the slowing down kind of depression). It doesn't concentrate well, has trouble making decisions, has low energy, and in many other ways doesn't function up to par. In more of a holistic way of thinking, I see this as the body taking care of itself by shutting down for a while. Or running on very little energy, as if it needs time to replace depleted energy.

I know my bias is to UNDERpathologize, but over time, I've come to see depression as more a PART of living, part of a cycle of being human. Naturally, I'm speaking more of situational depression and less of chemical depression. Situational depression....death of someone close, being laid off then beginning new job, high stress from something external, etc. For other depressions caused by chemical imbalance.....I wonder if that, too, is more of a natural process. I don't see it, yet, but I wonder about it.

betty

We've got to keep a perspective on recent events. The guy sitting next to you smoking is of much more danger to you than is the terrorist who's mailing anthrax spores. Thousands die each year of second hand smoke and, so far, one (only one) person has died in the 'anthrax attacks'. Responding to 911 calls about white powdery substances is costing our societies millions and the news reporting all the false calls are just leading to panic resulting in even more false calls. If you get a letter of which you're in doubt, just burn it or, if you really want to open it, take out your trusty old iron and ironing board and give it a good ironing before opening it. The heat will kill any anthrax spores.

I gotta tell you folks that this is one occasion that is testing my non-faith. I'm almost ready to believe that there IS an omnipotent force out there who's taking care of us. When we look at things in the light of the present-day, things look pretty bad but when we look back on it from some time in the future, I think we'll all feel pretty fortunate that the terrorists struck when they did.

Cases in point:

CASE 1: WW2 - If Hitler had waited another 2 or 3 years to start the 2nd world war, he'd probably have won it. Another 2 years and he'd have had 300 submarines instead of about 30 (that measly 30 nearly brought Britain to her knees - she'd have had to either surrender or starve). Hitler had jet planes on the drawing board and he even had them fighting in the air by the end of the war but they were too late to change the course of events. However if he'd waited 2 or 3 more years, he'd have knocked the Royal Air Force right out of the sky. By 1942 or 1943 Germany was producing better tanks than even the Russians. There'd have been no stopping the NAZI's. I say 'Thank God (or whoever) that he attacked Poland before his country was fully prepared otherwise we'd have lost WW2.

CASE 2: Gulf War: - What if Sadam Hussein hadn't attacked Kuwait when he did. As we found out once we'd beaten him, his country was fully immersed in 'mass-destruction technologies' (nuclear, biological and chemical) not to mention the delivery systems to get them to whatever targets he wanted to hit in the Middle East. If he'd waited 2 or 3 more years, he'd have had all of them functioning. Would we have gone in risked nuclear war for Kuwait? I doubt it. And then what would stop him from taking Saudi Arabia? Certainly not us.

CASE 3: -TERRORIST ATTACK(s). If the terrorists had waited another couple years, they'd probably have had access to nuclear weapons (we know they've got biological and chemical weapons). Pakistan was the best friend the Taliban had (until Uncle Sam put enormous pressure on Pakistan and forced them to withdraw their support) and Pakistan is a Moslem country and has nuclear weapons. Within a very short time, the Taliban would have had A-bombs too (either willingly from Pakistan's government or covertly from some fanatical Pakistani Moslem nuclear physicist).

I'd say that we should each of us, as we go to bed tonight, thank our lucky stars (or your god, if you believe in one) that they struck when they did. Now, let's just hope we've got the intestinal fortitude to carry this on to the end and once the Taliban is destroyed, we force Sadam Hussein to hand over the known terrorists in Iraq (same for Iran, Lybia, Syria and any other countries that we know are harbouring terrorists) and that Iraq allow the U.N. inspection teams back in to police his country's illegal production of weapons of mass destruction. Don't forget that as part of the cessation of hostilities in the Gulf War, Sadam agreed to the U.N. inspections. We have every right to attack Iraq again for breaches of the peace agreement (not to mention the terrorist situation).

If we give these outlaws another chance, we might not be so lucky next time. Hit them now and hit them hard. I hope G.W. Bush does take several years and thereby does a thorough job.

The only thing to fear is NOT fear itself. It that the 'fear itself' will lead us down a road that stops short of our goal. That goal is the complete irradication of all world terrorist groups - NO MATTER IN WHICH COUNTRY THEY MAY RESIDE.

PAY NOW OR PAY LATER.

"Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican who ran against Mr. Bush in the primaries last year, said he intended to make a series of radio and television appearances in the next few days to try to convince people that for now the anthrax threat had been grossly exaggerated.

" 'We have had one death from this stuff, and three other confirmed cases,' he said. 'Two of those three are a milder form of the disease. More people have been struck by lightning in the last 10 days, I'll bet, than have contracted anthrax. The country badly needs to settle down.' "

Since this article was published, another case of cutaneous anthrax has been diagnosed in an employee at CBS in New York City.

BETTY - perhaps the individual you watched on TV was Bill Patrick, certainly one of the most (if not THE most) experienced people when it comes to anthrax. I saw a program with him on 60 Minutes II and it was very calming to listen to his non-emotional clarification of what should be taking place as professionals deal with the public's concern.

I'm a little confused about why TV interviews continue to feature individuals who complain that the leaders throughout Islam have NOT spoken about the Sept. 11th events. I posted the names and some comments from distinguished Islamic leaders a few days ago in just that context. Here are a few more, who have been very specific in their condemnation of the Sept. 11th events:

"These terrorist acts contradict the teaching of all religions and human moral values." (Organization of the Islamic Conference, official statement of the 56 nation organization at its emergency meeting in Doha, Qatar, Oct. 10, 2001.)

"Hijacking planes, terroriszing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts." (Shaikh Abdulaziz Al-Ashaikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulema; statement issued in Saudi Arabia, Sept. 15, 2001).

""The attacks will be punished on the day of judgement." (Sheik Mohamed Sayyed al-Tantawi, leader of Egypt's great Mosque, Al-Azher; quoted in The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 9, 2001).

"The terrorist acts are considered by Islamic law to constitute the crime of 'hirabah' (waging war against society)." (Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar; Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d'etat, Egypt; Dr. Muhammad S. al-Awa, Professor of Comparative Law and Shari'a, Egypt; Dr. Haytham al-Khayat, Islamic Scholar, Syria; Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic Scholar, Syria; Sheikh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North American High Council, signatories to a fatwah issued Sept. 27, 2001).

"Neither the Shari'a (laws of Islam)nor its ethical system justify such a crime." (Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College, London, quoted in Arab News, Sept. 28, 2001).

"It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people." (Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai of Pakistan, quoted in The New York Times, Sept. 28, 2001).

"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in." (Abdullah II, King of Jordan and descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, quoted in The Middle East Times, Sept. 28, 2001).

The condemnations from the Moslem clerics have, in my opinion anyways, been very tempered as compared to the tumult they raised against Salman Rushdie for his "Satanic Verses". They also raised a great foofaraw over a movie some westerner made a number of years ago because an actor portrayed either Mohammad or Allah (I don't remember which) in the film.

Their condemnations (mild rebukes would be more like it), and those of Yassar Arafat and Pakistan's President, General Musharrat, seem (to me) to be aimed more at western public opinion than at adherents to the faith. A sin of the magnitude of the WTC should have them shouting condemnations from the minarets of the mosques along with their daily prayers.

ACUDOR - your point is well made. However, keep in mind that the English-speaking world does NOT generally have access to ALL of the public comments made by the Islamic leadership; nor attend the collective Friday prayers at which sermons often include comments on current events; nor the councils and assemblies often held to discuss these issues.

For example, my guess is that the discussions that took place at the recent meeting of the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference in Doha, Qatar were much more emotional than the one line statement I posted from that session in an earlier post. Whereas the Western press (especially the Americans) often features never-ending coverage on certain topics and in the process is not immune to printing rumors from "a senior official" or "an unnamed source" to impress the reader that the contents are up-to-the-minute and correct, the Islamic leadership just does not work that way. IMO, certainly a wide range of information is desirable so that the reader fully understands an issue, but especially when dealing with the serious issues of today, the repetitive (and often sensationalized) nature of the Western press tends to dilute the issues at hand. Thus, the serious nature of the topic (i.e., anthrax threats in the USA)is overly saturated to the extreme.

Your comment about the Mullahs being heard when they are truly outraged is right on Acudor. I remember the great fuss in the media when the that top-gun Mullah returned to Iran. We also heard plenty as you said regarding S.Rushdie's book. I too believe they should be shouting from evry Mosque calling an atrocity at the wtc what it was, an act of war by the el quiada (spelling) not by Islam. I dont hear shouts, I hear faint rebukes.fp

Acudor, are you sure anthrax spores can be destroyed with a hot iron? Some expert on TV was asked if the microwave could destroy the spores, and he said no. I hope you are right, but why haven't all those experts suggested such a simple solution?

If it is a hot STEAM iron, it absolutely will kill the spores. It will!

And the experts have been saying so. At least, around here (the Baltimore/Washington Metropolitan areas) they are saying so, over and over and over.

Also CLOROX will kill the spores.

ACUDOR & FAITH - I cannot speak for other Muslim communities, but in my home community (metropolitan Washington DC), the Imams at the area mosques are certainly speaking out loud and clear, not biting their words back at all. They are enracged about the attacks; have warned over and over again that THIS IS NOT ISLAM and have encouraged interfaith meetings with Christians and Jews in the area to make sure that as many people as possible understand that. In reciprocity, the other congregations have invited numerous Muslim communities to share their fellowship services, meals and community events to learn as much as possible about Islam and what the mainstream American Muslims think.

MARY PAGE - there certainly have been a lot of comments about the use of steam in disposing of anthrax spores and the fact that "household cleaners (like clorox) will be effective. Several of my neighbors have scoured their downtown offices from top to bottom this week. One of my colleagues at NIH did the same thing in her Bethesda office and encouraged others in her Institute to do the same, especially those who work in and around their mailrooms.

That's IT, then. I'm gonna soak all my letters in a bucket of Clorox before opening them.

betty

BETTY - sure would cut down on having to deal with all the marketing solicitations. Just drown them in clorox!

I only accept mail that I know...

The rest gets trashed..

First, welcome to our newest “member” - Shasta Sills.

As we have done since the inception of this discussion we’ve segued topics each Friday. That may not always be the case, as this discussion is organic so that at times we may switch gears completely. Not so this week, however.

One of the tenets in last weeks article was that “modernity” (however that was defined) was one of the factors contributing to “Muslim Rage”. In an article originally appearing in the Wall Street Journal, Francis Fukuyama has maintained that we have “reached the end of history.” That “modernity” as characterized by “institutions such as liberal democracy and capitalism” represents the apex of our civilization. Framed in this way, one can understand how “modernity” could be a causal factor of this rage.

Another view (as outlined by “Waiting for the barbarians” in The Guardian Unlimited by Morris Berman is that far from having reached the end of history – history is about to repeat itself.

Well, these are two extremes. What is your view?

Charlie

If we have reached the "apex" of our civilization, then it will eventually metamorphose into something different. We have seen these shifts and changes since the beginning of history. So long as the world exists and people exist, we continue to make a "history". I am definitely in the school of thought that says history repeats itself. Sometimes - sometimes - people even pay attention to history in making decisions and choosing direction...and then great things can happen. ...Babi

I wonder if with the news of Dan Goldin's resignation as the head of NASA, the American Space Program will be "history." Given the enormous budgetary over-run and the likelihood of a forthcoming report's indication that there was plenty of mismanagement during the current administrtion of the agency, will the American premier presence in outer space be part of "ancient history." Will the wonderful accomplishments of the space program be overshadowed or completely forgotten by budgetary concerns?

Do Americans really pay attention to lessons that can be learned from "past history?" As the medical community has announced (several times during the past week), there has been ONE death from anthrax, while more than 20,000 deaths in any given year are due to flu. Do we pay attention to the latter or only focus on the current confusion? Do we listen when scientists and doctors tell us that anthrax is NOT contagious, but smallpox certainly is and thus a much more serious threat to our nation?

As newspaper headlines and TV news inform us that American special forces troops are on the ground in Afghanistan, will Americans remember the commitment of these men "to do their duty for their country's interests" and support their commitment or only focus on the number of possible casualities? Is the trauma of our Vietnam history so deeply imbedded that we cannot say "go forth and do your job?" I think not! I'm confident that Americans can learn from "past history," while at the same time making "new history" in a positive, united manner.

Well said, Mahlia. I hope we will keep our eyes on the goal and not get side-tracked into dithering and hedging. As to the flu vs. anthrax, we are already accustomed to the threat of flu...info. absorbed, classified and filed. The anthrax is a new threat, and I think we simply have to go through the "absorb, classify, file" routine there, also. .. Babi

The Smallpox thing scares me to death. And I have been reading about it for literally years now, and our government has known that Iraq and Russia have stockpiled it for warfare. Some years back, thoroughly frightened by all my reading, I told my doctor I wanted to be revaccinated. She looked at me very sadly and told me she did too, but could not get the vaccine!

I become more and more cynically convinced that the politicians are only concerned with fulfilling the dreams of the blissfully ignorant public. They sure don't read the experts, even their own intelligence operatives and/or those employed by their own, government-run public health agencies!

Charlie has done it again. These two articles are most interesting when read in the light of each other. If I have to choose a side--in terms of outcome--I know which one I'm on, but both writers make excellent points.

What do the rest of you think?

I have only read the first one, Berman's, and it is one of the most excellent pieces of writing I have seen on this subject. Thanks, Charlie. How do you find these gems?

I am in agreement about the danger of the increasing gap between the rich and poor, and the dropping literacy, plus the missing critical understanding which results from the latter. Oh, and the political corruption! I am fascinated, have been fascinated, by the fact that religion is indeed most often hostile to the achievements of higher culture. I deeply appreciated what Rostovzteff (sp?) had to say about primitive forms of life drowning out the higher ones, and finally, and most importantly, the necessity for a Hierarchy of Quality.

This has made me realize more clearly that RICH has nothing to do with THOUGHTFUL. As in Thinking Clearly about World Problems. The educated are most often middle class and underpaid. Teachers are a prime example of this. (MARYAL is cheering here!) There are men and women in labs all over this country using their Ph.D.s to attempt to solve the problems of present and potential epidemics, and they are living on pittances! Seriously! Our value system is skewed.

We may well be a repeat of the Rome scene. The ever-growing armies of the have-nots will trample right over my peers while racing to topple the over-consuming wealthy. Deja vu Dark Ages!

I’m hearing from BaBi and MaryPage that “history repeats itself” and “the politicians are only concerned with fulfilling the dreams of the blissfully ignorant public” . That the parallels with history (i.e. Ancient Rome) and with what Berman calls “the structural factors endemic to American society that [are]…bringing about its disintegration.” It sounds like both Babi and MaryPage would lean toward Morris Berman’s thesis, as opposed to Fukuyama’s. But I’m admittedly reading a bit into what they are saying (please set me straight if I misinterpret). What do others think?

Charlie

MARY PAGE - a stark reminder of what you describe can be seen in the vast differences between the salaries of faculty and scientists and American athletes. I listened (briefly) last night to one sportscaster explaining that the Jagir _______ (the new Ice Hockey fellow in our area) had his contract "renewed" even though he's only been here a couple of months. It is now above 77 million. That's obscene, when you think of the serious work for humanity that is being done in the research labs and, as you say, the pittances that are being paid. Or on the corporate level, the bonuses that senior CEO's and corporate presidents receive annually. Yet we STILL have homeless, destitute people in the streets; abused children who slip through the cracks of our social services bureaus; and those least able to care for themselves - the mentally challenged - continually being abused and neglected and/or left to fend for themselves.

I think we'all proud to be Americans when we think of the positve things that our country and culture have accomplished, but there is the downside which leaves me, for one, still wondering: why can't we ever learn?

Well, now I've read Fukuyama, and, much as I am partial to anyone at Johns Hopkins (having a granddaughter & her husband plus a cousin & her husband all employed there), I feel Berman wins this debate. I am, on the whole, an optimist about the future, but Fukuyama has just not written as convincingly here.

This is not "the end of history." He is just flat out wrong about there being nothing else towards which we can expect to evolve! Oh, very wrong!

"People", as he speaks of them, when they become pumped up by fanatical leaders to follow the mob, do not tend to be readers of history. They know nothing, zilch, nada about failed systems. They do possess instincts to be part of a more comfortable world, which includes better chances of the good life for their descendants, but they have no skills to use the tools of judgment, logic and reason to assess how to obtain this goal. Oh no, Fukuyama loses here.

Finally, he is too defensive. Never begin a debate on the defensive.

On the issue of what modernity means for our civilization, Václav Havel seems to have said it well in 1997:

" I believe that, for the rest of the world contemporary America is an almost symbolic concentration of all the good and the bad of our civilization - ranging from the fantastic development of science and technology generating more welfare and the profundity of civil liberty and strength of democratic institutions, to the blind cult of perpetual economic growth and never-ending consumption, no matter how detrimental to the environment, the dictates of materialism, consumerism and advertising, the voiding of human uniqueness and its replacement by the uniformity of the round-the-clock noise of TV banality.
Who thinks today about future generations? Who is concerned about what people will eat, drink, breathe in one hundred years, where they will get energy when there are twice as many people living on this planet as today? Only an idealist, a dreamer, a genuinely spiritual person who, they say, is not modern enough.
These dreamers, who are often at the margin of society, will find their way to the place they belong, among the politicians, only if the very spirit of politics changes towards deeper responsibility for the world. "

Obviously the rest of the world, especially the “have-nots”, will focus on the “bad” of our (Western) civilization. Those who are looking to place blame for their circumstances, will find an all to visible target in America. Havel’s message seems to be a wake-up call to beware ‘the barbarians at the gate.’

MaryPage- I do agree that Berman does make a compelling argument. His parallels are startling. I’m waffling here – waiting to be convinced by you all. I surprise myself by trying much harder to embrace Fukuyama’s more “optimistic” assessment.

Charlie

I have read Fukuyama's argument re: modernity. I believe he is right,quote :modernity is a very powerful freight train that will not be derailed by recent evens, however painful.unquote

His use of the term history does not reflect the definition of- the recounting of happenings over time-it more refers to a phase of evolution of civilization.

He certainly is right to observe that there is something that makes Muslim societies resistant to modernity. I find his view to be open ended not a final statement of position on world events, just a statement on what he meant by "history". When he states that time and resources are on the side of modernity and he sees no lack of will to prevail in the west, I agree with him.

Waiting for the Barbarians is a facinating, well written article drawing chilling parallels between Romes fall and Modern America.I dont see that these two article's constitute a debate between two view points so it isnt a question of which view point I take at all. I learned something from both articles.

At the end of Berman's article he states one of my deepest beliefs. We in America from the top political level on down to the ordinary citizen must come to understand that America's foreign policy must change. And I see it doing that in tiny increments. I am here speaking mostly of Israeli/Palistinian policy and problems, but other third world countries too. fp

Oh, I have loved that HAVEL for such long years!

"Those dreamers, who are often at the margin of society, will find their way to the place they belong, among the politicians, only if the very spirit of politics changes towards deeper responsibility for the world."

That is so right on! With just those utopic instincts, I spent years of my life deeply into politics. I mean, I was in there at the County level, running the show for a better world for my children to inhabit. Seriously.

Then we were having our County Caucus to elect our party leadership for the coming year and to choose delegates to the State Convention, when along came a bus crammed with people we had never seen before. They had never participated in party politics. A well known local church's name was painted along the sides of the bus. These people filed into our hall, stood in line to have their names checked out as voters in the back, filled up the huge number of empty seats (it was like pulling teeth to get people interested in attending these party meetings!), and lined up against the walls. They had their own list of nominees from their own numbers. When the vote was taken, they carried the day. This happened in Fairfax County, Virginia in 1977, and can be found in the archives of the local papers and of THE WASHINGTON POST.

They still run that party machinery there. They tossed me out as failing their litmus tests. I am not going to get any further into this now, as it is not what we are discussing; but HAVEL's words brought back all the pain of that idealism I had and the time when it was over run by a religious horde. Seriously, it happened right there in my beloved native state. I have been told the same thing happened, not only in many other counties of that state, but in many other states.

America is not immune to a mind set similar to Wahhabism.

But a look into the past tells us that the past was never much different than the present is, nor likely, than the future will be.

Look at this 'oldie':

"Sicut erat in principio, et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum."

(As it was in the begining, is now, and ever shall be.)

would seem to indicate that things will never change and we're probably destined to muddle on through forever (with little or no real social progress).

But, then again,

"Hannibal ad portas"

(Hannibal is at the gates ([of Rome])

was an expression of fear used in ancient Rome, even centuries after they'd finally defeated Hannibal.

Romans were finding reason to fear even when nothing fearsome was in the offing. If they couldn't find a reason, they manufactured a reason (reminds me of the anthrax scare).

I'm inclined to think that, as we discussed in our last topic (Darwinism), just as species evolve to suit their conditions, we too (our societies) will evolve to suit whatever social conditions may apply. Those who cannot (or will not) adapt, will fall by the wayside but I'm convinced that a better world awaits. It's just going to take some time and some hardships to get there (and maybe an eon or two).

Both articles were interesting and put forth good reasons for their belief. When we read of all the hordes that challenged people centuries ago ...we can see in spite of everything the world moved on. It is my deep belief that there is a survival instinct that exists and people will take it and use it and survive.

It is also my deep belief that any organization or any person who will deny the human spirit freedom will eventually be destroyed. In my memory of ancient history I was always rewarded with the suppressed eventually winning. The slaves, the serfs, etc. I dont think you can go back and I think the present regime in Afghanistan will someday be replaced by moderates and once education becomes available then it will move forward.

Dont get me wrong I believe there will always be someone who will use whatever means to gather those whom nothing ever suits to try again. And someday they may reduce a large portion of some population to have to start over. And the sad thing is at some time we may all be in that boat.

Bin Laden is not a poor man ..he was born to the ruling class in Saudia Arabia if I have remembered what I read and has at his disposal millions of dollars. That he has used his influence to subjugate the people of Afghanistan for his own glory ..is the saddest comment you can make about any human.

As far as our foreign policy I am sure we can improve on it . But I will say this we have made an attempt to help other countries, we have welcomed millions to our shores, given them a freedom they would have never known, and for most of my life the people I have met have behaved honorably. They have given of thier time, their efforts, their money and since my husband was in the military thier lives.

I have come a long way since my grandparents ( came as children) to these shores and worked long, hard hours to get ahead. My Irish grandmother raised 13 children on the income her husband earned as a railroad laborer. AND she used some of that money to invest in small houses and until she owned and rented 13 and moved her family into a large Victorian mansion. NOW I ASK YOU WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD COULD A WOMAN WITH LIMITED EDUCATION HAVE DONE THAT?

I think she imbued me with optimism ...I may not live to see the end to this conflict but it will come and the world will move on.

Charlie you asked for opinions ..this is mine..anna

Haven't chosen a side yet as I have only read the first article so far. Toward the end I was remembering what a young psychology intern said to me as I was discussing Mahfouz with him. He told me Persia was a huge civilization as was Rome. It was like Russia and the United States. So, the Ottoman and Roman Empires are both gone. The first article is scary to me. I think it may depend on who is running our country and who the advisors are and what sort of decisions are made.

This article seems to be well thought out and it seems one can read between the lines and see where it is we should be going, e.g., watch foreign policy, spending on the military.

I really think we need to be working toward a one world mentality rather than this country vs. that country. Utilize the UN, talk, work things out. Plan together if we can.

The extremists move here and cannot make enough money to participate in this culture fully so there is anger and jealousy, plus the religion inhibits what they are allowed to do and this culture is full of drinking, sex, free thinking. A rigid religion vs American values has to be frustrating as h*** to a young man. Thus this frustration can easily evolve into hatred and calling us "Infidels".

I have had a strong feeling that we will pull through this and go on as we were and will have changed some things in our lives and governmental policies as well.

And yet some days I am not so sure.

Linda - who will read the other article tomorrow. This one has blown me away for this day.

Babi- Fukuyama's argument seems to be that…this is it! Our entire social evolution has been toward what he terms the "dominant organizing principles" of Democracy and free markets. This is the promised land of free peoples all over the world. It is hard to lay out a substantially different alternative at this point in history. You seem to leave more room for "choice" than does Fukuyama as I read him. This urge toward modernity seems almost deterministic as he speaks of it.

Acudor takes the Darwinian view - adapt or fade away. I think a good parallel could be made that radical Islam has failed to adapt to Fukuyama's urge toward modernity - and that this is one of those 'doomed to failure rear-guard actions'. At least this is the comforting view. Annafair has added her voice with her belief that our "survival instinct" in conjunction with the natural imperative of the human spirit toward freedom will prevail (as Fukuyama believes it must). Thanks Anna. Always good to hear from an optimist as well as from someone who is trying like h**l to be one (Hi, Linda!).

MaryPage- The dropping literacy rate that you mentioned is crucial isn't it? How else to explain the seeming ease with which the masses can be manipulated by inflamed rhetoric, by the crudely drawn devil caricatures that are put forth to explain the ills of their societies? Power vacuums and fulfilling a need, paying attention….we must find a good article or essay on the loss of idealism to discuss sometime. I suspect that many of us wonder, each in our own way, at that idealism that seemed so invincible in our youth.

Charlie

Has anyone in this discussion compared the prosperity of the past few years in the United States with the prosperity here in the 1920's which was followed by the Great Depression? Was that the end of history? No. Nor was the attack at Pearl Harbor by those who allied themselves with people we considered "barbarians" the end of history. If history repeats itself, then it is my prediction that we will prevail throughout the current threat which is on us, including biological attacks and whatever we must face.

As far as literacy is concerned, there was much less literacy in my parents' generation than there is now. There was family instability and infidelity in that generation and my own, less obvious or publicized, but it was there. Because of technological advances in communications, we are aware of many numbers; the number of people who never read books, the number of couples who do not stay together, the amount of crime there is, on and on ad infinitum. What is not stressed by the media is the number of young people who are able to finish high school and get jobs or go on to colleges and universities after they graduate. What is also not stressed is the positive aspects of "modernity", such as advances in medicine which keep us alive much longer than our ancestors lived.

The "backlash" which is mentioned is happening right here in the U.S.A., fostered by extremist religious fundamentalists who refuse to accept discoveries proven by various scientific disciplines.

As I read posts in various discussions here in SeniorNet, I am struck by the similarity in the rigidity of extreme Christian fundamentalists to the extremism of the Taliban.

In the mid 80's I taught piano to children in a strict religious school run by a church in the Southeast. Every subject taught in that school was based on the rigid beliefs and tenets of that religion. I thought about that last night when I watched young children in Pakistan who are being taught nothing except the Qur'an. "Modernity" was as much threat to the people in the church where I worked as it is to some people in countries in the Middle East today.

Change is hard if it threatens tradition, no matter where people live, and extremists resist change hard and fight, calling their enemies infidels or that dirty word "liberals". If we examine our own country closely, it is easier to understand the mind of extremists somewhere else.

I am not discouraged because I think what is happening today is part of an evolutionary transition to something which might possibly turn out to be better than what we've known before, an acceptance which, though it might be reluctant, will lead us to know we live in the world, not just a single nation or state.

Mal

"The contemporary American situation could be compared to that of Rome in the Late Empire period, and the factors involved in the process of decline in each case are pretty much the same: a steadily widening gap between rich and poor; declining marginal returns with regard to investment in organisational solutions to socioeconomic problems (in the US, dwindling funds for social security and medicare); rapidly dropping levels of literacy, critical understanding, and general intellectual awareness; and what might be called "spiritual death": apathy, cynicism, political corruption, loss of public spirit, and the repackaging of cultural content (eg "democracy") as slogans and formulas.

Nonsense - I don't like this Berman nor what he says - a naysayer and a doomsdayer (if there be such a word!) I'm not in a position to estimate a widening gap between the rich and poor - but as far as I can see and from what I read, it is no worse now than it has always been. We have a flourishing middle class still in America, I see them daily in my city and on the news. Our universities are still full of bright and educated young people (literacy is not a problem in this country or critical understanding - hogwash!). And APATHY! What is he talking about? Have we been apathetic toward the tragedies of Sept 11th? Hardly! As for political corruption just read history - it has been with us, and with any world government, since man began convening as a society.

And comparing America to Rome is as old as I am. It's been talked to death and I see no comparison whatsoever. Rome was a nation that conquered other nations and more nations - that was its business - acquisitiveness was its business. I don't see America's foreign policy being one of conquering other nations. Again, the author is stating nonsense. As I remember my world history Rome died because it became too large to govern, it was too spread out, the politicians, rulers, governors were out of control of the central government of Rome and during those times communication and transportation were rudimentary to say the least.

And this - "One photograph of the shell of the World Trade Centre eerily resembles pictures of the Roman Coliseum." - this Berman fellow is ridiculous. Who would believe such stupid stuff as that? He probably is one of those who believes that he saw the face of Satan in the cloud of smoke also! We will always have these people around us trying to make us believe that evil reigns. Nonsense, I say.

That's as far as I got in the first article, but it was enough, doubt if I read the rest of it. On to the other one tomorrow.

Malryn, Fukuyama's "end of history" theory posits that evolutionary social forces all point towards the triumph of "modernity" (as he envisions it). Under his view the Great Depression was just a dialectic phase in preceding the last challenge to liberal democracy - communism. The end of history doesn't mean the end of life as we know it, but the end of all challenges to "life as we know it." Well, there are certainly all kinds of other problems with this theory though…Yet from your post it would seem that you'd agree with most of what Fukuyama says and are hopeful. Thanks. I hope to be as hopeful as you. How's that for passive?

Ella on the other hand refuses to even finish her "assignment"!!! Sheesh!! Ella, it's the "gaps" that bother me. Wherever they occur. Gaps between the rich and poor, between the number of literate people vs. the number of illiterate peoples, the number of hungry and homeless vs. the number of sheltered and well-fed. And I'm talking about a global gap. Even if I accept that there is no gap at home. The world as we've all heard and understand by this point has shrunk. All gaps are more apparent. Even if they were there before. Even if they are no better or worse. The obviousness of them creates situations of privilege and otherness.

I agree with Ella's statement that "comparing America to Rome is as old as I am" - I say this without reference to Ella's age in any way you understand!! I'd agree that we are probably more ready to lend a tuned ear to Berman's article and because of that it may have a ring of familiarity - of truth - to it. Ella rejects it of course (oh, yes she does). But it's "credible" because we're familiar with it, I think.

I will say thought that the image of the "ruins" - you all probably know the one I mean and it's the one that Berman refers to - the "shell" of the WTC - is haunting. An image as seared into my mind as the planes/missiles themselves gong into the buildings. The image may not be substantive - each of us will decide that for themselves - but it is apparent. There was even some sentiment for preserving that twisted steel sculpture as part of a memorial, but I don't know where that stands. There is some well though out literature out there on our fascination and passion for "ruins" and that would make another interesting subject for discussion.

Ella, I do love your style, while I (the Mad Hatter) sit up here on the fence you (the Queen of Clubs) has made her stand. Love it!

Charlie

There are several photographs of the World Trade Center which have particularly awed me, but unlike Berman who sees Roman ruins in some of them, I kept seeing a Cathedral wall. A very old Cathedral in ruins. There was a haunting beauty in the horror of the photographs for me.

The problem with historians and those who would try to simplify history or to find parallels is that they are likely to get caught up in their own theses.

I think Berman has some good points to make, but I don't find the U.S. to have much in common with the Roman Empire.

On the other hand, Fukujama, with whom I agree in basic conclusions, is determined to make his definition of "history" hold. By "history" he seems to me social and economic "progress" which has reached its apotheosis in Western democracy and capitalism. I take his point, but I don't like the terminology.

I also think that Fukujama is right. I don't believe that we are in for another Dark Ages though there have been futurist science fiction novels aplenty set after a nuclear war that has destroyed the world as we know it.

Maryal

I have not read the articles; read the 3 posts above. To say there are no gaps in our USA is to have your head in the sand or wear blinders. There are mega gaps---- I don't have statistics but consider the articles you've read on children- their underinsured status, the children undernourished & in poor health. Drive thru a large or small city and look at the slums. Look at the number of foodbanks, shelters, etc. Consider the gaps in the elder american population - food, housing, no presc drug coverage. It is all around us; just not a picture blatant as the children of Afghanistan; which is not to say there is a terrific need there.

There are heaps of privilege in this country. Consider the incomes of those making our laws! Consider who can go to Harvard.

~Marj

Oh, really excellent points, Maryal. I think the photographs reminded me only of ruins in general - although when I think of ruins I tend to think of Roman ruins in particular I suppose. But your impression of them as Cathedral ruins sharpens them even further in my mind. The Glass Cathedral at Chartres....was there such a thing? Regardless, I like the name.

And I love your analysis of both writers: Berman who has lulled us with historic details into thinking that they all apply directly to the present and Fukuyama with his terminology that has thrown a number of us off the scent. Those are very lucid points you have made.

[EDIT: Hello, Marj. We were posting simultaneously.]

Charlie

Yes, the WTC ruins remind me of Coventry Cathedral (bombed to ruins in WWII, and they kept them that way and built another Cathedral close by) and of Fountains Abbey (Henry VIII had this destroyed). Staring at either sight makes one contemplate the heroic side to mankind, which can build such lofty and beautiful buildings from piles of quarried stone, and the ferocious side, which can break them back into just stonepiles.

I think you are missing the point by looking for similarities or lack of same between the US and the Roman Empire. We do not have the same method of dispensing our version of civiliastion, true, but the effect is the same. By our economic domination of the world, we have spread Amicarianism far and wide. Capitalism, based in John Calvin's view of religion, has resulted in worship of the fruits of consumerism. How many of us have PCs? How many don't have them? How long will the have nots accept their status as right, inevitable, merited? All it takes to get what you don't have is to take it. Multiply that by the millions (150 million?) and another empire has fallen. Class war, maybe not, but economic? Probably.

That's the Cathedral I had in mind, MaryPage!

When Charlie said "Chartres," I thought to myself, nope, but it does begin with C and it's in England. Merci for the name.

"loss of public spirit, " My goodness, he has not been to South Carolina recently, has he? You can't drive too far and not see a mailbox with a flag, the fences (we live in the country) with flags, flags on the cars, flags on the lawn, flags on hats, flags everywhere, no public spirit? I think maybe he's been associating with the wrong people.

Maryal, great point, it does look like a cathedral, the ruins.

I can see no parallel whatsoever to the late Roman times, tho I know that's a theme that is always popular. This is a relatively young (200+ years) country which is a democracy with elected officials, what could be more different from the Roman Empire which was more than 1,000 years in the making and ruled by Emperors?

We need to get Henry in here, he knows what really caused the fall of the Roman Empire!

Nope, don't see it, now to read the other essay.

ginny

Marj says: " Drive thru a large or small city and look at the slums. Look at the number of foodbanks, shelters, etc. Consider the gaps in the elder american population - food, housing, no presc drug coverage. It is all around us; just not a picture blatant as the children of Afghanistan; which is not to say there is a terrific need there."

Think of America at the turn of the last century. The robber barons, the likes of Carnegie, Morgan, etc., had it all, the immigrants coming into the country with no jobs, no money, living 6-10 to an apartment, tenement houses much worse than any slum today, if you want to see the worst conditions ever in America. No middle class and, of course, no income tax either.

It wasn't until 1935 that we had social security and medicare came along when? - can't remember but it was in recent times! In our parents' lifetimes there was no such thing as either of those, children had to take care of parents and grandparents or let them starve, if they had not saved for the proverbial "rainy day."

Times in America are much better now than they were 100 years ago. As for the world, 100 years ago the British Empire ruled in much of the world, whole populations were crushed under its weight. Most of them have freedom today - it takes a long time for a nation that has never known self-government to be able to provide that for its citizens.

There will always be wars between some factions in the world, but I have hope for the future and now on to the next article when I get time.

Charlie, no secret as to my age - I'm 73 and it doesn't bother me at all - everyone should be so lucky to be my age and older, we all come to it in time, even you - now it's your turn to tell your age!

Tremendous posts here!! I was gone Oct 11, 12, 13, & 14 at the Int'ls Bash, came back to a busy two days at my job and was gone again for a Psychological Conf this past Thurs, Fri, and most of today, arriving home a few minutes ago to read all your numerous wonderful comments.

As soon as I let my brain relax and get into gear, I may share some of my thoughts.

Robby

Mrs. W seems to be saying that our position (America's, or more broadly Western Civilization's) is in the same position vis-à-vis the so-called Third World as Ancient Rome's was to the hordes.

Ginny, for myself, I'd draw a distinction between displays of patriotism and "public spirit" which I take to mean a belief that one may have meaningful impact on public policy, that we are united by a common purpose. However, to put a positive spin on it, it may be that such displays portend a reawakening of that "public spirit" that Berman finds lacking. Hopefully, one legacy of these events can be just that renewed sense of common purpose - one that will last long after revenge and 'justice' have been sated.

Hahaaa! Ella has challenged me! And so on to other topics….Welcome to Ginny, and good to see Robbie about.

Charlie

Mainly because she says what I want to say and says it so much better. Mr. Berman, in my opinion, picks and chooses the historical events that bolster his argument. Barbarians at the gate?---Native Americans (or American Indians, whichever is your preference) might see all of US as barbarians. Even after the colonization of America it might be considered that the Loyalist English, the French, the Spanish, Germans, Japanese, and Cubans have all been barbarians at our gate. Why, just now, after the WTC attack, does he feel that the barbarians have only arrived?

I feel that he is an extremist and an alarmist and his article is drastically flawed---or his reasoning is--or both!

As for Mr. Fukuyama, this author seems more intent on defending his theory of the end of history. Much too defensive to be accorded much credence, I believe.

But the fun of it all is how differently each one of us views the opinions of these authors. Makes for a very good discussion.

'Fess up Charlie! You are among friends and peers.

Fukuyama states, in the second article in your header, Charlie, that is is "hard to imagine an alternative civilisation in which people would genuinely want to live - particularly after socialism, monarchy, fascism, and other varieties of authoritarian rule had been discredited" and believes that ever larger nations of the world are leaning toward modernity (defined as capitalism and liberal democracy).

I like this author and believe entirely what he says - it is the "end of history of government" - certainly not the end of history in other aspects. Is there another form any one can imagine that hasn't been tried?

However, Huntington makes a good point in his statement that there are clashes of civilizations that will emerge from time to time and I agree with that also. As stated earlier, I believe there will always be war; men cannot seem to live in peace as one faction is always striving for dominance over another. I hesitate to liken man to the animal kingdom but one species is always struggling for domimance over another there as well. Is it the beast that beats in the heart of mankind?

Huntington also questions whether "institutions of modernity will work only the in the west" - at the present moment it is a question that is on all our minds, but as Fukuyama points out there are at least 7 million Muslims who have given us proof that our modernity is welcomed by those from the east.

I don't really agree with either author. I am also not quite sure if I understand what Berman means by the end of history. Is it the end of history when everything becomes a democracy?

I doubt that will ever happen. And if everything should become a democracy, there would still be history. I agree with whoever said he seems to be spending the majority of his writing time defending his thoery.

I think we will always have the potential of having barbarians at the gate. We certainly have a few thousands within the gate, too. Some are probably dressed in suits and are running some of this show right now.

It's like Life. We go along and go along and things are ok/so-so and then WHAM - something looms up and we fight it off or deal with it - it may take a few years, but then it goes away or hides for a few more years.

The image of the tilted walls and everything brown and gray...when I first saw it I exclaimed, "It looks like a war zone."

Linda - a link for today ---> Why Not a Real War on Terrorism?

it's such a good thread. i have so enjoyed reading your thoughts.

just to mention, and not that it matters for purposes of this discussion, chartres is not in england. it's one of the most magnificent cathedrals in france, about an hour southwest of paris.

Now, Charlie, let's explore this a little more if you are willing, you say that "I'd draw a distinction between displays of patriotism and 'public spirit' which I take to mean a belief that one may have meaningful impact on public policy, that we are united by a common purpose."

How symbolically would your concept of "public spirit" be displayed? I ask Charlie in the sprit of the Books here as we are all friends! To me you have two different concepts there in your definition of public spirit?

To me, the belief that one may have meaningful impact on public policy is represented in voting and free elections, town meetings and freedom of speech. The united thing is different again, but but "spirit" is something else, to me, and perhaps me only.

The definition of "spirit" is ....whoa, have you all looked "spirit" up? The only definitions which seem to fit with the word public are (or are they?)

Vivacity, vigor, or courage.

Strong loyalty or dedication.

A predominant mood or attitude (a spirit of rebellion).

The actual though unstated sense of significance of something: the spirit of the law.

Which one is the essayist talking about and which one is Charlie talking about and what are some symbols of public spirit? You hear it bandied about all the time, "public spirited citizen," well, what do we mean by that? One who thinks he can change government? Then what is a symbol of that?

??

Hey, there, Fairwinds, so glad to see you, I've been to Coventry but keep missing Chartres. I like the analogy to Coventry which I agree with but for sheer poetry you can't miss the haunting Battle Abbey, it's beyond power to describe, especially at sunset.

ginny

hi ginny! i've just written down the battle abbey as a "must see"--you usually have good ideas.

So many great thoughts in the above posts - The two thoughts in these articles I find so incredulous are:

How in the world does democracy and a free market align itself with Christianity - unless we have had 'Manifest Destiny' as both our credos.

And if "civilization is impossible without a hierarchy of quality," (which sounds too much like the pomposity of British Public School) and "In contemporary America, the new "intellectual" efforts were designed to cater to the masses, until intellectual life was brought down to the lowest common denominator," than how did we become the world's great superpower which history agrees only took place after WW2.

As I recall, prior to WW2 only the very very few, 5% of the population, were privileged enough to study beyond the 12th grade with many more lucky if they had an 8th grade education. The Black population received little to no education and migrants have only been educated by law within the past 30 years. My thinking is "America catering to the masses" could be improved but, by educating to the masses we sure have elevated ourselves as a nation rather than ringing in our demise.

To me both articles miss-understand the American experience.

We are always beginning anew. Upon landing on these shores we shook off the baggage of the past, and chose to imagine ourselves as perpetually standing at the edge toward a Westward future which lay before us.

Characteristic is our innocence. How many times during the last century have headlines screamed about our 'loss of innocence.' And yet, it was our very innocence that allowed us to feel shock, confusion and the need to understand not only what happened but why September 11 could happen.

We morn, but with a sense of activity. We clean-up, recognize heroism, support those at ground zero as well as aid those affected, question, turn to our loved ones, show symbols of our pride and determination for "good," rather than identify with the many who have said, we now know what they experience.

We are a self-reliant and self-motivated people. We slowly, day by day pick up the shovel and attack the mound of debris both physical and emotionally. We are Emerson's "the simple genuine self against the whole world." We seek to preserve the vision of the America's destiny, allow others to join us and in our exuberance share our vision. Rather than impose this American destiny on others I expect the free market thinking is so basic to us that where ever we see a need or an untapped resource we go for it. We do not understand the status quo. I see September 11 as another American rebirth.

The difference is America has no hero who has completed his quest returning to restore the 'perfect' human community. We have no Odysseus or Aeneas to give final form to the American myth. We do not defend a "perfect" human community as the Moslem fundamentalists are projecting their "perfect" human community. This experience has not affected us as an initiation into a desire for the "perfect." We want no fences to the messy nature of democracy.

Using literary heroes as an example, Robin Hood is in the Forest as an outsider - outside the pale of the corrupt but social center, the "institution" of a community power structure. Where as Cooper's Deerslayer is in a forest that remains free of the moral complication of a fallen society. The forest, like "liberal democracy and capitalism," is a place where things are tested out, a place of moral choice, a place of endless possibilities as expansive as the Western wilderness, where dreams of starting over is the American mythic destiny.

We do not see liberal democracy, capitalism, free market as necessarily modern, nor as a static "institution" but rather, like Huck Finn and Ishmael, we are on an adventure toward our destiny, accepting the realities of pain, loss and sacrifice as we go forth. The American destiny seems to me to be about the journey not the return much less the demise. The liberal democratic 'system' is not a 'system' that leads to "perfection" much less a demise. How else would we hear in our head the simple words attracting the masses of Willie Nelson’s

"On the road again Just can't wait to get on the road again The life I love is makin' music with my friends And I can't wait to get on the road again: On the road again
Goin' places that I've never been Seein' things that I may never see again, And I can't wait to get on the road again."

The movie made just after the end of WWII that won an Academy Award for something, Best Picture or Best Actress...I'm searching for the name of it. Took place in and around London. The young son of the main characters was going off to war and married his sweetheart a few days before he left. The young woman's mother was a fiesty, strict aristocrat who questioned the young man's suitability (name and money) for marriage to her daughter. Much of the movie centered around everyone trying to prepare themselves for the possibility of the young man's death, but it was his new wife's death from a bullet shot from a German plane that shocked them all. The last scene of the movie, with members of both families, took place in an old, once-beautiful church with no roof and with bomb damaged walls. These cathedral-like walls from this movie are the ones I think about when the WTC "ruins" are shown. Ahhh..."Mrs....??? Miniver???something like that?

----------------------------------------------------

Ella, my hero!! I feel as strongly (negatively) as you do about the Berman article. I think you "got there" before I did, though. There was something about BOTH articles that drove me nuts, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I finally had to step back and leave them alone for a while until I could put words to what I felt.

First, I think this kind of writing can be dangerous. Both writers use enough familiar concepts and "facts" that it reminds me of the old fashioned sales maneuver....get prospective customers to say "yes" over and over to easy questions. You love your family, don't you, Mr. Morris?

When reading an article, it becomes more difficult to disagree with an author you have just agreed with 6 times. (Just because this is an old technique doesn't mean it is no longer used in one on one sales. A few months ago, I switched renters property insurance companies (MY idea) and, in the process, inadvertently snagged a go-getter life insurance salesman. During the first of his "follow-up" phone calls, his first ridiculous "yes" question made me laugh. When you call or write again, I told him, drop the scripted "yes" questions. Poor guy. I'm not an easy customer to have.

On the two articles at hand, I didn't think "dangerous" at first. I just wasn't buying what either author was selling. I thought both main theories were flawed, even though the defenses were attractive and FAMILIAR. Fukuyama said history is winding up (modernity check list almost finished on liberal democracy and capitalism). Berman asserted that the popular comparison to consequences suffered by Rome is again relevant.

Even using Fukuyama's special definition of history AND modernity, I don't buy it. He must have blinders on or maybe suffers from myopia. That's it???, is what I want to say to him, that's the whole of credit you give to or wish for humanity, to be recorded as "history"? How well we govern ourselves and trade with our neighbors? That's it?? I know everyone thinks that feminists go around saying things like, "That must have been written by a man." I rarely think or say that, but I did this time. (Sorry, guys, but I do exclude you from that generalization.)

Doesn't a substantial part of history already record how short-sighted each era of prediction is?

On Berman's chicken-little warnings, I have to agree with all the posters who find comparisons to Rome trite. (Webster's definition of trite: hackneyed, boring from much use, not fresh or original, threadbare.) This makes me wonder if Berman did his homework. A good writer would have included an awareness that others do not see the connection to Rome. Acknowledgment of "the other side" always strengthens a paper.

In science, validity is measured in many ways. One way is called "face validity." Does it LOOK valid. Both these articles look valid and that's why I think this kind of writing is dangerous. On subjects that could change people's attitudes, this kind of writing is dangerous.

betty

Unlike Barbara, I like the concept of government needing a "hierarchy of quality." I expect our differences lie only in our personal perceptions of that phrase.

I am thinking of mediocre and parochial men who want to seek power and glory, plus the guarantee of a security net provided by taxpayers, entering those marbled halls of public trust and from there putting all of their energies into camaraderie on the Hill and reelection campaigning. Their staffs are directed to write all their speeches to sound as red, white and blue as possible, while saying nothing. Ditto all letters to constituents; they do their damnedest to avoid the actual question, while keeping a voter within the fold. I knew and deplored many such in years of working in the politics of our nation's capital while living in its suburbs. Rare is the truly dedicated public servant, though I have known one or two of those, as well.

My notion of a hierarchy of quality has nothing to do with birth, education, money, class, race or tribe. The highest quality of mind, in my opinion, reaches out to explore all possible solutions to the quandries facing a given community or nation. It does not allow itself to be narrowly confined to those concepts any given theology accepts as the only truth. It makes no attempt to weigh taking the course that would be in the best interest of the community against the popularity of that solution and the chances of reelection.

Perhaps, at 72, I am still the naive idealist I was at 16.

I cannot see that the intellectual life of this nation, which I agree is deplorable, has anything to do with our being a superpower. Capitalism and vast resources have allowed the latter, even while our top selling "music" of the day, adored by the masses, is "rap" which chants gleefully on the glories of matricide, patricide, infanticide and other joys. Intellectual life in our case is an oxymoron.

They like our movies, too.

The violence in our movies, books, TV must say a lot to other countries about who we are. I don't think what's in the movies, etc., has much to do with who we are - yet, it could be who we are becoming.

Here is a nice editorial from Romania about us.

Editorial From a Romanian Newspaper

Linda

One idea offered in the Fukuyama article has interested me for years. From the article....

"The struggle we face is not the clash of several distinct and equal cultures struggling amongst one another like the great powers of 19th century Europe. The clash consists of a series of rear guard actions from societies whose traditional existence is indeed threatened by modernisation<sic>. The strength of the backlash reflects the severity of the threat."

The concept that interests me is backlash and if, indeed, the strength of it is directly related to the severity of the threat. Several books and tons of professional articles have suggested that the threat of women's role changes (or women's empowerment) fueled such backlashes as the growth of the political Christian right. If the relationship of strength to severity is correct, then the backlash would be one proof of the success of the changes for women.

I wonder if Fukuyama meant PERCEIVED threat. I understood his general words to mean that modernity is a (perceived?) threat and that the size of a terrorist attack reveals the severity (or success) of the threat (of modernity). Taken to an extreme extrapolation...we could say that Democracy is thriving in our world and that the attack on New York and Washington is proof. This would be a difficult theory to test, although it is interesting to think about. (A good writer would add to the article that this theory is impossible or difficult to test.)

betty

Reading through the posts in this discussion is like sitting in a really good, fast-paced seminar. What a pleasure!

MaryPage I hear you and it mayube we are reading something different into this article - I am remembering discussing in Robby's Democracy how way back in our history it was noted how we only educated well enough for the average to get on with life and at the very moment when real inquiry and understanding takes place our young are off to labor.

Yes, I agree there is excellance desired and expected by our leaders but these articles to me smackes of Western Superiority versus the "other." This theory is outlined so well by Edward Said in his book now making th e rounds again "Orientalism." Granted Said is labled an Intellectual Rogue by some, just as many writers are dismissed by labeling them wanting. Three things that Said has said so far that have rung true to my mind are:

He sums up the relationship Britain and France have had with the middle East during the nineteenth century and how that relationship was not only carried out as just but continues to be the European belief. The European supremacy is asociated with their knowledge not principally military or economic power. America has always been the step child, but child never the less, to European kowledge and therefore their authority.
1. The European theory of being a dominate culture is knowledge of the "other" so that contentment of the subject race leads to their adapting a union between the rulers and the ruled.
2. Europeans were determined as "rational, virtuous, nature, "normal" as opposed to the identity that THEY assigned the Oriental. "The Oriental or Arab is irrational, depraved, (fallen), childlike, "different...Accuracy is abhorrent to the Oriental mind...which easily degenerates into untruthfulness...gullible, given to fulsome flattery, intrigue, cunning and unkindness to animals; Orientals cannot walk on either a road or a pavement(their disordered minds fail to understand what the clever European grasps immediately..." "European is a close reasoner; his sentences of fact are devoid of any ambiguity; he is a natural logician, albeit he may not have studied logic; he is by nature sceptical and requires proof before he can accept the truth of any proposition; his trained intelligence works like a piece of mechanism." "Orientals are inveterate liars, lethargic and suspicious, and everthing oppose the clarity, directness and nobility of the Anglo-Saxon race."
3. "The orient is an integral part of European material civilization and culture and represents ...colonial bureaucracies and colonial styles. In Contrast, the American understanding of the Orient will seem less dense" (I am paraphrasing) because our roots are in Europe and we have had recent adventures in Japan, Korea and Indochina. Between 1815 and 1914 Europe colonization expanded from 35% of the earth's surface to 85% of it.
British superiority and the Oriental inferiority is taken for granted as a consequence of "surveying a civilization from its origins to its prime to its decline-- and of course, it means bing able to do that."
Particular are these remarks directed at Balfour's speach and Britains occupatin of Egypt but this statement can have broader understanding. "It does not occur to ... to let the -(Egyptian)- speak for himself since presumably any -(Egyptian)- who would speak out is more likely to be the agitator who wishes to raise difficulties than the good native who overlooks the difficulties of foreign domination."

I am reading in these Brit originated articles the colonial superior mind uplifting themselves at the expense of pointing to the ills in our educational system and determining the origin and decline of our experiment in democracy. I still believe we are on a journey 'toward' and there is a greater number educated now in this nation than ever in our history. That for any of us to become superior because we happen to enjoy more than the average education to me is falling into the dangerous trap that Betty alludes to in her post.

Yes, we want excellance and I believe that is why we continue the national discourse about education. Yes, I wish the average had the ability for more critical thinking. And I do not think testing promotes self-reflection which is an essential component of critical thinking. But, education today is one step up from the early Twentieth century when mearly memorizing great long poems was the rigor of the day. Our young attend school at a minimum till they are eighteen rather than stopping at age 16 unless going on to higher education.

I am also concerned that these articles preach the "doom" of our resolve and our exuberant expectations for an unlimited future.

Didn't the British renege on a homeland for the Jews? The Balfour Declaration, wasn't it called? That didn't sound very mature to me. Then after WW II they put Israel in our hands.

Linda

To give Fukuyama his due, he originally posited this "end of history theory" after the collapse of communism in 1989. The current article IS a defense, or rejoinder in a sense, to answer critics that have taken the events of 9/11 and used it as an argument against him. So I think that accounts for the mildly "defensive" tone of the article.

Betty, you kicked a little ….., eh? Tough, forthright and unequivocal. Bravo. But, I just don't see these articles as "dangerous."

MaryPage - My definition of a good public servant is now Joseph Kennedy. Frustrated by the plodding ineffectualness of Congress (oh, yeah…his "inability to get along" and "work within the system" and "compromise effectively"….yeah, yeah) led him to return to his first love, Citizen's Energy. Which has now branched out into Citizen's Health. This is a public servant who is getting it done.

Now, I don't want to move the thread backwards here, but I do owe a response to Ginny who was particularly non-plussed by Berman's contention of a "loss of public spirit." Perhaps we should look in context at what he said here, exactly:

"The contemporary American situation could be compared to that of Rome in the Late Empire period, and the factors involved in the process of decline in each case are pretty much the same: [he lists a number of these 'factors']…; and what might be called "spiritual death": apathy, cynicism, political corruption, loss of public spirit, and the repackaging of cultural content (e.g. "democracy") as slogans and formulas."

Ginny has observed that the very public display of flags shows that Berman is in error. I'd respectfully submit that on the face of it I find this all a hollow gesture - an example, in fact, of "repackaging of cultural context" for the most part. Even before Ted Landsmark was speared by an American flag while walking to work in his city [Boston], the display of this symbol has never been taken by me to mean anything particularly - especially from people I don't know. Who knows what goes on in their minds? I'm much more interested in concrete examples of public spirit: volunteerism, public service (having nothing to do with politics), involvement at the most basic local level of politics (or more specifically local government). Towns and schools.

Ginny asks "How symbolically would your concept of "public spirit" be displayed" and I answer I could care less. I have so little interest in the symbolic display of public spirit that I just can't tell you. To use the aroma of your definition(s), I'd day that "public spirit" is evidenced by the vigor with which one dedicates themselves to working for the common good in the ways I've mentioned (and you have mentioned) above. Someone whose "predominant mood or attitude" is that they CAN make a difference. Someone who believes that local action can have a" significance" far beyond the mere immediate effects. That their actions can be cumulative and meaningful.

Where there is a loss of public spirit, these beliefs are replaced by Berman's "apathy" and worse: "cynicism". The vacuum giving rise to Berman's "political corruption."

Ginny: This is just me, ok? I am suspicious of symbols. Symbols often as not point away from the truth just as they might point towards it. I prefer to find my truth another way, rather than follow that Yellow Brick Road.

Charlie

An article in this weeks Sunday Boston Globe Magazine: "Design or Chance" ("A pseudoscientific challenge to evolutionary theory - "Intelligent Design" - is raising questions about the origins of life and sparking debate in academia.")

Charlie

Boy, take a couple of days off and come back to the homework!

My answer to the question: Are we waiting for the Barbarians or will Modernity triumph (and be the end, or goal, of history?) NO!

Neither do I see these articles as dangerous, Charlie. I said that this kind of writing can be dangerous....writing that LOOKS like the various points add up to an important conclusion. Writing that includes ideas with almost sanctioned status that suggest protected legitimacy. Not unlike myths. "Look what happened to Rome," is an example. "Pro life" is another...who could be against that? Writing that sounds professional and "smart".....I guess I worry that too many people believe important sounding pronouncements without questioning them.

Ginny and Charlie, even though I'm usually skeptical about patriotic postering (when and where a U.S. president salutes, well-produced tear-jerking PUBLIC god-America-prayer stuff, flag legislation passion but it's ok for people to be hungry, etc.) HOWEVER, the proliferation of flags after 9-11, for some reason, felt ok to me. It happened at the exact same time as people lining up for blocks to give blood, firefighters driving cross country to New York to help and many, many people contributing to the Red Cross. So, I'm very ok with this recent obsession with flags. They seem to say "I know you" to a neighbor, "we're alike," "we're Americans, in this together."

betty

Charlie that was so beautifully written and expressed, I hate to throw my pedestrian self back into this but I'm going to agree with Betty on this one (also beautifully expressed).

We do not have to agree or disagree here, this is a very valuable forum, tho, for expression of thoughts. We were all affected by September 11th.

Charlie said, . Who knows what goes on in their minds? I'm much more interested in concrete examples of public spirit: volunteerism, public service (having nothing to do with politics), involvement at the most basic local level of politics (or more specifically local government). Towns and schools.

Ok it's my turn, who CARES what's in their minds? I love symbols, in fact I find I am veering in my old age towards trying to read symbols into everything, I must stop this arcane and dangerous habit?

When the little flags appeared, those of us who fly the flag all the time felt connected, to me it was a symbol of unity, of strength, of not letting our side down in any way, and that leads, to me, only, perhaps, to acts of more random support, it's a simple way to show outwardly what one feels inwardly and to connect. That's the way I see the flags.

I also loved your idea of volunteerism, Charlie, I'm not going in to my own life here, but it's clear that even volunteers differ in their ideas of displays of "public spirit," or whatever it displays, and isn't it grand that we live where we can differ openly just like this?

(Am remembering Cicero who even in the early days of the Empire lost his head and had his tongue speared and head and tongue displayed on the Rostrum in the Forum as an example of what might happen in future to a blabbermouth.....for daring to express an opposing opinion to the Emperor's)....And that was hundreds of years before "the decline and fall of the Roman Empire."

I think it's OK to fly a little flag or not. It certainly does not show apathy, whatever it shows, and you'd have to enter into the minds and hearts of every person displaying whatever (and in the grape business perhaps you get a tad TOO much sometimes of the differing "1,000,000 stories in the naked city") but it's clear that you can look on it any way you wish.

And it may do some good, perhaps, not sure on the strange stabbing incident??

ginny

I would far rather see flags flying than flags burning, as we saw in our country during the Viet Nam conflict and as we see now in foreign countries. (I always wonder how many flags are burned OFF camera? And where does the common "man in the street" get all these American flags. anyway?) I consider symbols a form of expression for those of us who are not as articulate or as forthcoming about stating those deeply held beliefs that we are often too shy to express. Right now it is acceptable to publicly display the love of country that most of us carry in our hearts but perhaps feel, in more normal times, that it would be viewed by others as too sentimental, if expressed aloud.

I agree with Persian, this forum is great reading but it does get a little tense sometimes. Perhaps this might lighten things up a bit. Charlie, as someone who seemingly is distrustful and perhaps suspicious of the use of symbols, how in the world did you ever master the computer, not to mention getting online? losalbern

I have just finished reading Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence" -- 500 Years of Western Cultural Life. As I approached the "decadence" end of this monumental study, I wondered how his conclusions might bear on the subject of this discussion. But at the end I found that he really had summarized them in the Prologue! He said that during the past 500 years, "the peoples of the West offered the world a set of ideas and institutions not found earlier or elsewhere." He described this as a "unity combined with enormous diversity." The West has borrowed much from other lands, has thrived on dissent and originality, and has become, in his words, "the mongrel civilization par excellence" Then he says, "But in spite of patchwork and conflict it has pursued characteristic purposes -- that is its unity -- and now these purposes, carried out to their utmost possibility, are bringing about its demise." Barzun cites the deadlocks we are all familiar with: for and against: nationalism, individualism, the high arts, strict morals and religious belief. In this time, the individual has a vast number of rights, including that "to do his own thing" without official hindrance. This universal independence, he says, is a distinctive feature of the West which he calls EMANCIPATION, perhaps the most characteristic cultural theme of the era. "And of course it requires more and more limitations in order to prevent my right from infringing on yours." In the final pages Barzun says predicting the next era is impossible. But he cleverly cites an anonymous document containing the views of an observer looking back from the year 2300 at what he calls the transitional state between the current era now ending and the next one. Technology reigns, regions -- not nations -- run the world, corporations take care of business, and the people are divided roughly into two groups. The smaller group are those who thrive on the products of technology and physical science, seemingly almost born to it. The masses (his word) have forgotten how to read, but they are saved from brutishness by the survival "of a good deal of literature and history from the 500 years of western culture, mingled with a sizeable infusion of the eastern." He continues by saying some among the untutored taught themselves to read, gradually combined and simplified stories and diluted great ideas and "provided the common people with a culture over and above the televised fare."

There's much more, of course. Barzun (in the guise of the anonymous 24th century chronicler), concludes that the West generally returned to valuing the things that it has valued this past 500 years but with new enthusiasm and excitement.

I find it difficult to absorb the enormous amount of information that Jacques Barzun has brought together in this amazing book. But I think he tends to come down on the same side as Fukuyama rather than the doomsday scenario of Berman. An era is ending, but it is not necessarily followed by chaos. George

Losalbern, I hope it's not getting TOO tense for you. I continue to be impressed by the restraint and yet clearly stated and strongly held opinions here. Of all the topics we've discussed here to date, I would never have thought that THIS one would bring the most passion.

Mountainman (George)- Thanks for bring that here. Would love to read that book someday. Should read that book someday.
Charlie

I fail to see why Berman is being perceived as predicting the end of the West. What he is doing is warning us to look beyond our own parochial view, and he was saying this in the context of our electing a Know Nothing for president. Many observers were concerned at the implications of some of W's pronouncements, and his ommissions. Extrapolating from what we knew of W, the future for international accord was becoming grim. Who knew? Rome marched arrogantly toward its doom; we do not need to do the same. If we don't learn from the mistakes or others, we will surely learn from our own. When Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, she lit a powder keg. Osama Ben Laden hoped to do the same, but perhaps he has misjudged the attitudes of the have-nots. He has certainly misjudged the reaction of the US. But let us not be complacent, arrogant, blind and deaf.

AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE HERE

maryPage: Hear! Hear!

MARY PAGE - thanks so much for posting that article! I read it yesterday, discussed it a bit with Robby last night when he inquired if I'd watched the Dateline interview by Hoda Kotbe with the Egyptian students, and returned to re-read the article a second time. I also read the one adjacent to it in the Outlook section of the Washington Post and Caryle Murphy's (former Post Bureau Chief in Cairo) interview with Egypt's Pres. Mubarak. Together, the three articles made for very interesting (and sobering) emphasis on what's going on in our world today.

I suppose Fukuyama to be a very wise man, but I find greater credibility in Aristotle, who was the first man to understand that, as long as anyone anywhere wants more power or money than he has, the historical process will continue. To suppose that we, largely of European descent, represent history's final page is practically as arrogant a thought as I can invent. Many have forgotten "The Weans" in its main premise, to me an entirely plausible one, that our civilization will one day be an archeological "dig" conducted from some place on earth we consider barbaric.

I recall very well the utterly certain conviction I had, when first Robert S. McNamara appeared on TV to explain how surely we would prevail in Vietnam that the truth was not in him. At that time, I did not hold this against him as one might against a deliberate liar. Rather, he seemed to have begun a long and elaborate lie to himself. That I would tonight have to crane my neck about to check the spelling of his name on the book he has since written to try to explain I would never, in my wildest dreams, have predicted back then.

The flag is important to many of us who want our tormentors to understand, unabiguously, that if they thought our disdain for the current administration would weigh less in our minds than a patent threat to the well-being, not only of our nation but of every person in it; if they thought we would in effect join them in seeking to destroy our government; if they thought we would beg for peace and seek to disrupt the prosecution of the current war effort; that they have been, on every count, utterly, totally, absolutely, and completely in error. The sooner they learn their error, the better I'll like it.

Amen!! Henry.

A powerful article, MaryPage, and what a writer, this Michael Skube. His phrasing is so fresh...and the article full of information. I don't thank you and others often enough for always bringing in such good articles. Thank you.

I don't know the answer (to Charlie's original question) about which article's theory or philosophy, from Fukuyama and Berman, makes sense. My afterthoughts are....that my criticism of both was not persuasive and that neither article was persuasive. Michael Skube's article (brought by MaryPage) is persuasive and Henry Misbach's post just above is persuasive.

betty

Betty: "Persuasive", yes, that is a good word. To whom is the author addressing his words? The Brit mindset, as was pointed out above, has a slew of judgements built in, judgements about the eastern mind and the American one. So, it doesn't persuade us, but does it reach its intended audience? Still, I believe that we need to listen to more dissent, listen for the germs of truth. Complasence is dangerous. Flags are lovely, and I get a thrill at seeing them, I have one in my office window, but I fear the power of millions of fanatics who do not hesitate at suicide as long as they can kill the infidels as well.

My reason to saying "NO" a while back is that I believe neither writer can predict the future and neither can we. I can remember comparisons with the Roman empire since I first learned to read. One of my favorite heros was a kid called Mark Tidd, who solved mysteries with some of his friends. His whole name was Marcus Aurelious Fortunatus Tidd, chosen because his father did nothing all day but read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. (These stories were written originally for Boys Life I think - at least in continued episode form before WWII.) His father was preoccupied with comparing one civilization to another and predicting the terrible outcome of his son's generation. I soon realized these predictions were not happening. One sort of a civilization follows another like waves. History will not end, even if WRITTEN history ends for awhile, until there are no more humans. At this point, I see the world's greatest problem is too many humans rather than our demise.

Could not agree more with your last line, Ben!

Another article from today's Post by Ken Ringle.

Thead of History

I did not like that one as well, ANN. Read it first thing this morning, and decided he had been given the assignment and had done diligent research from the obvious sources, but is no expert. I give him a well done, though.

Wow!! Great posts!! MaryPage great link!!!!

"that the world is a shipwreck and that it is our duty to save ourselves and one another; that love is better than hate, but that we must hate some things, especially fanaticism, for the sake of love."

I like this thought but I must admit having a problem with the concept of HATE. For me Hate is simply the Janus of Love and keeps us attached to the issues we want rooted out. For whatever reason I think Fanaticism are like the weeds in my garden. Every time I stand back all aglow for having sweated in the hot sun to root out all the weeds, in a few weeks, if I haven't been nipping them as they rear their ugly head, I have weeds again. I prefer the concept of detachment. In other words just not get in to a pickle over it all and realize we are always going to have to nip the weeds and it is just a part of life as brushing our teeth.

In such a world, the values bequeathed the West by the Enlightenment -- reason and tolerance, generosity and doubt, most of all the autonomy of the individual conscience -- are humanity's best, indeed its only, hope.

Hope indeed but again, even on the values we hold most dear and observe that they are working, I do have a problem with the word 'ONLY.' I keep thinking how inspired, calm and right thinking I feel after listening or reading the Dali Lama. Tolerance yes, maybe even reason but, certainly not from the "Age of Enlightenment." Rather from an ancient philosophy that does not promote 'take what I want' or concede 'power over' another.

But the article is great and bounces along, it so well written without being glib. The other article seems to drone on and I wonder if there is a truth there that is just not coming alive for me.

And then there is this from an 11 yr old that many of you from DC know.

For Our World

I found both of those articles about the Muslims interesting. This statement really struck me. "Muslims make up one-fifth of the world's population." I had no idea there were so many Muslims. How did I reach my advanced age without knowing anything about one-fifth of the world's population? I am shocked at the extent of my ignorance.

I have posted this link elsewhere, but it's worth looking at. Here you'll find the number of adherents and the percentages in various world religions.
Religions of the World

RE: Either You Are a Believer or an Infidel
Skube does present us with "a menacing choice". I reject the alternatives as posed. Nevertheless, a powerful and persuasive argument. If I am an "infidel" then, what conclusion must I come to? A secular war against Islam? This is one of the things that the administration is trying to avoid - framing the rhetoric in this fashion. Rightly so, I think. Skube appears to disagree. Accepting that it is US against THEM, it's easy to state the problem as this black and white. Not so easy to suggest how to deal with these "givens." An assessment far bleaker even than Waiting for the Barbarians.

Re: The Crusaders' Giant Footprints
At least I found out there was a Jason Robards, Sr. But them I should have known that. Ringle at least has a clue as to how the current situation seems to the "Believers". It's the "globalizing Western culture" that is the threat to them - a very real threat which they are rightly concerned about. I say rightly, because, it does have the potential to wipe out the world as they know it - the end of history (There - I said it). Ringle heakens back to the article we discussed last week that fingered "secularism" and "modernism" as the offending culprits in Muslim eyes. And while Skube trivializes the Crusades, Ringle places it in context. He also gives a nod to Raphael Patai's book "The Arab Mind" which our own Mahlia has praised.
Charlie

I tried to paraphrase some of this about a month ago. Here is the entire letter:

Chief Arvol Looking Horse's Words of Wisdom to Us Today

The earth itself is a living thing.

Linda

MARY PAIGE - thanks for posting the link to ONE AMBASSADOR by Marc Ginsberg. This was an idea that was proposed when the Anwar Sadaat Peace Center was established at the University of Maryland College Park many years ago. Distinguished speakers from the Middle East, including Jehan Sadat and Lah Rabin, encouraged this kind of interaction. UMCP's Center on Conflict Resolution (whose first director was an Israeli)also encouraged this type of high-level interaction. Although it was focused on the newly created 'Stans of the NIS region when I last had any interaction with that group, the thinking of their visiting Fellows and host faculty went a long way to encourage those in Middle Eastern issues to undertake a similar path. There has got to be continued dialogue at the very highest levels with tough criteria, but respect for differences.

From a book of long ago, I seem to remember that even the Druids believed that we all worship the same god, we just give her/him a different name. Maybe that is the "end of history" as we know it? When we all give the same name to a higher power?

The "One Ambassador" article certainly tries to give a name to being civilized. Many schools, elementary and high school, are trying arbitration or peer review, as an answer to violence. This can be successful.

The page on the religions of the world was certainly full of much information which I did not know. I,too, did not realize that 20% of the world population consisted of the religion of Islam.

The history of Islam reviewed by Ringle was done on TV last week with a 3 part program. Some of the new info that surprised me was about their medical techniques, ie., the use of a hollow needle to remove a cataract, which they were performing over 1000 years ago and the beauty of their mosques with the very different architecture which gave birth to the cathedrals of Europe. Beautifully photographed! So sad that the crusaders and the Moors felt that they had to destroy so much. Man's inhumantity to man seems to go on and on, through the ages.

Amazing how so many of us who consider ourselves "educated" have known so little about the Islamic world. Where did our educational system go wrong?

Robby

As I stated before, one of the problems with “dialogue at the very highest levels” is that in many places those very high levels are out of touch with their own people. We have focused a lot of our attention on the inability of the “Western mind” (whatever that is) to comprehend the “Arab Mind” (likewise a problematic entity). A larger and perhaps more important problem is that the “Arab minds” we’re dialoguing with don’t respond to the needs of their own people. Nevertheless, the idea of this type of engagement, when broad based, is not only necessary, but critical.

I do have a problem with this statement (from “Open Talks to End Hostility Toward America “ by Marc Ginsberg though: “Americans were killing innocent children in Iraq by continuing sanctions against Saddam; Americans were condoning the killing of innocent Palestinians by American-supplied arms to Israel; Americans were supporting undemocratic regimes; Americans were pilfering the wealth of the Arab people; Americans were desecrating the holy cities of Islam; Americans were the enemy of Islam. So much of it was untrue, but so much of it was so believed.” Hello! Mr. Ambassador? Take another look. Rather than focus on what he perceives as setting the record straight, we should understand how close some of the “untruths” come to the truth as experienced over there.

Charlie

Robby asks where our educational system went wrong, that we know so little of the religion of Islam. You were with us when we discussed the book (exact name?) detailing all the mistakes in U.S. history textbooks, weren't you, Robby? Within that discussion, we talked at length about how slanted (in the name of patriotism, we supposed) our history texts have been.

For as long as high-school level history textbooks have been printed, many parts of U.S. history that could be perceived as negative were often left out, as if they didn't take place. In U.S. history texts, the inhabitants of the land that Columbus "discovered" were rarely mentioned, except for the mythological Thanksgiving story. Our multi-ethnic and multi-cultural origins, if mentioned at all, quickly melded into "Caucasian," African slaves were given a paragraph or two and the ONGOING immigration of Asian, Mexican, Russian, South American, Canadian, Persian and Arabian peoples never mentioned at all.

This is a country that discriminated against Catholics throughout its short history and continued to see them as outsiders. So, I am not at all surprised that we know so little about the religion of Islam. If the "new" information being learned (about the middle east in the last few weeks) is causing an identity crisis for the U.S., I'd say it's about time.

------------------------------------------------

Robby, can you believe the IRONY of our year-long study of democracy, immigration troubles, racial discrimination and so many more applicable topics in your "Democracy" discussion???????? Too weird that SO MANY hot topics of the last few weeks were a part of that long discussion!!!!! Participants from Canada SO PATIENTLY tried to explain how out of touch most U.S. citizens are from how negatively the U.S. is perceived....by so many countries in the world. Not the hate from a few ultra-conservative Muslims, but the disgust with perceived U.S. arrogance. A major point was that other developed countries stay current with what is happening in the U.S. and other countries, but that U.S. citizens focus primarily on one country...the U.S.

So much to think about.

Edit...just read your post above, Charlie. Excellent point about being out of touch with most of the people. I also agree with your response to the Ambassador. This makes me think of shaking my head whenever I hear someone in our government say "jeolous of us," ....but, you know, that expression about jeolousy USUALLY comes from anyone who is not listening or who has an ego problem...as in, "she can't really be mad at me, she must be jeolous."

betty

But, Betty, at the time this country was discriminating against Catholics, the Catholic schools were, in the same way, discriminating against other religions. When I was educated, in a Catholic school, the Crusades were taught as a good thing!! Other faiths were thought wrong and having friends in other religions was colaborating with the enemy. In the second or third grade, I was already arguing with the nuns about my good friends of other religions or no religions. I think that the church has changed that attitude in the last few(30) years but it took almost 2000 years!! and a radical pope, who wanted to open the windows of every church.

And, yes Charlie, that is what I meant about having arbitration or peer review in the schools. We need to start teaching tolerance in the early years of childhood. We need to teach, "use your words" (my DIL's statement to her fighting children) and not violence!!

I was raised in the Universalist Church. The Universalist Church was banned from the Council of Protestant Churches when I was a kid because we did not believe in hell and the trinity among other things. The Universalist Church of America merged with the American Unitarian Association in 1961. Universalism and Unitarianism are liberal religions and minority ones.

John Greenleaf Whittier, Quaker abolitionist, was born in my hometown, Haverhill, Massachusetts. As a child I was much influenced by what I learned in my church and the poetry and writing of Whittier.

In Sunday School we studied many different kinds of religions, including Islam. We also studied Judaism. More than once I heard Rabbi Jacobson preach from the pulpit of my childhood church, as well as the African American minister of the church which was right behind the one I went to. I went to mass with Catholic friends and was influenced by Wendell Wilkie's idea of "One World".

I had deep pride in my country, though even when I was very young I could see much that needed change. It never seemed right to me that black people were mistreated, for example, and as a kid I never understood a reason for slavery or prejudice against Catholics, Jews, Muslims, you name it, because I had been taught in church that there is "brotherhood of man". The town where I grew up was a melting pot of nationalities and an education for me.

There were many biases and prejudices against my religion and what I believed when I was growing up, which I found hard to understand. Not everyone I spoke to when I was growing up agreed with what I believed, nor does everyone I speak to now understand my particular philosophy.

I see much that needs correction and change in the United States, but I am a patriotic American. Though I no longer to go to church or adhere to any religion, long ago I joined the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group whose aim is to teach tolerance, something I was taught in church as a child.

At this moment of threat to our country and weakness brought about by attack, I feel that examining history and our mistakes is very wise, if a little late. This is one world, and in my opinion we must learn to understand people who don't believe exactly what we do, and we must learn to get along in order to survive.

One final comment: I hate war. There has to be a better way.

Mitakuye Oyasin. This is a Lakota saying, and means "We are all related."

Mal

When Robby was doing the de Tocqueville, and a number of our posters, some of them Canadian, gave us, with affection, some perspectives that were as unattractive as taking castor oil, a couple of our U.S. citizens protested their postings as being ugly lies, and one went so far as to state she was refusing to hear another word of it and would (and she did) drop out of that forum. A few others gave us heavy doses of patriotism and religion, presumably to purge what we had read, favoring all that the U.S. does and has done!

Frankly, those attitudes frightened me, and continue to frighten me, even more than the facts do. I cannot believe that there is not a difference between loving a country, a parent, a spouse, a child, oneself, and acknowledging that perfection does not exist in any of these. If we are to seek perfection, those ideals defined as "good", surely we must research and know all of the facts in order to correct our course towards such goals?

It seems to me in this, as in the matter of Science, many people run only towards the comfort of the familiar, and exhibit such FEAR of the intrusion of additional or differing facts as to constitute, for the rest of us, the biggest threat of all to the growth of civilization.

I remember in the 4th grade being criticized by my teacher (a Catholic nun) and then punished for repeatedly asking why there wasn't anything in our textbook about Islam, Muslims and the Middle East. I didn't like being punished, of course, but I continued to inquire about the lack of what I thought was important. Finally, ending up in the Mother Superior's Office, I asked her the same questions. She couldn't answer and sent me home with a note for my parents. En route, I stopped at the church next to the school, found one of the priests in the sanctuary and told him "I need to talk to you. My teacher won't teach what I think is important." He and I sat down in one of the pews and talked. Then he walked me home and talked with my Grandmother (a French Catholic woman of great charm and grace). Later, at dinner, my family and I talked about my adventures in school and conversation with the priest. My father (a French/Persian Muslim) volunteered to talk to my class (and any others that were interested). He visited the school several times for these presentations and I was very proud that although I was occasionally "a little trouble maker," I also learned more about what I thought was interesting.

Last night I attended an evening program with friends in a non-denominational Christian church directly across the street from a large Islamic mosque, school and community center. AFter the program, I asked the Pastor if he and his congregants participated in any interfaith or outreach community program with the Muslim community and the nearby mosque. He responded "we would like to, but have no idea how to contact those people." I said "but the mosque is directly across the street from the church." The Pastor was smiling broadly, but said "Yes, but we have not been able to establish a "link" to that mosque and we don't know how to reach anyone there." I was so surprised at his response that I blurted out "how about the telephone?" He replied "good to see you, please come again," and passed on to other congregants. I can feel myself getting into "interfaith mischief" already!

Whoops Mahlia I just noticed we are posting at the same time and this does not address your post -

Seems to me we have our own version of fundamentalism - and just who, or is it whom, never the less, just what is the persuasion of those that choose and approve the text books in your local schools? We may see the benefit of a more complete and truthful education but how do we affect the many parents who are scared that their child may learn something they cannot handle or do not approve that their child should grapple with these issues. Not only is it the Middle East that is absent from our classrooms but how many have any exposure to the history of the Far East, other than China is a 'communistic' nation and Korea is starving.

What about our so called 'Free Press' - we did, up until January, get BBC news on the SAP channel when we tuned onto the PBS station - but no longer - I know this is not a political discussion but if we thought we were slim on international news within the past 8 years we are now slim on international and national news.

Have y'all noted this "war" was not 'approved' by Congress - the administration determined this to be an attack on the Free World and circumvented Congress by getting support from NATO by requesting 1500 troops (hmmm the number seems a token to me) and then getting the support of the UN. After one Republican Senator tried to put a bill together in his concern for the Constitution he only had 8 backers to his Bill - instead Congress simply indorsed the Presidents actions and approved a budget for the "war."

All this to say that if we are scratching our heads wondering why we knew so little about this part of the world lets encourage dialogue with friends and family that supports the knowledge and desire for information about what is really going on, so that we have a louder voice expecting our government and the press to open the 'Windows and Doors' to the machinations of our own political power as well as international political power.

Boy do I ever agree with Charles about who is speaking for whom among the Arab nations - every author I've read has a different slant. Looks to me like there is so much infighting for control within the Arab nations and then you really have to wonder can these folks handle self determination.

As I understand it when we read de Tocqueville, it takes a literate, an educated population for a democracy to work. From what I have observed on TV where there are schools some of them are for learning the Koran - period. And many of the older citizens look like they are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from. There must be a middle class but they do not seem to have the organization to either throw off the rulers nor stand up to the fundamental religious leaders. For us to try to help build a coalition I would think would require some citizen impute rather than simply a grab for power. It is that citizen impute that I am considering a form of democracy.

One of the books I am reading now (Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Woman by Geraldine Brooks, 1995) is saying where in the 1920s the Hijab Islamic dress was 'force' abandoned, it was picked up by the woman during the mid 80s to reclaim the positive messages in the Koran and Islamic history; as some sort of Muslim Feminism. She was a with a busload of women visiting the Khomeinies' home after his death observing the resolve that wearing the various versions of cover was a revolutionary act after socialism and capitalism had failed to arrest economic decline in the Middle East. Brooks goes on to explain the relationship Mohammed had with his first wife, who supported him financially - she had the wealth - and then the relationship he had with his future wives and how cover and many wives became part of the culture.

She also sees and writes about the hypocrisies as men are supposed to cover the area of the body from navel to knee but with hugging tight jeans worn by many young men and thigh-high shorts that Soccer demands they get around it by having the women leave the room when the men watch their 'football/soccer' on TV. The men are allowed to swim in public but their bathing suits do not cover their navel. Women swim in their chador or jalabiya or abaya, or magneh, roosaria or shayla - all different definitions and amount of cover.

All to say that there seems to be no consensus among the people themselves even as to what amount of cover is appropriate for a woman, much less the power mongers that include the religious, tribal leaders, political factions and the current heads of State. It all reminds me of the scene in the movie 'Lawrance of Arabia' as various factions tried to determine the future of the Middle East. I think this is boggling my mind because where we have as much diversity our system gives us some measure of allowing a consensus.

P.S. Mahlia - when we question why the Catholic Church does or does not behave as we would hope and expect we have to remember that a Diocesan Church is part of the political organization emanating from Rome. Without the approvel and sanction of his Bishop no priest or paster can act on Inter-faith activities. If we think that the machinations of our US Government's political power are held close to the chest Rome is a master at silently playing world-wide political chess. Now if the Church/School is 'Order' run then the only power is the Abbot. Although, in this nation most Orders are trying to be in harmony with Rome and will not rock the boat politically.

And so to learn why this Catholic Church and the local Mosque are seperated by more than the paved street between them look to the international politics of Rome. Their cause is to preserve the Roman version of the faith but lets face it, there is a lot of baggage there.

Church Politics is also the system that a priest or nun must work within when they are gently trying to care for childrens questions. Most often they do not have the skills nor the sanction to explain the politics of the church and therefore ignoring the issues is the safiest and easiest method, much like, until recent years, parents discussing sex with their children.

I cannot but look at the very accurate judgment that Americans have been arrogant in their world view, and think: another example of history repeating itself. And of course history repeats itself, because history is always about people.

Can you think of any nation or empire that as gained the "top dog" posiion that did not become arrogant and presumptuous? Can you think of any such nation or empire that was not detested by those who fell under their domination? American has tried harder than any nation in history to avoid colonialism or interference in the freedom of others. As a nation, I cannot but think we deserve more credit than w are getting. It sees that everyone wants our aid, but gets mad if we offer the same aid to their enemies. They want America's money, but are angry at the "influence" of that money. If we do nothing, we are heartless monsters letting innocents suffer. We are the "top dog", and we can't win. ...Babi

Two truths which I believe the American people as a whole are not paying sufficient attention to, but are really required information for us to contemplate, are:

(1) ISLAM itself is considered the way of life and the state. Those running the given nation, in most instances, are still subject to the mullahs.

(2) There is a pact amongst all of the Arab countries, just as we are part of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This Arab organization has required a promise from its members, just as NATO has done, that if any one nation is attacked, all of the others will come to its defense.

We are just not fully and properly (not we here, but we the U.S. peoples) understanding these things.

We are safe at present because Afghanistan is not an Arab nation.

In my view, any type of fundamentalism, whether religious or cultural, can be defined as owning a mind set that puts up blackout curtains; not to keep their light in, but to keep all other light out. It makes them feel safer, cozier, to have absolutes to cling to.

I agree with those here who have pointed out the "irony" of our having spent more than a year discussing what Democracy is and then suddenly being forced by circumstances to examine our own selves and our relationship to others. I believe it was Eloise, who felt so stimulated throughout that year by the interchange among the participants, that she felt as if she had participated in a college level course and had learned much about Democracy. Include me in there, Eloise, as so many of you brought up approaches which had never occurred to me. And, as has just been said, it was a small group of people, primarily our Canadian friends, who continually forced us to look at ourselves with a jaundiced eye.
BaBi asks:--"Can you think of any nation or empire that has gained the "top dog" posiion that did not become arrogant and presumptuous? Can you think of any such nation or empire that was not detested by those who fell under their domination?
That is what I hope we will at least partically accomplish in the coming discussion group, "Story of Civilization" -- comparing outselves to those regimes of the past and looking at ourselves from an objective view. And perhaps, in this manner, "seeing" the direction in which we are going.
Barbara and BaBi, I do not see your names as having "signed up" for this new discussion group. Are you interested in joining the 12 folks who have already indicated their interest?

Robby

YES! YES - I thought my nod was understood when the thought was offered in the Forum.

Sorry, Barbara. Here is the current list:--

Jeanlock - Mahlia - Robby - Eloise - MaryPage - Malryn - Tiger Tom - Mary W (Hank) & Ken - Linda (Hairy) - J.E. & Nancy Lynch - Anne Kerr - Barbara

OK MaryPage - you have my curiosity going - couldn't imagine until I thought it through - yes there is a confederacy of Arab states - but what is it called and who is represented.

I found the site for OPEC and didn't realize that Venazuela was one of the founding five nations and other non-Arab oil producing nations are included. Did not know their mandate but wondered if we chose not to import Arab oil does that set us up with an imbargo from other OPEC nations.

Anyhow found this site

http://www.undp.org/missions/uae/uaestatm.htm

Wondered if this is the coalition you are speaking about MaryPage - I know the religious leaders can and are a part of the Muslem governments but I've also been reading the news that says that many of the people are unhappy with their national leadership and the 'Freedom Fighters' were going to be about the business of toppling some of the current leadership.

So who is really talking for these nations - sounds like many all wanting to be in power. Can you sort any of this out MaryPage. Afgahn may not be a part of this confederacy of nations but, you just know that whatever happens there is affected by all Arab nations and visa versa. Just how much agreement is there between the Arab nations and how much agreement is there between the citizens of each nation and their leadership and how much agreement is there between the people, the leadership and the religious. Seems to me there is even a problem between the two groups of Muslems based on the way the leadership was chosen in the 6th or 7th century and this difference is affecting the love/hate between some of the Arab nations.

Yes, we Americans are often arrogant about a country which still has faults, but if I were in an undeveloped country, I would think twice about wanting to destroy a country which is open to change without revolution.

BARBARA - I believe the Organization of the Islamic Conference (a 56-nation group, including non-Arab Muslims from Asia, which met in Doha, Qatar in early October) may be the one to which Mary Page referred.

MARY PAGE - the #1 and #2 points in your last post were absolutely on target about the need for a REAL understanding of those issues by Americans. England and France have a much deeper understanding of the African, Arab and Central Asian countries from their previous Colonial rule, as does Portugal to a lesser extent.

The previous generation of American Arabists (scholars and Statesmen who specialized in the Arab world)did NOT leave an intellectually broad or deeply lasting imprint on their younger colleagues, many of whom refused to pursue regional "specialities" and instead chose a faster career/promotion track. Second-generation Arab or Muslim and Christian professionals have had to deal with a bit of suspicion about their "intent" from colleagues and others outside their immediate disciplines. And the American general public just was not interested, thus not well informed.

Earlier another poster (or two?) mentioned that she was shocked that there were so many Muslims in the world (AND in the USA), but she was unaware of them. However, if one is not interested and has no connection with such communities, it is natural that one would not be well informed.

We have a marvelous learning opportunity facing us right now, and although it stems from a horrendous terrorist attack again our Nation, I am heartened to see so many people deeply interested in learning about issues, people, cultures and a religion other than their own (NOT necessarily from the "religious" standpoint, but just to better understand the thinking of the Islamic world).

BABI - from my own personal experiences of working, teaching, studying and living abroad throughout the Middle East and Central Asia (as well as in a very densely populated and poverty stricken region of China), it IS very hard to be an American (even one of middle class by American standards) in the face of such under-development, desperate poverty, gender abuse, and often the lack of even BASIC understanding of how to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" to improve life. To those of us who are Believers, I can say that I'm thankful the good Lord was watching over me; to those who are not, I can offer the comment that I'm "street smart," aggressive and had a lot of Irish luck. But it's still very hard to experience "up close and personal" the enormous differences.

Consequently, at the other end of the scale, it is equally as hard for people from the underdeveloped world to adjust to a normal life in the USA. Sure, there are wonderful perks, conveniences unheard of in their birth countries, ease in movement, freedom of speech, travel and religion, etc. But there are also many, many issues in American culture that are overwhelming and sometimes absolutely impossible to accept into one's "new" life. I remember the numerous Russian Jews whom I worked with years ago, who were thrilled to immigrate to the USA. Yet, many of the older people returned to Russia. It was just "too different" in the USA for them. I've known Middle Eastern Muslims AND Christians who have done the same thing. Or people who have lived and worked in the USA for many years, retired and then returned to their birth countries. Being "top dog," either as a Colonial Power or as a country of Freedom is NOT always conducive to lifestyles of individuals and families from traditional societies with not as much freedom and range of personality as is common among Americans.

We're all on a learning curve here. Charlie et all, this is a wonderful, enlightening and highly intelligent discussion, which I've enjoyed immensely. Robby, I'm so glad you decided to shorten your sabbatical and take on the leadership role again of a promising new discussion. Thanks to one and all for making me a Happy SN Poster!

Arabs sided with Hitler prior to and during WWII. The hatred of the Jewish people has been inculcated throughout the Arab people for many, many years. Hitler had a dream to bomb NYC. How much of this Arab mind we are dealing with may be Nazi residue? The Hitler Youth Camps are perhaps the forerunner of the Arab schools where the young are so heavily indoctrinated against the US.

LINDA - too true! But the contentious relations between the Arabs and the Jews reaches far back into Biblical times and is fraught with misinterpetations, cunning and misrepresentation for personal or tribal gain, cultural and regional customs (not only religious)pitched against each other, political scheming on both sides, a focus on education for the Jews and less so for the Arabs (except during their "Golden Renaissance," especially in Southern Spain) and economic development.

For example, I always wondered why the Palestinian leadership (with help from other Arab countries if necessary) couldn't encourage their people to make the desert bloom, like the Israelis have done. To me it smacks of an ignorance of the importance of education for everyone; the recognition that women are half of the population and should be included in the society on an equal footing (OK, so I'm fantasizing here, but it's MY fantasy!)

Not fantasy, Mahlia, fact!

Here is an interesting column from this morning's POST.

THE ENEMY?

Thanks again, Mary Page, for posting a fine article. When I think of people in the USA who REALLY understand the Middle East and Central Asia, I think first of Bernard Lewis.

Lewis of course, was the author of the articles we discussed a few weeks ago: The Roots of Muslim Rage.

Has anyone heard the Fat Lady singing?

Lorrie

Sorry, Charlie, I thought one just read the posts and commented as inspired. Yes, I am interested in participating in the discussion, tho' I suspect from the quality of the postings that I would do better to be quiet and listen.

I was particularly interested in a comment in the article on Bernard Lewis, that when Americans say "That's history", they mean it's past and done with,(paraphrasing here, obviously), while in the Arab regions the last 14 centuries are part of today's crises. How does one get past so huge a difference in outlook, in trying to discuss how to handle today's crises. We want to say: "Let's look ahead and see what can be done now". Are the Arab nations saying, "We haven't settled what happened 20, 50 years ago yet!".

Mahlia made a reference to the Palestine refugess, wondering why some effort has not been made to make a livable home place where they are now. It has long been my thought that these people are political hostages. Those (such as the PLO and other Palestinian groups) using them for political leverage will not permit any solution to the refugee problem that does not suit their own agendas. Meanwhile, they loudly blame America for the refugee's plight.

On the topic of this discussion: "History: End or Repeat?" The only way anyone can argue that history has reached it's end is by re-defining the word 'history', which is exactly what has been done by the "end" historians. (IMHO) ..Babi

Babi- I went back, but don't see what you have to apologize for. You happen to have it exactly right: "one just read[s] the posts and comment[s] as inspired." I hope you will be "inspired" to continue on with us. I do send out an e-mail each week to those of you who have been "regulars" here. Perhaps that's what you're referring to? My last one of last Friday? At any rate, you have made two very cogent comments yourself: One about the different views (long term vs. short term) of history and one about re-defining the word 'history" - which I agree is exactly what Fukuyama did for his own purposes.
Charlie

One opinion (from a small book I recently read, a good book)

Dr. Carl Benn, chief curator of the City of Toronto Museum and Heritage Services states: (quoting from the book The Flag: the Poet and the Song by Irvin Molotsky) "I believe that Americans don't like to be the bad guys and don't like to lose. In the case of the War of 1812, they were the bad guys who tried to conquer Canada, and they lost. The popular view among Americans is that they saw themselves going to war over naval rights and that the war was mostly fought on the sea, with some land battles in Washington, Baltimore and New Orleans. We used to have a survey to ask visitors to Historic Fort York what was the most surprising thing that they learned here, and 80% of the Americans said, 'I never knew we invaded Canada.' This is hardly a surprise: they tend to know very little about Canada and there is a strong propaganda quality to American history in the U.S. I don't think there's another western democracy that abuses its history to affirm a nation's 'goodness' as much as the United States does. From our side of the border, it's all very amusing."

It was clear that the British burned Washington in retaliation for the American burning of Toronto. (York) The American occupation of the city lasted for six days, and it was an ugly affair; houses and businesses were looted by American soldiers; wine and liquor stolen, the printing press of THE YORK GAZETTE was destroyed, the library and church were robbed. Also the provincial parliament buildings, the clerks' offices, the tower blockhouse and General Sheaffe's house were burned and the Americans released the inmantes of the town jail, some of whom joined in the pillaging.

Howard Zinn has written a no-holds barred history called The People's History of the United States. It is quite an eye-opener. One thing his book has done is changed the story of Christopher Columbus in our current history books.

We know Hitler was a master of mass manipulation; I think we have been manipulated in our country, too, now that I look back on it. PR work to stir up a feeling of patriotism. However, it may be a means to help us be more united. I don't like to feel manipulated though.

Now, back to the topic of terrorism by barbarians: An article in the NYT by Jared Diamond, the author of Guns, Germs and Steel.

Keeping Panic at Bay

I hate it when I get those "Doomsday" feelings. So far have done pretty well.

Linda

We’ve talked of “secularism” in the Arab world and the role of Islam in public life. What about at home? What role does religion play in politics in the United States of the 21st Century? Is it a different role from that foreseen at the inception of these United States?

In this weeks featured article in Partisan Review, John Patrick Diggins writes in Religion and the Founders:

“Today it is widely assumed that the idea of the separation of church and state was simply a coincidence of a clause in the Constitution that was drafted in 1787. The impression is that the doctrine of separation was meant to keep religion out of politics; actually, it was the other way around.”

Important distinction...or just a play on words?

Charlie

Not fair! You mention that the Americans looted York but neglected to mention that 'our side' looted Washington.

You say the Americans lost the War of 1812 but I learned (in Canada) that neither side lost that war. A peace treaty was signed in Europe with neither side being declared the winner. Lucky for us because before the word of the treaty being signed made it back to North America, our side was soundly defeated in The Battle of New Orleans and if the signing hadn't already taken place, WE'd have lost The War of 1812.

You single out Americans and say that they don't know their history because many of them didn't know that they had invaded Canada in the War of 1812. Tell me honestly, since apparently you think Canadians DO know their history - - did you know that the Canadian army once invaded a foreign country (with which WE were not at war?)? Can you tell me which country we invaded? How many Canadians do you think know that WE invaded another country? Seems to me that all countries might have a propoganda element to their educations and not just the Americans.

This 'Hour Has 22 Minutes' is a comedy (?) TV show in Canada that is always lampooning Americans for their lack of knowledge about Canada and things Canadian. Yet when a Canadian TV network together with a Canadian newspaper put together a test (equivalent questions - i.e. who was first President of U.S. and who was first Prime Minister of Canada - - national birthdates, etc.) and gave the tests to each country's 'persons-in-the-street', the Canadians knew less about Canada than did the Americans about the U.S. (WE lost - and by a large percentage). Of course Americans don't know much about Canada. They're 10 times as powerful (population-wise) and about 13 times as wealthy (money-wise). Why should they know much about us? How much do you know about New Zealand? It's an english-speaking country with whom we share Commonwealth membership and parliamentary system. Comparatively WE ARE TO THEM AS THE U.S. IS TO US. Do you know who is the Prime Minister of New Zealand? Which party is in power in Wellington (you DID know that was the capital, EH)? Is their country divided into states like the U.S. and Australia or is it divided into provinces like Canada - or are they divided at all? Do you (and all other Canadians) know?

I agree with Canada's favourite soldier (General Lewis MacKenzie -ret'd) that if there's got to be one superpower in the world 'thank God it's the U.S.!

The Americans do make mistakes and they aren't perfect - far from it (but they've come as close as any country has so far - in my opinion at least).

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

I thought you might be interested in the following letter to the editor in this morning's POST, written in response to an article previously posted in here:

A RESPONSE

LINDA and ELLA have added excellent and correct points about American History as we have been taught it. This same subject was examined exhaustively in Democracy in America, and I personally felt so defeated by the prevailing attitude that flattened the few of us with the steamroller of patriotism driven by, seemingly, the most of us, it quite wiped out my hopes of a more enlightened society.

It did not, however, quench my belief that any peoples can know the full truth of their history and still evince a deep love of home and their native land. Truth, it seems to me, would arm our citizens with better perspectives as to which directions to take in order to attain a more perfect society in the future.

Thanks, ACUDOR! That was downright friendly of you!

It was Franklin Roosevelt who said The only fear we have is of fear itself. While that was in reference to THE GREAT DEPRESSION it could also apply what faces us today.

We are all going to die of something and I for one would prefer my obituary not to include Death by Anthrax. But out of curiosity I checked on the leading causes of death by accident. Each year 42,000 people die in auto accidents, 5,000 by drowning. It included falls, lightening strikes,accidental poisoning etc. I dont see us panicking over those numbers. Yes we try and reduce them but panic?

Anthrax seems worse because it is deliberate and not an accident. It is a new worry among others. In some ways it prepares us for the future. As a citizen I will be more vigilant and cautious. And it wont be limited to what terrorists do.It just reaffirms my belief that you live each day as if it is your last while you also prepare for tomorrow.

I spent a couple of hours late last night reading the 81 posts since I last visited here. Now I have to digest all of it.

Some comments...there is enough blame to go around for all of us ..as a person, part of a multitude and as a nation. We study what interests us. When I lived overseas for four years I tried to learn not only the language but to know the people. We did that by ignoring the wonderful autobahns and traveled the back roads. We ate in the best restaurants and in the simple places. In Italy we traveled by train first class and also third class. You know something the scenery was just as beautiful from both. In fact while we were in third class, sitting on hard wooden benches and trying to make conversation with our fellow travelers we really saw more of the countryside. In first class we were served by waiters and others who intruded on our view.

In the end there is only one door and none can stay outside. If we just remembered that we would all be more tolerant and caring.

anna ..back to all the information you sent Charlie...I feel like I am facing a final exam and need to STUDY.

Charlie asks these questions:

"We’ve talked of “secularism” in the Arab world and the role of Islam in public life. What about at home? What role does religion play in politics in the United States of the 21st Century? Is it a different role from that foreseen at the inception of these United States?"

In the inception of the United States, some of our founding fathers wanted a separation between church and state because they did not want politics to be part of religion. Today there are those who want religion to be part of politics.

If the voices of participants in various discussions of SeniorNet are any indication, religious belief, especially Christianity, is a deciding factor when some people enter the voting booth. I was struck after the horror of September 11 by the similarity in this country between extremist fundamentalist Christians and extremist fundamentalist followers of Islam. In my mind, one is as much of a threat as the other. Mine is not a popular view because most people cannot see the likenesses.

MAL, I, for one, am on the same page you are.

I think religion will always be a part of politics as long as religion is popular with so many citizens. As any good PR man can tell you, a politician needs an obvious church affiliation as much as he needs a good wife, and even better, two sweet kids and a dog. But even though folks tend to vote for the above (normal) politician, most of the country prefers he keep his reference to how gods effect his decisions rather quiet. If we thought we could really be run successfully by gods, we wouldn't bother to elect human officials.

Reinhold Niehbuhr said:

"Politics always aims at some kind of a harmony or balance of interest, and such a harmony cannot be regarded as directly related to the final harmony of love of the Kingdom of God. All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in their political cause by investing it with religious sanctity. This is why religion is more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political realm. The tendency to equate our political with our Christian convictions causes politics to generate idolatry."

Christianity and Crisis, July 21, 1952, in Love and Justice, p. 59.

Ben, in my opinon your post #440 displays beautiful reasoning.

Mal

CHARLIE, I've just finished our homework, and a excellent article it is.

Two things have been bothering me for years now, both of which are dealt with somewhat here. One is that those who are most vociferously demanding acknowledgment of ours as a "Christian" country based on "what our forefathers intended", seem to have the least knowledge of our real beginnings and history. The other is that so many are basing their beliefs as to how to conduct the affairs of our nation upon religious scripture rather than our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the history of mankind.

I agree with you both. Mostly because people who say THEY ARE GOOD CHRISTIANS certainly do not seem to be. I have lived with people who are so "pious" they squeak. Give me the religeous person who seeks to be a good person but does not expect you to be the same. Extreme fundamentalists always feel their way it the ONLY way.

I never take my religion into the voting booth. What I hope to vote for is a person of good conscious. One who truly hopes to serve the people fairly and honestly. Unfortunately I dont often achieve what I hope. As my one brother used to say ..your choice is between two scoundrels and you can only hope your scoundrel is better than the other.

anna

All too many folks get into religion because it lets them look down on other people (infidels.) All too many folks get into politics because it lets them control other people. It seems kind of dangerous to me when somebody thinks I am worth less than he is and he controls me. That situation is just the opposite of what this country's premise is all about.

It sure is, Ben, and it scares me.

Mal

Mal and Ben I find both of you posting thoughts I have and don't express all that well. I do agree with your positions .."It may well be, as George Santayana observed, that religion is better served by those who deny it, or by those who, like Lincoln, confess their own bewilderment before an enigma that refuses to reveal its reasons, than by those who believe it, or profess to believe it for political purposes. ."quote the last paragraph in the article for this weeks curious minds. I have often read Tom Paine Age of Reason and also Common Sense when my kids were in highschool. Thats the way I really recieved some "education". Reading what my kids were assigned to read. Now that was in the 50's and I am not sure the schools today even have history teachers who are familiar with the Federalists and Tom Payne and Ben Franklin. Or earlier with the Church Fathers trying to keep the politicians out of their affairs since they had escaped Europes systems where Politics made for unfair practices toward peoples choices of what religion they wanted. So when they escaped to New World they said You politicians run the country and keep out of church affairs. I and my children knew this in those days. FP

Ah, I recognize a lot of familiar names from the "bash religion" forums here. Hi, guys.

As regarding America's history, it is an old axiom that the history books are written by the victors. America is not the only country to see their history from a biased viewpoint. English history as written by an Englishman is pro-Britain. Irish history written by an Irishman is pro-Irish. Etc., etc. Perhaps the most objective histories are written by outsiders, but one has to be aware that they are unlikely to understand the inherent, or cultural, "mind-set" of the people whose history they are writing.

On the intent of our Founding Father's re. church and state, it was obviously their intent that the government NOT meddle with religion or attempt to make one religion "official". At the time of our founding, the vast majority of the people were Christian. While there were atheists around, and Deists, there was not the influx of other religions that came later. The congresses that drew up the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution began every session with prayer. The writings and diaries of many of the participants express strong faith and reliance on the grace and guidance of God. Yes, I know Jefferson was a Deist. You can find the reaction of John Adams (the leading mover and shaker of the assembly) to Jefferson's anti-Christian sentiments in McCullough's biography.

Faith was so much a part of the lives of the people of the time, that much was taken for granted, as something all understood. The Founding Fathers, in keeping with the history of religious persecution that their forebears had fled, wished to make it plain that this new government would not interfere with the free practice of one's faith or make any attempt to establish a "State" religion. It would never have occurred to them that any future generations would have attempted to banish God and faith from national life. ...Babi

SHEESH! What a lot of questions and, of course, I don't know what foreign country Canada invaded - do tell me! And you undoubtedly are right that no country is teaching their children history in such a manner that they will remember it - but I do think history becomes more interesting as one gets older, don't you? However, in the two paragraphs I quoted from that little book I read, this is the first sentence, second paragraph - "It was clear that the British burned Washington in retaliation for the American burning of Toronto. (York)

In attempting to steep my conscious mind in the history of our founding fathers in preparation for the discussion of John Adams, I ran across this little bit of history in another book while loitering in the Library. This incident happened at the first Continental Congress in Sept., 1774:

"Thomas Cushing suggested that a minister open the convention with a prayer. Quite a few of the delegates were Episcopalians and wanted the Reverend Jacob Duche to deliver the prayer, but members of other faiths preferred someone of their own denomination. Most of the New England delegates, including Samuel Adams, were Congregationalists, as the Puritans had become known, and there were also Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Unitarians in Congress. John Jay of New York spoke for the majority when he told Cushing that they were too divided over religion to worship together.

Samuel Adams then rose to speak. Sometimes called the Last of the Puritans because he was so strict in his beliefs that he seemed to be a throwback to Boston's founders, Adams was the last man his fellow delegates expected to speak on behalf of an Episcopalian minister. But Adams...........stated 'I hope I am not a bigot, and can hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue who is a friend to his country. I am a stranger in Philadelphia, but I have heard that Mr. Duche deserves that character. Therefore I move that Mr. Duche be asked to read prayers to the Congress.'

Suddently the other delegates were ashamed over their bickering, Duche led the first prayer in Congress......Adams' ploy helped unify the convention and may have even changed the course of U.S.history.

Does Congress still open with a prayer?

Exactly where are the "bash religions" forums?

Mal

I love it that Acudor is defending us, warts and all. Thank goodness, somebody likes us.

Does anyone rememer the article written by a Canadian who stood up for America during the hostage crisis in the '80's? He did make those of us who read or heard him feel good about our country and Canada! I have not been in here since Wednesday so am trying to catch. Only 14 more posts to go! Then the test, right Chas?

First, I thought I might pass on this article. The subject of religion inspires either glaze on my eyeballs or calls up intolerable memories. Then, I thought I would just scan the first few paragraphs, but, of course, I got caught and kept reading. I'm glad I did because right in the middle of the article something clicked for me. The author quoted Herberg, "......religion in America is a sociological phenomenon with each denomination affording people their identity in a mass society."

That can't be true for all people and I do honor many people's deeply held beliefs that seem authentic and private. However, the social/cultural group identity proposed by Herberg suggest possible answers to some long held questions. I've known people who would have felt invisible, non-existent, zero without the designation of "Christian."

p.s. You know, I never would have made it in politics. Finding the right wife, kids, dog...too difficult!!

betty

Ann - it must be Gordon Sinclair that you're thinking of, writer, journalist, reporter, radio and TV personality. May he rest in peace. A lovable, old curmudgeon, who used to give elderly missionary ladies a hard time, when he was one of a TV panel guessing and then interviewing visiting guests. I'm sure they all prayed for him, and welcomed him at the pearly gates.

Among the things he praised America for was the magnanimous generosity and relief efforts, to relieve the needs of desperate people in other lands...done with great missionary spirit, I would say, with a generosity with a primary religious basis...help your neighbor kind of religion.

America owes it to herself, and to the rest of the world, to seek justice for the misguided religious crime of 9/11. But the world knows that America is more than generous when the war comes to an end. As it shall. What then in Afghanistan? Bring back Gen MacArhtur. That country needs a few years of good, solid administration, without religious interference, but with, perhaps a good 'Made in America' constitution. Why not confer Statehood? I'm willing to bet the people would grab at it.

you'll find Sinclair's article with google...second link. It's really good. Most of us Canadians felt it needed saying.

Since a new topic is now open, I don't want to write a lot on the old topic. Suffice it to say that after the Bolsheviks took over Russia (1917) and their new government starting talking peace terms with Germany (1918)-(WW 1 was still being fought), the U.S., the U.K., Japan and Canada decided the new Russian government should be overthrown and 'White Russians' (who were already fighting against the new Russian government) installed in power because they would continue fighting the Germans as our ally.

here's a short cut & paste:

Military considerations, a deep loyalty to Britain, political pragmatism, and economic reasons appeared paramount to ideological concerns in the government's decision to intervene in Siberia. When the War Cabinet, attended by the dominion prime ministers (including Borden), approved intervention on 22 July 1918, Borden was already poised for action. Six days later he had conferred with his minister of militia and defence (Sydney Mewburn) and received cabinet approval "in principle" for participation. On 7 August he telegraphed Ottawa, ordering that troops be dispatched for Siberia as soon as possible. In October 1918, an infantry brigade, a cavalry squadron of the Royal North West Mounted Police, a field battery, and other supporting troops (totaling about 4000 men, including conscripts) embarked for Vladivostok under the command of Canadian officer Major-General J.H. Elmsley (freshly promoted for the campaign to give him more status in international councils).

(cut & paste ends)

Needless to say, it didn't work. The Russians defeated the 'White Russians'. The communist government survived and .... the rest is history.

Jonathan, how often in the past year I have thought of MacArthur and wished he were here now. We really need a man of his understanding and abilities. He has long been my hero for the 20th century.

In his article John Patrick Diggins says, "John Adams looked to a well-structured political system to compensate for the unreliable incantation of religion and virtue." John Adams was a Unitarian, as were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Horace Greeley, Thomas Paine, William Howard Taft, Daniel Webster and Adlai Stevenson. So were Louisa May Alcott, William Cullen Bryant, Robert Burns, Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Henry David Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Darwin, Luther Burbank, Samuel F.B.Morse and many, many others.

As I said before, I was raised in the Unitarian-Universalist church. Today I happened upon the covenant of this religion in another discussion and looked it up on the web. When you read it, perhaps you can see why some of our founding fathers and others in our history believed and acted as they did.

Unitarian-Universalists believe in:

"The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic
process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

Mal

Mal:--Thank you for that valuable info. Two questions:--

1 - Do Unitarian-Universalists consider themselves Christian?
2 - Considering the faith of those founders you named, would you say that America started as a Christian-oriented nation, as many Senior Netters say?

Robby

My own experience has been, few of the great curious minds I have met in person or read about, have had blind faith. It is most often their propensity to question everything. I assume that was true among the men who founded this nation as it is now. But there was probably a lot more pressure to act as if they believed then - for family and friends, as well as constituents.

BaBi - I have never deliberately participated in a SN discussion with the purpose of bashing religion. I prefer to avoid the topic altogether because it can be very frustrating to discuss things with someone whose basic assumptions are so different from mine. I love logic, reasoning, and good arguement with all my heart, but no arguement is worth a penny if the participants can't agree on a few facts to start with.

Do Unitarian-Universalists consider themselves Christian?

I know Mal will answer this as well but I thought I would quote this from an article by REV. ROBERT J. KLEIN, PACIFIC UNITARIAN CHURCH, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, in which he says:

"Unitarians were, however, followers of Christ. They did not believe that Jesus was divine, but they did believe that he held a special place and that his beliefs and teachings were worth leaving other religious traditions."

If you are interested the whole very interesting article click on http://www.pacificunitarian.org/sermons/122400.html

Just a personal and I think amusing note, my family were staunch mid-west Bible Belt Baptists and when one of my brothers learned about and joined the Unitarian Church my mother was convinced that he was on the road to hell. "They don't even believe in Jesus!" she would frequently say with great indignation.

The story of Alexander Campbell's life I read many years ago, told of the beginning of the Disciples of Christ church (now usually refered to as just Christian.) He had the concept that the Catholic church was made for men when they were most all under three and a half feet tall so had doors only that high. As men grew, along came the Luthrans with doors four and a half feet high, then several others usually raising the height of their doors to fit the new height of men. His desire was for a church with no walls, so anyone could feel welcome to come and worship. He chose to stick to the New Testament and used only the Apostles creed. (Of course, his idealism was restricted by the fact he still limited the church to Christians and believed in baptism by immersion.)

But his concept of men growing and continuing to outgrow existing church beliefs still seems pretty valid. But then some folks are born questioning and seeing right through widely held beliefs altogether. To my mind, Hans Christion Anderson was right on target with The Emporer's New Clothes. Seems he was early on laughing at society's way of acting like they believed in clothes which didn't exsist because everyone else did - and that acting went on from the head of state down to the man on the street, until a child started laughing.

Robby asks if Unitarian-Universalists consider themselves Christian. The answer is yes and no. "At a Unitarian-Universalist worship service or meeting you are likely to find members whose positions on faith may be derived from a variety of religious beliefs: Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, naturist, atheist, or agnostic. Members might tell you that they are religious humanists, liberal Christians, or world religionists." There is more about this at Unitarian-Universalists.

No, I never have believed that this country started as a Christian-oriented nation. In fact, the idea that it had been started as such never occurred to me - and probably would never occur to many others whether they were and are affiliated with the Unitarian-Universalist religion or not - until I came here to SeniorNet Online and read so many posts by people who were trying to convince me and others, it seemed, that it was.

I don't believe John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and others of our founding fathers thought they were creating a religious republic. Based on a good bit of study, I don't think that was what they ever intended.

In my youth I was taught that Jesus was a very good man who wanted people to get along together, that he preached tolerance and kindness. As a child, I was taught many of the same things about Mohammed and other religious figures in Sunday school.

A great difference between Unitarian-Universalism and other religions was that we did not deify Jesus. We did not deify any human being, and we did not believe in Hell or original sin. We believed and believe in the brotherhood of man and the unity of the world and the worth of every single person on earth, as well as the principle that each one of us human beings played and plays a big part in determining what we ourselves were and are and what our country was, is, and would become throughout history.

Mal

I believe our founding fathers were cognizant of the fact that many of our earliest settlements came about from a desire to escape from persecutions of different religions taking place in various European communities. However, these settlements were based upon many different beliefs, and now, in 1774-76, they were to be knit together into one nation under God. How could that possibly be done unless religion itself, though not the individual worshippers, were to be banned from politics and government?

I have never seen it as a move to keep religion from politics or politics out of religion, but a desire to form a union which would be inclusive of every possible religious belief and/or non-belief, in perfect harmony. I honestly and truly see their thinking thus, and this is, again, why I think those peoples of today who insist this is a "Christian" nation are harming (read undoing) the intentions of our founders, and not understanding them one little bit.

Finally, our very intelligent and well read forefathers understood perfectly what a theocracy is, and were making every effort to so form their wording that our country could never be transformed from a republic to a theocratic regime.

Quoting from McCullough's book JOHN ADAMS:

The first of the line, Henry Adams ....of Somesetshire, England....had arrived in Braintree (MA) in the year 1638.....They were part of the great Puritan migration, Dissenters from the Church of England..... who crossed the North Atlantic intent on making a new City of God.

Years later John Adams would write "What has preserved this race of Adamses in all their ramifications in such numbers, health, peace, comfort and mediocity.....is religion, without which they would have been rakes, fops, sots, gamblers, starved with hunger, or frozen with cold, scalped by Indians, etc.,, been melted away and disappeared."

I have always believed and I have not read anything to the contrary that John Adams was a Puritan. In the Index to the book, there is no reference to Unitarinism.

I have found several sites on the web with quotes by authors of books in which it is stated that John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams, were Unitarians. I am quite certain that the Unitarian-Universalist Church of America would not make that claim in their literature where I first found this information unless it was a fact.

John Adams

Thanks, Acudor, for that bit of history! That will suffice for my goal of something new learned everyday.

I thought the moral of the story about Samuel Adams in the First Continental Congress was TOLERANCE for all religions. Something we could do use more of in the WORLD today.

Malryn: Am in a dreadful hurry - will read that later!

That article is correct, Mal.

I agree with Malryn that our Founders did not intend to establish a "religious republic". They intended to establish a strong and free republic, and looked to God for strength, wisdom and guidance to do so.

I have always considered America a predominantly "Christian" nation, in that the majority of her citizens consider themselves Christians. It is the same criteria by which we identify other nations as Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu, even though not 100% of their citizens are of those faiths. It has been a point that irks me, that so often people of other faiths come here where they can practice their religion freely, yet complain and object when we, their hosts, continue to openly practice our own faith. ..babi

First, let me say that I surely hope that no one thinks there is an exam coming up - or that you all have assignments you must complete. Heaven forbid! The game plan here is to change topics once a week. While there has seemed to be some natural progression from one article to the next, it wasn't conceived that way. In fact, don't be surprised if we change up at any time. I fully expect that there will be some topics that may interest some more than others. Should it be otherwise? We've already seen that, I think. My hope is that there are even those out there who we have not struck a nerve with - yet.

You see, the great thing is - the thing that works - is that we have no Mullahs. We can look to our religious leaders for advice, inspiration, guidance, even "leadership" in the loose sense of the term. But they're a reference point, a touchstone (more for some than others) but not the final word. The final word is law and our democratic institutions.

Can we base our government on divine wisdom? On religious interpretation? On the mysteries of man's place in the universe? I think not. It's just not appropriate. We are concerned here with our place in society and our society's place among nations. Our authority comes from man, not from God in the governance of our affairs. Or, as Diggins writes:

"Looking to the "science of politics" to see humankind as it is, and not to religion to see it as it ought to be, the Constitution trusts more in the "machinery of government" than in the morality of humanity to control power. Religion, in short, could not be counted on as a source of obedience."

For the very reasons we see today in much of the world, dangerous state games can be played in the name of religion. At the time of our founding, there were contemporary examples of the same thing.

What's that old saying? "In God We Trust - All Others Pay Cash"?

Charlie

I think there's a problem with semantics here. I am a Christian, but I have never thought of this country as a "Christian Nation." I also don't think of England as a "Christian Nation," or France, or Italy, or Germany or any other country where the population is Christian--or nominally so in that a majority of citizens would check that block on a questionnaire.

I think we were very wise to separate church and state. This gives us our religious freedom and it allows the state to make laws unfettered somewhat by the religious communities. Many of our laws are a reflection of the 10 Commandments, for instance, but they are also common sense. common sense may be better than religion as we can see what too much religion can do today. It seems many countries that have the state and religion intertwined is prone to fanatics. Although I will say we have some of our own, too. I am glad we are separated in this way - especially after what we saw 9-11.

Excellent move on our Founders part.

Linda

Agreed, Linda. Excellent point, Maryal - and I think that shows that the intent of out founders "worked". Even though the population is primarily Christian (or overwhelmingly from the Judeo-Christian tradition), we don't think of our nation in those terms. We think of it in terms of the personal freedoms and liberty that our nation affords us. Even though our founders may have been primarily from the Christian tradition, they stepped through that particular minefield quite nicely.
Charlie

This separation of church and state in the U.S. is going to be a stumbling block to our understanding some middle eastern countries. (Turkey and Israel are democracies.) It is difficult for me to take in the idea that religion and state are one and the same, in some countries. Not just not separated, but there is nothing to separate.

It has taken me about two months to feel a glimmer of understanding about how the country of Afghanistan "sees" the two very young American women who have been arrested. The women were there to be helpful as volunteers and probably did hope to "bring the word of God" to those poor people. The stacks of children's Jesus stories/books taken from the Afghan home they were visiting (that, too, was unlawful) and shown on television (which the women don't deny were theirs..is that true?) is evidence of breaking the law. No, of course I don't condone their justice system nor do I think the women should suffer any penalty. I'm just saying...here we go again, treating another religion as "less than." Just one more instance of not understanding. We don't have to agree, but we do have to begin trying to understand.

betty

As far as I'm concerned, carrying childrens' books about Jesus into an Islamic country in order to distribute them was asking for trouble. Didn't these young women find out anything about Afghanistan before they went there? Or does spreading "the word" imply a kind of divine martyrdom which makes such a dangerous action seem worthwhile? This is what I don't understand.

Mal

Mal, I agree with you that those young people being held for "preaching Christian gospel" should have known better. I have never been clear on what these people were doing in Afghanistan in the first place. They were supposed to be "helping." Helping do what? That woman reporter who slipped over the Afghan border from Ubekestan and was caught, was very lucky to be let go. They could just as well have shot her for being a spy, which she clearly was. Anyone going into a middle eastern or asian country would do well to memorize all the do's and do not ever's before leaving home. PBS had a 2 hour program on the history of Islam, going back 800 years. I was amazed that a people who, in the beginning, displayed such intellect, and political and economic know how, should have come to the state they are in today. Howzat

I was watching a prepared piece on an 8 year old boy in Afghanistan who does physically exhausting work all day long, is paid nothing for his work, but who felt lucky to have his "job," saying it will help him get another job some time in the future that does pay money. I was close to not being able to watch that little face anymore when the piece ended. I've only seen that kind of weary look on adult faces, not on a child's. He looked as if he had been exhausted forever. From the voice of the interviewer, I could tell he was having difficulty maintaining composure.

The piece ended and a television journalist said, "we'll be right back," and a commercial began. It was a young boy at roughly the same height as the one I'd just been watching. His eyes were bright, his skin smooth over plump, flushed cheeks. He was walking around a Lexus car, saying that this was a car he wanted to ride in.

betty

As far as Christians taking their 'word' into Afganistan...

When will they ever learn???? When will they E V E R learn?

dapph

Trying to change a person's religion is called proselytizing and in this country we don't always look upon it kindly either.

Robby

I know I sure don't! Really gets my dander up!

I can remember years ago, 1979/80 it was, hearing a mother boast proudly that her 15 year old daughter had been one of a group from their fundamentalist Christian school who toured Russia and had "smuggled in Bibles." Apparently there is a pressing need to do this, and it is considered the highest calling. Another year, the same group went to Mexico! This sweet child had come home in glory, having really won her laurels, so to speak. I was chilled through and through, for more reasons than just being turned off by the proselytizing.

HAZMAT, you have raised an unanswerable question which has fascinated me for years and years now. I posited the possibility the decline came from centuries of cousins marrying. There is some sort of proverb or folk saying that goes something like: "Unless a man marry his cousin, he will have no sons." Or perhaps it ends: "he will have only daughters." I simply cannot remember it, but I do remember reading it and being struck, because the biology there is awesome.

Mahlia says not so, and I believe her. She says this is only in some nomadic tribes.

Note, we do not have stupidity here, in any case. We have a highly intelligent uneducated peoples. They do not teach most of their population at all, and the mullahs use their influence to keep the rest from "westernizing" the nations. I was late coming to realize the totally controlling power of the mullahs. Obviously, it is not Faith which keeps these killing off all opposition, it is a fierce instinct to hold onto the Power that is theirs. Now that I see the appalling picture fully, my reactions are mainly these: Thank God we are not living in a religion-dominated state, and Thank God we have free public education for all! It would appear that the situation in most Muslim countries is an almost hopeless one insofar as prospects for change are concerned! Any hope for change bumps up against a rabid multitude who truly, truly believe in every fiber of their being that we are Evil personified and that they will be doing God's Work in erasing us from the face of this planet.

Diggins asked why Bush named Christ as his favorite philosopher. I can answer that: it was the only one he could think of. Clinton's renting out the Lincoln Bedroom didn't offend me as much as his using the Oval Office to pursue his sex life. This is what brought on all these religious posturings from the politicians who followed him. They were trying to assure the American public that they would not repeat this embarrassing behaviour.

Oh, well, we have to give Ella something to be amused about. That's why we can't name all the Canadian provinces, Ella. We're so busy with our own three-ring circus here that we don't have time to think about anything else. How I wish we really could separate religion and politics though. It would make life so much simpler. And we wouldn't have to listen to all these politicians pretending to be religious.

In my family, which has a particularly virulent wing of fundamentalist biblical interpretation, I remember one Aunt who spent virtually her entire life in the Holy Land in an attempt to convert all of the Jews and Arabs to her “faith.” Abandoning her children and husband in the process.

Charlie--What an amazing story. Do tell more of it.

Well, I don't know too many details of her life. My father was a musician - the black sheep of the family (played the devils music, dontcha' know.) From PA (Pentecostal), all his sisters were extremely religious. One was "called" to the Holy Land and never (to my knowledge) returned - her life spent doing "God's work" in Bethlehem. I don't know really, what ever became of her. Miraculously enough, her children all seem to have "kept the faith" ane turned out (relatively) well adjusted, though. Raised by their Aunts.
Charlie

MARY PAGE - Mahlia says not so, and I believe her. She says this is only in some nomadic tribes.

Did I actually say this somewhere? Hmmmmm!

CHARLIE - I've met people like your Aunt during my travels abroad (especially in the Middle East). Dedicated, energetic, creative, passionate about Jesus and willing to take on any/all who do not agree. Years ago, I remember listening to Billy Graham's wife, Ruth, discuss her family's missionary history in China. Absolutely fascinating! Recently Southwestern Bible Theological University in Texas established a new degree program in Islamic Studies through a linkage program with the Christian Arab Theological Seminary in Beirut so that American students going into the Mission field in the Middle East would understand Islam and its adherents. My question to the Administrators of the new program (which they found highly suspicious) was whether they were going to have Muslims teaching in the new degree program (which made sense to me) or only Christians who would teach their interpretation of Islam.

ha ha ha ha I love your irreverence, Mahlia. Perfectly reasonable question, of course.

MaryPage, here's what I heard on CNN this morning during an interview of an author of a new book, The Price of Honor by (I'll go find her name). This female author presented statistics of women's involvement at every level of society in Afghanistan just before the war with Russia began. Women were architects, attorneys, artists, managed restaurants, taught school. SHE said nearly half of Afghanistan's physicians were women!!!!! and that two generals in the army were women!!

Her point that she repeated is that the current plight of women in Afghanistan is NOT connected to religious (Islam) rules, but is openly acknowledged tyranny of women by the ruling military regime, the Taliban (spelling?).

This author was particularly angry about an answer Bush gave this week in response to a question about the "literal prison" of women's movement and behavior. He responded that, although he had sympathy for these women, that it would be difficult to interfer in religious matters. ("These are not religious matters!!" she said.) She also quoted a woman in hiding, who represented a small group of former professional Afghan women, who said that they are "slowly dying" under these barbaric restrictions. The author listed some behaviors that women cannot do without a man's permission....pluck eyebrows, style hair, cut hair, READ, talk to someone outside the family.

I wonder if I understand this correctly (not knowing how much of what this woman said is accurate).......countries in the middle east who have Muslims as part of their population or as a majority of their population do not govern citizens identically from one country to another....that there are differences in how the religion of Islam is interpreted (or used) for governance of behavior from one country to another????? If this is so, it should sound familiar to us.....just as there is the Baptist bible belt which is different from other geographical areas of the Baptist religion in the U.S.

Mahlia or anyone, so what about this "lenient" period of time for women in Afghanistan? Is this author's information correct about MUSLIM women? I knew that women formerly were included in government positions and had "jobs" outside the home. I had no idea that close to half of the physicians were women or that two generals in the army were women. I need some guidance/help checking this information. I also need to find out who the author is and see what her background, etc. is.

betty

Betty:--

I find that info about the former prominence of women in Afghasistan very hard to believe. Even before the advent of Taliban, I believe a macho (to use a non-Islamic term) culture existed. However, I yield to Mahlia and others to garner the facts.

Robby

To say that this kind of subjugation of women is not inherent to Islam is one thing. To say that "the current plight of women in Afghanistan is NOT connected to religious (Islam) rules" is quite another since these rules are subject to the interpretation by the Taliban's Deobandi sect. Interestingly though, Benazir Bhutto claims that this was not always the case. That in fact, at the outset, the Taliban garnered Pakistan's (and Bhutto's) support in particular, because they were supporting women's issues!!

Charlie

I believe this is the book Betty mentioned.

From Booklist Goodwin set out to investigate the status of women in 10 Islamic countries after being shocked and appalled at the brutal treatment of a nine-year-old girl she befriended while living in Peshawar, a frontier town on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Her findings are profoundly disturbing and center on the enormous influence of radical Islamic fundamentalists, who have created a system of "gender apartheid" that has turned women into virtual prisoners

"Price of Honor" by Jan Goodwin

I watched that documentary "Under the Veil" in which a group of Afghan women tried to stage a protest against the Taliban government. Their protest was brutally broken up, of course. Those women had a lot of courage to try to openly oppose the Taliban. Brave women.

"Women who a decade ago formed 70 percent of Afghanistan's teachers, 40 percent of its doctors and 50 percent of its civil servants are now living under what witnesses described as house arrest. The sufferings of the female population date back to the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, when women lived in fear of rape and robbery.

"That was followed by the brutality of the Mujahedeen, American-backed rebels who forced out the Russians. In 1996 the Taliban took over and began enforcing rigorous Islamic rules, especially against women."

I read an article about an Afgan woman who was a professor of mathmatics at a University in Kabul....After the Taliban took over she was not allowed to ever return to the classroom, was forced to wear the traditional dress, etc..she seldom left her apartment except to see her mother infrequently and then was accompanied by her husband. He also did the shopping. They have since resettled in Pakistan. She said she had high hopes for her two daughters but no more. She wanted them to be Docters or Lawyers. So very sad.

Regarding the missionaries of the world, no one has mentioned that they practically wiped out some indigenous peoples, who had their own spiritual beliefs, by bringing them the Bible along with their white man diseases. Now we are listening to some of the wise words of our own native Americans.

Thanks, all, for the additional quotes. I did find support for Jan Goodwin's book and its underlying interviews of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Gaza, West Bank of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan. The most helpful review of the book emphasizes what we know from other authors...the growth of fundamentalism in the entire area, not just Afghanistan. "She shows how the repressive politics that governs women's personal lives are also a barometer of the growth of fundamentalism and the Muslim regimes' willingness to appease extremists."

What amazes me is that conditions for women in Afghanistan have worsened considerably since the publication of her book. The general picture I'm forming, just from random reading, is that Afghanistan was one of the best places in the middle east for a woman to live before the war with Russia and is currently the worst place.

Betty,

I read somewhere recently that the Afganistani men thought that they would be protecting their women by confining them to home. IMHO, it looks like this submission to the men is similar to the beliefs of many fundamentalist religions the world over. What's that old adage? Barefoot and pregnant? So many times we hear that these Taliban men are so smart and intelligent but I don't see that, when they take half of their educated people and confine them to their homes. What a waste! Not letting them serve in the hospitals, schools and the government is cutting off your tongue to spite your face. Or better, gouging out your eyes! Common sense would tell anyone that all citizens are needed to run a country and the world. As Americans we cannot imagine not being able to say whatever we want, traveling down the city street to grocery shop and not being able to attend a church of choice. We are truly blessed.

My daughter, a nurse in the Army Reserves, sent me the full-page ad that was put in the ARMY TIMES, a magazine that comes weekly (or maybe monthly, am not sure) to all service people. The wording, in huge letters, says:

KUWAIT EXPRESSES CONDOLENCES. AND REAFFIRMS ITS FAITH IN THE RESILENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. MAY GOD BLESS THE SOULS OF THE VICTIMS AND GIVE PEACE TO THEIR FAMILIES.

I keep hearing that Osama bin Ladin has a lot of brothers and sisters. One reporter said there were about 50 of them. How can this be? Do Muslims practice polygamy? Can anyone tell me?

Shasta -- I don't know a whole lot about Arab, Muslim customs, but have heard that it is not uncommon for a man to have as many as four wives.

I'm currently reading Princess, Life behind the veil in Saudi Arabia as told to Jean Sassoon. Sultana, a member of the Saudi royal family, is now in her 40's. Her mother was married at age 12 (1st wife) and had 16 children, 11 who lived -- one male -- and he was treated like a little king. Her father eventually had 4 wives at one time and when Sultana's mother died, he took a new one to replace her.

In one of the saddest parts of the book she tells how her most beautiful and docile sister was married at age 17 -- to be the 3rd wife of a 62-year-old man. They were divorced after a few months, when the girl became suicidal over her situation.

This is a letter to the Editor in US News and World, 11/501 issue:

"I am writing in response to the article "Unveiled Threat"(Oct 15)about the persecution of Afghan women. I am an American woman who just spent three months in Pakistan living and working with the native people. I was mainly in Islamabad, but I also spent time in Peshawar, which is run almost entirely by Pashtuns, who are the people populating most of eastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. The Pashtuns are known for two things: pride and hospitality. While in Peshawar I stayed with a Pashtun famly whose grandmother was the first female Pashtun gynecologist, working from the 1940's until her retirement. I would like to point out that although reports of atrocities against women are probably true, they are not known to the majority of Pashtuns, or they are seen as false, anti-Taliban propaganda issued by their adversaries, the Northern Alliance. In the marketplaces of Peshawar, women regularly lift up their burkas whenever they need to eat, have a conversation, clearly see or buy something or shout passionately at a male merchant for charging too much for peaches. On top of what they have already suffered, these women, their homes and their families are now being bombed. However, I do not think their suffering should be used as propaganda to stir up hatred for the Taliban and rally for bombing attacks."

SHASTA SILLS. The particular sect of Islam dominant in Saudia Arabia, where the bin Ladin family now mostly live (formerly from Yemen) recognize only men. Men can marry X number of women, divorce, and marry X more women. All the children fathered by the man are considered full brothers (and sisters, although girl children don't count for much) regardless of which wife was the mother (again, wives and mothers don't count for much, they are simply a means to an end.) So, Osama has nearly 30 brothers (27 I think,) the rest are sisters. HOWZAT

BabsNH, I thought I was the only person that thought religious missionaries do irrepairable (sp?) harm when they go into cultures that they consider "heathen." I'm glad to hear someone else say it out loud. HOWZAT

Yes, indeed, these posts are very interesting. However, I'd like to clarify a couple of points:

1) Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives IF (and it's a BIG IF), he can treat them all exactly the same, which means provide residences for them and their children furnished in the same manner; provide finances for the household and the upkeep of the wife and children; show his love and affection in a way that is acceptable to all, provide education, etc. Since it is extremly hard to meet the emotional requirements, let alone the enormous financial requirements (think about how much it would cost YOU to maintain 4 individual households!), ONLY very wealthy men or members of a Royal family continue the custom. In some countries, like Iran, the first wife needs to give her approval for a man to take another wife, although sometimes the man will do so without telling her and keep the second wife and family totally separate from the first. If the wife learns about it (and she usually does, since people the world over like to gossip), she can file for divorce.

2) In pre-Islamic times (pre-7th century), it was common for men to have multiple wives; concubines by the dozens (hundreds for wealthy men). When the Prophet Mohamed, according to God's instructions as Muslims believe, restricted the number of wives to 4, it was in response to the need to curtail the wide-spread abuse of women, who often were abandoned by "husbands" after a short sexual daliance AND to care for the thousands of women and orphans left as widows in the wake of tribal warfare.

Within Islamic countries, it was common for men of some wealth to make political marriages among various tribes in order to maintain good relations (much in the way that King Solomon did in Biblical times); to marry a widow and adopt her children so that she would be protected; or to take another wife when a first or second wife died.

3) Afghan women, prior to the invasion of Russia and the follow-up coup by the Taliban, were OFTEN well educated (many in Europe and the USA), assumed professional positions in society, contributed their skills in local and regional government ventures, while at the same time managing their homes and families. I have posted this elsewhere, but perhaps I can take the liberty of repeating it again: there are numerous Afghan women who are NOT the poverty-stricken and RURAL women to which we are so accustomed to viewing in the press reports. Medical personnel, lawyers, owners of their own businesses, etc. However, these educated women were forced to either go deep into the recesses of their own homes (where many committed suicide as the result of deep depression) or immigrated to Western countries to save their own lives (and sanity). NOT ALL AFGHAN WOMEN are from rural communities, just like ALL MUSLIM WOMEN are NOT represented by the rural tribal women of Afghanistan.

4) VEILING (whether a mere head scarf like a bandana or the head-to-toe burka of Afghanistan and Pakistan IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF ISLAM. In ancient times, the veiling of women was a societal issue that set high-born women (Persians and Turks come readily to mind) apart from their rural sisters, who worked in the fields, herded livestock, and did "manual" labor. Later, more and more women were encouraged by their male relatives and the religious sectors of their communities to adopt various customs of veiling, until this custom became laws in some countries.

However, the full "cover" which is insisted upon by the Taliban or the Saudi Arabian conservative Wahabism interpretation of Islam is NOT from Islam; it was a ruling that was "man made" and publicly proclaimed as "a protection of women's (presumed)"frailty, gentleness and inability (so the men claimed) to protect themselves in public."

As the article included in one of the previous posts and wirtten by a Western woman who had spent some time in Pakistan indctaes, Muslim women (even those severely veiled) know how to protect themselves and make their voices heard when they really want to. THEY JUST LOOK PECULIAR TO AN AMERICAN AUDIENCE! And when the press reports show photos of Taliban beating covered women, it makes them look all the more defenseless (and in those SPECIFIC photos, the women certainly are defenseless). BUT NOT ALL MUSLIM WOMEN ARE LIKE THE WOMEN IN THE PHOTOS. I, personally, know Muslim women who, if attacked like the women in the photos, would grab the stick and break it over the heads of a Taliban, kick him, punch him, spit on him, and beat him until he was on the run. I have seen it happen in front of me; I have been in a group of Muslim women in the Middle East when a man took it upon him self to deride a woman and she turned on him, along with the other women in the group, and that man wished he had not opened his mouth. NOT ALL MUSLIM WOMEN ARE LIKE THE DESPERATELY HUNGRY, SICK AND DISTRAUGHT WOMEN OF AFGHANISTAN, GOD BLESS THEM!

With much respect to the many fine posters who have enriched my life as a part of SN, may I encourage you to read and learn as much about Islam and its adherents as possible, NOT from the religious standpoint, but from the cultural standpoint. Islam is a religion that is world-wide and its followers are enormously different in their cultural outlook, although they may be practicing Muslims.

Islam in Indonesia and other parts of the Far East is totally CULTURALLY different than Islam of the Arab Middle East. Afghans are NOT Arabs, and resent Arabs who joined the Mujahadeen to fight the Russians and then stayed to support the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Afghans, whether of Northern or Southern origins, are an enormously PROUD and dignified people, regardless of whether they are poor or wealthy. The complexities of tribal rivalries are at the core of the current unrest in Afghanistan; religion is a by-product, although bin Laden would like the West to see it as the FOCUS; issues of tribal peace or warfare are enormously important to Afghans and THEY HAVE VERY LONG MEMORIES. Although they can switch sides in a nanosecond, they do NOT forget!

I hope these comments have helped to clarify some points and not just add more confusion. For individuals who have absolutely no background or previous interest in the Middle East, Central Asia or Islam, of course there is going to be confusion. Just as in any undertaking of a new topic. But as Americans we owe it to ourselves to better understand (if not necessarily to accept for ourselves) the thinking of the people who have attacked us and who are military men and women will be engaging as they serve to protect us and our American way of life.

"I have posted this elsewhere, but perhaps I can take the liberty of repeating it again: there are numerous Afghan women who are NOT the poverty-stricken and RURAL women to which we are so accustomed to viewing in the press reports."

I am curious Mahlia, what percentage "numerous" is?

dapph

howzat, sociologists and anthropolgist have long lamented the destructive effects of missionaries on traditional cultures. If you can accept an analogy, missionaries serve essentially as heavy artilliary to soften up the cultures before frontal attack by exploiters. After missionaries move into a traditional culture they immediately destroy the native belief systems, destroy their social controls, and disrupt family life. Then, when the native peoples are helplessly dissociated, the businessmen move in and strip the people of their natural resources. After all resources are removed, the businessmen move out again and the native peoples are left destitute and unable to regroup and restore stability.

Ironical, isn't it? This sounds almost like Third World complaints about the Western Powers, especially the United States...cultural imperialism.

DAPH - I have no statistics of my own to share with you, so I called two Afghan women friends of mine (both professionals) and read them your question on the phone. The first one pulled up her electronic address book of professional contacts among the Afghan woman she knows and with whom she interacts - many are mutual acquaintances of mine, too - and told me they numbered over 600 in the USA, Europe and South America. The second one belongs to several professional organizations which devote considerable time to PR about the plight of women remaining in Afghanistan and humanitarian aid on their behalf. Her response was "there are thousands of well educated and professional women OUTSIDE of Afghanistan, but people in the West don't realize that."

Thanks, Mahlia, for all that information. To me, the most important things to remember are.......conditions for women differ in many ways in the middle east, just as in the rest of the world. SOCIAL and CULTURAL rules or practices affect women's lives there in different ways in different countries, as everywhere else. The harsh treatment we see on the news has nothing to do with Islam (even though the Taliban would like us to think so). It has to do with Taliban mistreatment of women and (as Mahlia points out) the circumstances of poverty and class (inability to protect oneself?). The women with resources have left the country or are in hiding, possibly? Before the war with Russia, MUSLIM educated women were an integral part of society, working to better themselves, their families and their country. The social changes, since, include war, tribal strife, growing poverty, the Taliban military regime, families leaving the country and intentional misinformation. Just my attempt to repeat and assimilate this information.

Something I've noticed, but not in this discussion, is that old lumping together of a group of people as if they are all identical....Muslim women. A Baptist woman or an American woman could be my grandmother or a native American lesbian architect. Muslim women are all over the world and are as different among themselves as women everywhere.

"However, I do not think their suffering should be used as propaganda to stir up hatred for the Taliban and rally for bombing attacks."

We don't need to use them as propaganda. We have 6000 other reasons.

Feeling very blue and discouraged about all the lying going on all over the world at this time. Cannot help but wonder if there is any hope whatsover. Two examples from this morning's POST:

LIES ARE SCARY THINGS

THIS SMALL, MEAN WORLD

MARY PAGE - I started out this morning with the Washington Post, too, and have talked with a couple of friends already about "disinformation, misinformation and no information." We just have to keep reading (as broadly as possible) and thinking, analyzing and trying to sort through the information that IS available and make sense of it. Sure, that's not always possible (or at least to the extent I like), but its what MUST be done. There is a certain level of information that will be presented to the public (and may or may not be accurate) as you surely know, and other pieces that will not.

The anthrax issue is so clouded at the moment and such a CLEAR example of how our well developed and technically astute Nation got caught unpreprared. It is discouraging to continually read about reports from many years ago "alerting the US government to dangers," followed by others stating "no one in government paid any attention" (or comments of a similar nature), but we simply have to keep on keeping on! And try not to scare outselves to death in the meantime.

This is also a time to make sure that the representatives we do have in elected office are doing the jobs we want them to do. And if not, vote them out of office. Some of the politicians are responding in exactly the right way; others are mumbling and grumbling. The American people can deal with direct and truthful information; we're not stupid; we can make rational decisions with full information. But what we cannot do is try to make those decisions without clear information. There's nothing wrong with elected officials saying "We don't know, but we're trying to find out." I'd rather hear that, then a bunch of nonsense that I know perfectly well is not accurate.

It's also the time to make sure that our scientific community has the funding to continue their work on the vitally important issues that affect our lives. The article in today's Post (and other recent ones) about Dr. Ken Alibek (the former Soviet scientist who was in charge of the bioterrorism program before he defected to the USA in 1992) is a real eye-opener about how very much we need to support our scientific community.

Mahalia you are right re anthrax, and I agree with your view point. One thing though is the media will not allow government speakers to say We don't know, for when they do the reports all go off all at once and badger and badger till the speaker feels required to give some sort of answer. I think the mass press conference is a total flop a gaining good and reliable information to print in our papers etc. fp

Has anyone put up this URL to the Muslim Women's Homepage? Here 'tis: Muslim Women's Homepage

Mary Page, I have trouble disiminating all this information. On top of that, I am still trying to get through the article that CharlieW has put up above. Very long and very involved. I do see why you are blue!! There are layers and layers of truths, half-truths plus lies abounding. And, yes, the American people deserve to have the truth whether it is "I don't know!" or "Here are the facts as we know them."

ANN - thanks for the link to the Muslim Womens' Homepage. It certainly is extensive and should clear up alot of confusion about women in Islam.

The information in this discussion is absolutely fascinating. I look forward to reading these posts every day, and I appreciate all your contributions to my education! I have added the "Muslim Women's Homepage" to my list of Favorites, and will carefully read through these articles.

Okay, I read the first article by Dr. al Faruqi on "Islamic Traditions and the Feminist Movement." I didn't know I was a feminist until I read this article. I found myself defending western feminism right down the line. And all I can say is hooray for Rampant Individualism! Long may it live!

For information only. In the Muslim Women's Webpage, I read one of the recommended articles, The Status of Women in Islam. There are many references to equality of men and women. Equality is true in all but one area, this writer says, the area of leadership. It is the nature of men to be the leaders. It also uses the words "weaker sex" for woman. It is fine for a woman to work outside the home, but only if it is financially necessary and only in jobs that will fit "her nature," "teaching (especially of children), nursing, and medicine."

The more I think about all this, the more I remember my friend Karen who is a "sister" in the Catholic Church. Karen is as strong a feminist as I am and she is working INSIDE the Catholic church to bring about changes she believes is needed for women. Much of what she studies in an academic fashion is how CULTURAL pressures (historical, stereotypical, etc.) influence various religions. She views the Catholic church sitting inside the same restrictive culture that all of us contend with. So, she works patiently on the inside to make changes. I'm absolutely sure that there are Muslim women who are fine with Islamic rules and Muslim women who are working within to make changes for women.

There are numerous examples of how people respect their religion, but have various personal beliefs that conflict. Birth control and how many different Catholics handled so many decades of the church being against birth control....with their individual ways of coping or describing all their different "answers."

I'm struck with the beauty of the language describing Islam (in several of the articles on the website). There is a warmth that is compelling.

betty

V. S. Naipaul had a brief Q&A in Sunday's NYTimes Magazine. We've talked about the Arabs and that the Afghani's "aren't Arabs." Awhile back the subject of Islam and converts to Islam came up (in a speech by Naipaul, I believe it was). Naipaul is asked if he is "surprised" about the support for bin Laden in non-Arab countries (Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Iran). He comments:

No, because these are the converted peoples of Islam. To put it brutally, these are the people who are not Arabs. Part of the neurosis of the convert is that he always has to prove himself. He has to be more royalist than the king, as the French say.

We've talked about missionaries here a bit also. Again, in the Q&A Naipaul is asked about this almost pathological necessity to confront the infidel.

It is not the unbeliever as the other person so much as the remnant of the unbeliever in one's customs and in one's ways of thinking. It's this wish to destroy the past, the ancient soul, the unregenerate soul. This is the great neurosis of the converted.

This makes so much sense to me - not only for an explanation of this type of Islamic fervor, but it is pathologically identical to religious "fundamentalism" of other types.

By the way, if anyone would be interested in reading/discussing something by Naipaul (this year's Literature Nobel winner) early next year, drop me an e-mail or pop on over to the suggestion box and let me know. We're kicking this around at the moment.

Charlie

CHARLIE - Naipul has pointed out some interesting aspects of individuals who convert to Islam from non-Arab backgrounds, but he also speaks of those from societies (like Iran or Egypt) which were richly diverse and well established long before the advent of Islam. Of these two nations in particular, I would not think of their citizens as "needing" to be more Muslim than the Arab founders of Islam in order to find their identities.

BETTY - "I'm absolutely sure that there are Muslim women who are fine with Islamic rules and Muslim women who are working within to make changes for women."

I'm glad that you pointed this out, since it is quite true. Many Muslim women (like those of other faiths) make very PERSONAL decisions regarding their Faith and how to best observe it. Within the family and women's organizations, they have a strong voice! Society does not change quickly, but these women are patient, determined and they persevere. IMO, this is the central issue about women in Islam which is NOT well known (or perhaps not recognized at all by some) in the West, particularly in the United States. It needs repeating! There are Muslim women from the more traditional societies (especially in the Gulf region) which have given up their families in order to live and work abroad and speak out about their beliefs in order to help the women who remain "shrouded" and cannot speak for themselves. Giving up one's family ties in order to help other women is a BIG DEAL for any woman, especially those raised in a close-knit, traditional culture.

Persian,

Sounds like the women who fought for women's right to vote here in the US and the right to use birth control. But, why does one have to give up her family? If she has children, who raises them and gives them the education about family, country and spirtual matters? Are their husbands comfortable with this new role? Or are you saying that they, as young women, give up their family ties to fight for women's rights? It used to be that when the "sisters" in the Catholic Church vowed their fidelity to the church, they no longer had any close contact with their families. Didn't even go home for funerals in the family. Weren't allowed to travel without a companion sister. Silly rules! Much of this has changed now. I now have contact with the cutest little nun who travels back and forth between here and Cleveland, driving her own car, spending the night with her nephew and his wife, taking care of elderly family members. She is 80 years old and a real trip!

I would expect a lot of these women do not themselves give up family ties, but are ostracized by their more traditional families, especially the male kin.

I know what you mean, Betty and Ann, about the parallels of women at work in the depths of the Catholic church. Again, we have a male hierarchy determined to hold on to their perogatives. With the women in the background (doing most of the real work), change can be affected, albeit at a pace that makes Chinese water torture seem speedy. I, too, have family members, classmates, and friends in various orders. They are all dedicated to the church becoming pro-choice and allowing women into the priesthood. These changes will come; I will not live to rejoice over them.

Charlie, Naipul is a fantastic writer, one who can take a few words and spin a clear and enticing picture. Politically I find him overly simplistic, indeed, downright behind the times in his thinking. Perhaps even bigoted in his own fashion. I just don't get a sense he is correct in either of his pronouncements about converts and nationalities.

ANN - sorry, I should have been more clear in my comments. I was refering to women who left their birth countries and parents, siblings, cousins, etc., either by their own choice, or in connection with their education abroad - which opened their eyes and minds to a larger world than they had previously known - or were for some reason "ostracized" by a husband, father or brother and remained in the west. Some of these women married Western men; others married men from their own cultures (usually also students) and then were faced with the decision of returning to their birth countries (or their husband's home country), dissolving the marriage or living in a type of "marriage-not marriage" limbo.

I've known quite a few Middle Eastern women who were students at universities in California (especially Southern California), who were major voices in women's liberation for American women. I had one Iraqi friend years ago, whom we repeatedly had to bail out of jail, since she thought she could flirt with the police along the demonstration lines, rather than avoid them. She was such a pain!

My maternal grandmother was friends with Huda Sha'rawi, an Egyptian feminist of the early 20th century, who spoke out forcefully for women's liberation, founded publications to support the role of women in the family and society and to support Islamic concepts, but within a modern context. I heard wonderful stories about this extraordinary woman for many years.

What is not well known in the West is that Muslim have been very vocal in their support of womens' isues. Caesar Farah's "Islam: Beliefs and Observances" (Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1987)addresses this issue: "That Muslim women are shouldering greater responsibilities in the reordering of their milieu, socially, economically, politically and even militarily is a process that has been underway for some time and has nothing to do with "liberation."

Farar also explains that "given the expanded public role of women and the control they still maintain over domestic matters in their household and conditions of religious behavior among the young, their powers necessarily expanded eventually into the male domain." BTW, Farar's wife, Madelain, is the author of "Marriage and Sexuality in Islam: A Translation of Al-Ghazali's Book on the Etiquette of Marriage."

Betty commented on the fact that Muslim women were encouraged to work outside the home provided it was in fields like teaching, nursing and medicine. I remember years ago when we were first learning about Communist practices in Russia, I was amazed to find out what a large percentage of Russian doctors were women. Here in the U.S., very few women were becoming doctors. I think medicine is a field that women are especially qualified for, but other countries seem to have realized this a lot sooner than we did. We have a lot of women doctors now, but this came about very slowly.

I believe it was in the seventies that THE UNIVERSITY began to allow women to major in anything but education or nursing. Come to think of it, I believe it was into the 20th century before they even accepted women as students!

Women were able to study anything that was offered from the day my alma mater, Smith College, was founded in 1871. No medical school there, but with a Smith degree, women could go on to Harvard Medical School and did.

The same was true of Wellesley, Radcliffe and Vassar. Vassar was founded in 1861. Wellesley was founded in 1870. Radcliffe was founded in 1879. Give me a women's college any old day! (Don't tell me how much they cost. I went through four years and graduated on a scholarship. See? Anything is possible. Even a gick-legged kid with a leg brace who didn't have any money could graduate from Smith.)

Mal

Malyrn a cousin of mine graduated from Smith and now lives in England. She would be about 64 years of age and her name is Marcia Early from Kalamazoo, Michigan..... ring any bells?

Tigerliley, I graduated in 1950, quite a long time before your cousin was at Smith.

Mal

I only have an AA from Lon Morris in Jacksonville, TX. Does that mean I have to go stand outside? I was 52 and made the Dean's List both years. Never mind, I'll wear a heavy sweater and bring an umbrella. HOWZAT

I am laughing at your humorous post. I would have to stand outside with you even though I had a cousin who graduated from Smith...I graduated from highschool and a diploma nursing school.....lol.....

Howzat, if you check post #522, you'll see where all this high-falutin' talk came from. There's no bragging involved. I wanted to point out that women could get a good education and even become an M.D. before the 20th century.

What happened to this discussion, anyway? Not that it hasn't been interesting, but I thought it was about "Religion and the Founders" by John Patrick Diggins. Doesn't anyone have anything to say about that?

Mal

The subject of religion, as a general topic, doesn't turn me on. I am not too sure the next subject will, either, but I am off right now to read it and find out. I treat reading matter like people - try not to hate something before I get to know it. I came to this discussion because one of the things that fascinates me the most is how curious minds work.

OK, I waded through Myers. Generally, I agree with his put down of recent "literary" books. But I am not too sure I like the current genre writing any better. Being a person who doesn't fit classifications very well, I resent having to always choose between literature and one of many restrictive classes in popular fiction. I have even been asked by surveys to check what sort of books I like to read: mystery, science fiction, westerns, horror, romance, etc. I usually write in, "none of the above." I would choose to not always have to choose. What happened to a good story, written so a person can read it and forget the writer while enjoying being immersed in the story?

I love literature, music, some art, but never if the technique or mysticism of the creator interferes with my enjoying.

Amen to that, Ben. When I read for leisure and not for learning or reference, I don't want to even be aware of the writer. I want to become the character(s), to "feel" the emotions, to "see" the landscape of where they (I) am. I want to live the story, for that brief time. When I am constantly aware of the writer, (s)he just get in my way. AFTER I have finished, then I can decide whether I liked the treatment of the subject, the use of language, the style of the author.

Charlie, are we "early birds" jumping the gun on the next article discussion. Sorry if we are but this new one is of more personal interest to me than the last couple were.

I guess, rather than a writer who has gone to school to learn to write, I prefer an author who has lived and learned to think.

That's ok, Phyll. Looks like it was time for a change anyway! I'll put it up top also.

Charlie

I think I was the culprit. I read the new article when I got the email, then started in on it right away without paying any attention.

Read the Myers article and found it to be a delightful drink of pure water. I have for years now been picturing literature scholars, critics, and judges as intimidating one another with their grandiose praise for obuse works. Ha! Here is one who is throwing all that onto a pile and lighting a match to it!

Pour out a glass for me, and pass the Jane Austen!

All right, here comes another of my stupid questions: what do the little rectangles signify in this article? What kind of punctuation is this?

Time for a change, yes, Charlie. I just finished reading the "evocative prose" part of this week's article. Myers doesn't care much for Proulx, rather hard on this author, but I must agree with the criticism of her acknowledgement in the Shipping News (I believe it was), and I quote:

"strangled, work-driven ways." Work-driven is fine, of course, except for its note of self-approval, but strangled ways makes no sense on any level. Besides, how can anything, no matter how abstract, be strangled and work-driven at the same time?"

Methinks the author was trying a bit too hard here to force adjectives; however, the critic is perhaps a bit too critical also. Must read more to find out what this Myers does approve of - very little so far! But that's how critics make their living.

Did you print it out Shasta? Or is that what you see on the screen? They're not there on my screen and I have not printed it (I'm cheap with paper!!).

Many of you know this, of course, but before printing anything from your browser, make sure and see if there is a link to a "Printer Friendly" version somewhere on the page (as there is for this one). It'll save a bunch of paper.

Charlie

Myers writes a good article, but I accept his criticsisms with reservations. I am going to read the article again. In the meantime I do like Jane Austin and I do like the old Faith Baldwin and Willa Cather and along came Hemingway. I find that for my personal true down deep enjoyment what I love is Storytelling and I grew to love it at my grandfathers knee. I guess I should buy talking books but that doesn't do what the Storyteller does. I have tried and tried to write down the "story" as spoken. Some are not too bad. Most would never see print in upscale publishing houses that is for sure. I will probably keep trying. Faith

I, of course, disagree with most of the points in this article. I think there's room for the kind of writing that Myers criticizes here as well as Stephen King and many others. I WISH I had more time to hold forth and pontificate, but I don't.

However, I do think that it is unfair to attack a writer by excerpting a passage out of context instead of considering the context. I think Proulx and McCarthy are both fine writers, with the edge going to Proulx. I think that DeLillo is sometimes brilliant. Thank heaven I don't know Auster and Guterson or I'd have to defend them too.

Seems to me that Myers feels that writers are being deliberately difficult in order to win prizes---or maybe that prizes only go to those who appear to be difficult. I wonder what his judgment of Faulkner would be.

And those "great novels" from the 50s that he refers to, including the passage from Bellow that he cites, puhleeeze!

So, Charlie, ask me how I REALLY feel about this article.

I agree, Maryal. The biggest problem for me with the article is how easy it is to take a passage out of context and hold it up as an example of something.

I only know what I like to read and I liked "Snow Falling On Cedars" very much. I then read his second novel and liked it as well. I wonder how many books Mr.Myers has written. I found the article tedious but read it through to the end. I use to do this with books too, but I no longer do this. If a book doesn't hold my interest I no longer feel I must finish it.

Ben, I wholeheartedly concur with your statement: "I prefer a writer who has lived and learned to think." And like many of the other posters, I like a good story. And I love writers who can include a bit of wit and humor, and a different point of view. ..Babi

Well, I printed out the "printer-friendly" version -- all 16 pages of it, and have read about 8 of them. Still working on it. (No rectangels, Shasta.)

Tigerlily, I agree with you -- I know what I like to read. I'm generally a lightweight low-brow, but every once in a while latch on to some "literature." Does Barbara Kingsolver write "literature"? I like her stuff very much.

How will I know when I'm reading "literature" as opposed to something that's not. I remember something from way back when, about universal truths. What else.

Back in library school -- believe it or not -- she doesn't know "literature" -- a lot was said about "authority." What is Myers authority?

Just off the cuff, I would think of light reading as a one-time read. Literature is something solid enough and meaningful enough that you keep it, and go back and re-read it one day. And get even more from it the second time around. ..Babi

I agree with BaBi. The new discussion group, "The Story of Civilization," revolving around Durant's books, is an example of her latter sentence.

In my school years, I studied more music than literature. I was taught about classics vs. all new music, as if the two would never merge in any way. It is only as I have lived through several kinds of popular music that I have realized the classics were the best of the popular music of the day. In Mozart's time, a lot of so-so music was written and soon forgotten. Just because it was written in classical style didn't make it last. Books written in classical styles aren't necessarily going to last, either. Now, I believe no critic or group of critics is responsible for spotting new classics in literature as well as music. People, readers and listeners, decide this over time. A couple of the Beatles' songs may still be payed a century from now and some of the popular books may still be read. Then and only then can they be called classics.

hmmmmm. that is a good thought. I am all ways saving books thinking I will read them again and THEN something new comes along and I never get to do it... Perhaps the bible and some other spiritual readings might apply for me. Now that I am older I know I have only so many years left to read. I like writers from the south. Their feelings, mores, and way of life are appealing to me. I do love some of the classics though and you are right. With a little age and a little more wisdom they often have more/different meaning for us.

I'm behind on this discussion, but will hurry to catch up.

There is a writer from Columbus who has written several biographies but his autobiography is best. Similar to "The Colour of Water", what makes it enjoyable, is the flow of words plus the story! I enjoyed "'Tis" and"Agatha's Ashes" because IMHO, the writer is a good story teller. The same goes for Will Haygood who wrote "The Haygood's of Columbus". These are simple books but good story telling with no pompous use of the English language or convuluted use of descriptive words. Some of the authors that Meyers refers to are, IMHO, using their Thesaurus too often. I love a good story! There are some excellent Western women writers that most of us have never read. Again, good story telling! I have no time for reading something that is difficult to read but has Oprah's seal of approval. I do like Toni Morrison but not all that she has written. Who wrote "All the Pretty Horses"? When I started that one, I thought, wait a minute, what am I doing? But, the story was pretty well told and I found myself wondering what made the author write it. I liked Frazer's "Cold Mountain" but didn't care for his second title. For me, its still the story!! I can usually tell from 3 or 4 pages, sometime less, whether I want to spend my precious time reading a particular book!

Imagine if Major Sullivan Ballou had survived the Battle of Bull Run and become a writer. That he would have become famous, I have no doubt. Here's a letter he wrote to his wife only seven days before he was killed (age 32). This is a man with a gift for the written word. No matter how often I read it, my eyes tear. I can think of no other 'work' that has this effect on me.

"My very dear Sarah,

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days -- perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write you again, I feel impelled to write lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more.

Our movement may be one of a few days duration and full of pleasure -- and it may be one of severe conflict and death to me. Not my will, but thine 0 God, be done. If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready. I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in, the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing -- perfectly willing -- to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.

But, my dear wife, when I know that with my own joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them in this life with cares and sorrows -- when, after having eaten for long years the bitter fruit of orphanage myself, I must offer it as their only sustenance to my dear little children -- is it weak or dishonorable, while the banner of my purpose floats calmly and proudly in the breeze, that my unbounded love for you, my darling wife and children, should struggle in fierce, though useless, contest with my love of country?

I cannot describe to you my feelings on this calm summer night, when two thousand men are sleeping around me, many of them enjoying the last, perhaps, before that of death -- and I, suspicious that Death is creeping behind me with his fatal dart, am communing with God, my country, and thee.

I have sought most closely and diligently, and often in my breast, for a wrong motive in thus hazarding the happiness of those I loved and I could not find one. A pure love of my country and of the principles have often advocated before the people and "the name of honor that I love more than I fear death" have called upon me, and I have obeyed.

Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when God willing, we might still have lived and loved together and seen our sons grow up to honorable manhood around us. I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me -- perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar -- that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not return, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name.

Forgive my many faults, and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have oftentimes been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness, and struggle with all the misfortune of this world, to shield you and my children from harm. But I cannot. I must watch you from the spirit land and hover near you, while you buffet the storms with your precious little freight, and wait with sad patience till we meet to part no more.

But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the garish day and in the darkest night -- amidst your happiest scenes and gloomiest hours -- always, always; and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath; or if the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.

Sarah, do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again.

As for my little boys, they will grow as I have done, and never know a father's love and care. Little Willie is too young to remember me long, and my blue-eyed Edgar will keep my frolics with him among the dimmest memories of his childhood. Sarah, I have unlimited confidence in your maternal care and your development of their characters.

Tell my two mothers his and hers I call God's blessing upon them. O Sarah, I wait for you there! Come to me, and lead thither my children.

Sullivan"

Beautiful letter, Acudor.

Well, if nobody else is getting little rectangles in this article, then it means my computer is up to one of its nasty little tricks. Thank goodness. I thought they had changed the English language, and nobody told me.

I really enjoyed Myers' article. I didn't take it too seriously but I thought his wit was hilarious. By the time I got to the lines about the "hacking jacket," my sides were splitting with laughter. Could a hacking jacket be a male version of the hatching jacket? Or maybe it's a smoking jacket worn by a man who smokes too much?

I've read some of the books he criticizes and liked them, but I agree that the purpose of language should be to communicate, not to obfuscate. And when a writer resorts to too much verbal trickery, you suspect it's because he really doesn't have much to say.

Tigerliley- I still obsessively plod through a book that I hate. Silly of me, I know - but its part of my personality, I guess.

Babi says that she prefers writers who "include a bit of wit and humor", and I as well. I just completed Jonathan Franzen's first two books and while I liked them well enough, there was something missing. What it was, was a bit of humor, which he has added in his third novel with a vengeance. It can make all the difference in the world.

And pedln- I know a "lightweight low-brow" when I see one - and you're no lightweight low-brow. Yep, Kingsolver writes "literature" and seems to have been a favorite writer here on SeniorNet.

Literature? See, just ask and you'll find the answer here. Writing that keeps you coming back again and again, for deeper and deeper meaning, and does that over generations is "literature." That paraphrases a combination of Babi and Benjamin's thoughts. That's as good as definition as any you'll find.

Ann - All the Pretty Horses was written by Cormac McCarthy - one of the authors that Mr. Myers beats up on.

And me too, Shasta. When you said that you LIKED some of the writers Myers savages (I love DeLillo and McCarty and liked The Shipping News a lot) - but also said that "the purpose of language should be to communicate, not to obfuscate." Good writers can use words beautifully and communicate too. I hate rereading sentences three times just to find the FIRST meaning. (Different from re-reading something and finding NEW meaning).

Charlie

Thanks for Major Ballou's letter, Acudor. It was beautiful, and I got a bit teary there, too.

I agree with Ben; a classic is only a classic when it has stood the test of time. I can recall reading a list of all the Pulitzer Prize novels, and was surprised to find I never heard of most of them!

Charlie, so what is Franzen's third book. If you recommend it, I'll take a look at it. (And when I find a book really irritates me, I have been known to throw it across the room in disgust!) ..Babi

I don't know if you covered this before, but where do children's books fit into "classics." Is Mother Goose a classic? How about Alice in Wonderland? Babar, the elephant? Grimms' Fairy Tales? Hans Christian Andersen?

Robby

OF COURSE! To all of the above. I read them, my children read them, my grandchildren read them, my grandPARENTS read them! They are classics! ..Babi

And so, with children's books, what is the measure of a classic? Is it Time? And how long are we referring to?

Robby

Babi- Franzen's third (and current book) is The Corrections - the on-again-off-again-Oprah selection. I'm a little more than half-way through, so it's a bit premature to recommend or not.

Charlie

I wish I had known of B.R. Myers article before the Anne Tyler Back When We Were Grownups discussion began. From the middle of the discussion to the end, Ginny and I and maybe one or two others of a large group were expressing somewhat similar points of view regarding the main character. A larger number agreed that this book was not her best work. I felt the main character, Rebecca, was short on substance; I never felt I knew who she was, what made her tick (be quiet, Myer, I do love to repeat). Several of us agreed that one hallmark of Tyler's writing is quirky characters. We said this in the spirit of ALLOWING a Tyler character much ambiguity. Rebecca didn't have to make sense if she was quirky enough....which begins the circular justification....quirky behavior may preclude being known or understood.

Myer's case, I believe, is that authors are loading their writing with pretentious description which, in too many cases, is a cover-up for poor writing. Myer charges: style over substance and, too often, style with errors. The reader is too busy rushing through the metaphors to notice the errors. "Slow down and things fall apart," says Myer. He also dislikes reviewers who call this writing "evocative." I gather that he particularly dislikes "furious dabs of stuttering tulips."

Along with the word pretentious, Myer also used....wordiness, gabby, affected, repetitive, facetious displays of erudition

So, in the Tyler discussion, I might have said, quirkiness is not a substitute for developed characters.

---------------------------------------------------

I liked this article, not because I agree with his premise(s), but because the timing is perfect. I've read The Shipping News, 2 of the 3 of McCarthy trilogy, White Noise and several from Toni Morrison. I am just to the point, as student/reader of literature, that I can recognize words/concepts Myer used. A few years ago, I would not have known what "spare" or "economical" writing was. Now I know what it is and am probably in that stage called "dangerous." (know just enough to be dangerous) I am sure I have already (copied) said, "What wonderful, spare writing!" (no stuttering tulips for miles and miles)

I like Myer's essay style. Very organized. Plenty of quotes for illustration. (Maryal and Charlie, are not examples, by their nature, out of context? How else to supply an example? I thought his specific examples, for the most part, excellent. NOT to provide examples would be worse. Did you think drawing ONE example out of thousands of words is not enough to build a case? THAT would make sense.) Also, I liked Myer's light tone in such a heavy subject. I know he meant for us to laugh at a Cormac McCarthy woman liking "to see a man eat." As far as "muscular prose," I actually like McCarthy's brand of period male dialogue. Or, is this COUNTRY, physical, outdoors, hard work talk? I have uncles who speak this almost wordless talk. "You go?" "Did. Did you?" "mmm...When did you get back?" "Late."

What did others feel about Myers' charge of and disdain for the "sentence cult"? I'm ready to take issue with him here. As with other charges, he is saying that we readers are focusing on a superficial fragment of writing in place of taking the measure of the story as a whole. I don't know if reviewers do this as often as he charges, but I particularly wanted to say that we do that here...look at sentences (ok, swoon over sentences) AND we take notice of the whole piece. Speaking as a relative newbie to literature, I want to do either or both, whenever the spirit moves me.

I appreciate Myer's opinion that today's writers confuse pretentious wordiness with good writing, but it may not temper my reaction to words that speak to me. Maybe I don't want to "slow down" for things to "fall apart."

betty

Description and pretension can be a lot like frosting which covers a poor cake. Me? I prefer good homemade bread. I would rather skip the cake and especially the frosting.

You make a good point--using quotes does involve removing them from the context. However, I could find some quotes in Shakespeare and hold them up for everyone to nod disparagingly about. It is not difficult to find quotes in order to prove a thesis, whether your are judging the work in question to be good or poor.

I don't agree with Myers and I think he plays unfairly when he, for example, takes some words out of the acknowledgement section of one of Proulx's (how on earth do I make that name possessive?) books and then argues that some of her word choice is weird.

I think Myers is attacking for the purpose of attacking. Why take on so many contemporary writers at once? It gives him little time to make real points about any of them. There's something strange about this article, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

literature lit·er·a·ture [líttrchr , líttrchr , líttr chr ] noun

1. written works with artistic value: written works such as fiction, poetry, drama, and criticism that are recognized as having important or permanent artistic value

2. body of written works: the body of written works of a culture, language, people, or period of time Russian literature

3. writings on specific subject: the body of published work concerned with a particular subject scientific literature

4. printed information: printed matter that gives information, in the form of, for example, brochures or flyers

5. production of literary works: the creation of literary work, especially as an art or occupation

[14th century. Via Old French from Latin litteratura , from litteratus "lettered" (see literate ).]

I was always under the impression that literature covered all written work and that impression came from my early school years back in the stone ages. Today, however, it seems to have an entirely different meaning.

As to the criticism of The Shipping News in that article, I seemed to think of the chopped off sentences and made-up words as indicative of the region. I have never been to Newfoundland, but as a descendant of real Yankees, I find that sort of thing familiar. My fraternal grandfather, a farmer of little education, talked a different language than we do today in this region. I have laughed with my parents and told my children of some of his sayings, mostly to do with the superstitions (or not) of old time farming concerning the weather, the moon, etc. My favorite and most often repeated comment was the one where he was telling us at the door as we were leaving about the cat fight that took place the night before. "Gawd, how those cats did fit!" The people of Maine, Vt. and NH are known for their terse answers to questions. Perhaps it has something to do with the cold and rocky land.

I'm with you, Benjamin!! Its the story!! Give me good old fashioned homemade bread any day!

I agree, with glee, with what Ben has posted. I like to read a work, supposedly written in English, with a certain amount of relating and sense of fluidity.

Then I think of, was it titled "Riddley Walker"? That wonderful book from, what, the late eighties? Hoban? Scratching here to remember the details, but oh, the book! You had to work so hard at wading through it, and it was so worth it!

Okay, so ease is not what we are talking about. I like Ben's analogy with icing. That is so close to the problem.

I'm making another stab here. Writers write for varied reasons and with different habits and methodology. Some, like J.K. Rowling of the hugely successful HARRY POTTER books, have a story pop into their minds (she herself says this, and this is exactly what happens to me), and then set about the task of telling it. Such writers can use their own made-up words and styles and still delight their readers. Other writers seem to want so badly (pun intended) to turn out a work of immense originality that they r e a c h too far, leaving the reader with that unattractive sense of just having consumed too much icing.

Maryal, I was interested in your comment that you felt this guy was "attacking for the purpose of attacking". You could be quite right. Some writers will deliberately write a controversial article solely because controversy sell. Others, esp. critics, have had a reputation for being plain mean-spirited, and attacking what they could not do themselves. That would certainly produce a piece that did not "feel right".

Babs, I read your definitions and the first one seems to best describe what we are trying to identify here. The catch in that definition, tho., is the word "recognized". Many a work initially hailed as a great work of literature has ended in the dust bin. It still seems to be that the "recognized" work of literature can only come after the work meets the test of time.

Charlie, I'm going to wait for your final opinion on "The Corrections" before I go looking for it.....Babi

How is Proulx pronounced? Is it Pro-lux, Proo-lux, Proo-ulks? I've read her books but never knew how to pronounce her name.

From The Tales of Genji:

A woman writer replies to Prince Genji's mean comments about novels and the women who write them:

"I have a theory of my own about what this art of the novel is and how it came into being. To begin with, it does not simply consist of the author's telling a story about the adventures of some other person. On the contrary, it happens because one's own experience of people and things has moved one to an emotion so passionate that it can no longer be shut up in one's own heart. Again and again something in one's own life or in the lives of those around one will seem so important that the thought of letting it pass into oblivion is unbearable. There must never come a time, one feels, when people do not know about it. That is my view of how this art arose."

Charlie

That sounds like a good theory. The reason why I read novels is that they temporarily lift me out of my own life and transport me into somebody else's life. If they are good novels. It is such a relief to be rid of oneself now and then and explore somebody else's mind, find out how the world looks from somebody else's viewpoint.

Charlie is right--it's pronounced Prew or Proo. The real problem for me is once you learn how to pronounce it, it is really hard to SPELL.

MARYAL, we are picturing our words differently here. Let's get in sync. I see it as PRU. PRUE is acceptable.

"Rhymes with true" is what I read and what comes to mind every time I see the name....and, yes, now I can't spell it.

Thank heavens someone knows how to pronounce Proulx's name. I was saying Pro-lux in my mind, since I have not had an occasion to pronounce the name out loud. I have that problem with lots of author's names. I just avoid using their name until I'm sure of the pronunciation.

I really enjoyed "The Shipping News" and so I rushed right out for the "Wyoming Stories" but was lukewarm about those. I tried to read the novel she wrote about the accordian that changed hands (don't remember the title) but just couldn't maintain interest in the story.

I agree with Shasta. When I read (or watch a movie or listen to music)I want to enter into another circumstance. When I can establish myself INSIDE whatever I am reading, BE where the story is, identify with the narrator(s) then I am very happy about how I'm spending my time. So what if it's not Melville or Shakespear or Tolstoy. Annie Dillard's "The Living" is as good as anything Tolstoy ever wrote. I have read "The Living" twice, but I can't say that about any of the Tolstoy I own.

THE WESTERN CANON is just a guide as far as I'm concerned. It's sort of like postage stamps--you have to be dead ten years to be on one. That leaves a lot of current stuff off the list. And, who says a book has to be good for 100 years if it makes the reader feel good right now?

Well, I sort of got off the subject--I hate it when people do that. I do agree that some authors reach for greatness too hard. Everybody should know by now, IT'S THE STORY, STUPID.

HOWZAT - Ah, the joys of being an early reader. As a group, we are great at pronouncing words how we read them without ever hearing them. I heard about debris (debree) later and had no idea it was the same junk I read about, my debriss. Of course, we had a garr oj, but the cars in the books stayed in gar-rages. The words I mispronounce have changed but I haven't in all these years.

I couldn't agree more with this article. But... For some time now, I have divided up in my mind writers into four catagories though I may add more in future.

There are good story tellers, who tell it straight. They have something to say that holds my interest, or amuses me, or gives me information. They're unclomplicated in the telling and an easy read.

There are writers who are tedious and/or pretentious, playing with syntax to the point of obscurity. An example of this is Updyke's latest book, Claudius and Gertrude. I love Hamlet and thought the parent's story would be interesting. I gave it up after half a chapter, and remembered why I don't like his work.

Then there are writers who don't have a decent tale to tell or a style to tell it in, but perhaps because of a lucky hit early on, gathered a following and continue to grind out best-sellers.

BUT! If you are fortunate enough to come across a book in my fourth catagory, it is purely joyous reading: The author has an intriguing story and a style you don't even recognize as elegant until you've read well into the book. My favorite example is A.S. Byatt's Possession: A Romance". Each character has an authentic "voice", in the poetry as well as the prose; and both the story and the story within the story was as satisfying as a fine dinner. Most of her books reflect this delight, but her last just got too intricately scholarly for fiction. I guess not all writers, or maybe only a few can sustain such a level of writing.

My own reading is eclectic, and I keep a reading list. I'm lucky enough to have an excellent public library nearby and can reserve books on-line, picking them up when notified of arrival. And I've gotten to an age where I not longer believe that I must finish what I start. I'll give any book a good try but if I find my interest lagging or get disgusted with the author's shenanigans, that's it. I take a dose of Austen, or Dickens, or Durrell and I'm a happy reader again.

So this article kind of validates much of my own thinking about the fiction of the present. Thanks for sharing it with us, Charlie.

Think of poor Ms. Prue in her young years, especially when roll was called -- "Peterson, Pike, Ponder, Aggggg -- Pro - uh uh uh Pbhtt."

Howzat -- You are the first person I've run into who's read The Living. I loved it. Dillard is a wonderful storyteller.

I still remember the hilarity directed toward me when in a mock fight with a school mate, I scored a hit and shouted "Touch-ee!"

I sometimes find myself reading "misled" as "mizzled".

Linda

Myers prefers the "time-tested masterpiece[s]" like oh, say…Sister Carrie.

Oh, Carrie, Carrie! Oh, blind strivings of the human heart! Onward onward, it saith, and where beauty leads, there it follows. Whether it be the tinkle of a lone sheep bell o'er some quiet landscape, or the glimmer of beauty in sylvan places, or the show of soul in some passing eye, the heart knows and makes answer, following. It is when the feet weary and hope seems vain that the heartaches and the longings arise. Know, then, that for you is neither surfeit nor content. In your rocking-chair, by your window dreaming, shall you long, alone. In your rocking- chair, by your window, shall you dream such happiness as you may never feel.

Well - as the good Ginny from Pauline likes to say: de gustibus non est disputandum.

It is the very variety of writing styles that Myers seems to lament, which should leave plenty of room for his tastes as well as yours - and mine. Perhaps his problem is that his preferred choice and style of "literature" doesn't ring the bells of the literary critical establishment. It's this establishment, and not the writers themselves, that Myers seems most peeved with. Interestingly, he peppers his essay with as many quotes from reviewers as he does from the authors he is mystified by.

AS others have commented though, this is a well-organized essay (attack).

"Evocative" Prose - I for one, don't expect my novelists to be "routinely incomprehensible". But I do expect, or hope, that they will be "evocative". Myers also bemoans "the decline of the long sentence." Well, shoot…Faulkner never saw a long sentence he didn't like, and his prose was surely evocative - but also maddeningly incomprehensible also, without an extremely careful triple-reading. No, I've no problem with shorter sentences - or long ones either in their place. But when Myers speaks of "favorite sentences" I have to laugh at myself. I plead guilty to this - I Love a good sentence - in or out of context. And I have no problem with them standing out and apart from their surroundings. To me a good sentence (a keeper, a memorable one) is part of the ebb and flow of narrative. I just don't see the problem.

"Muscular" Prose - All I can say is that a McCarthy passage of a burning barn with horses inside has stayed with me for years.

"Edgy" Prose - Reading this section, I can only imagine what he might have to say about Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventure of Kavalier & Clay - a novel that is absolutely one of my favorites of the last few years.

"Spare" Prose - Here he comes to an author I'm not familiar with and consequently I'm more comfortable with his criticism. Surprise!

Generic "Literary" Prose - Now, his "review" of Guterson is actually pretty funny, and he makes his best case here, I think.

Where I agree with him most, though, I suppose is when he talks about a good story. Nothing wrong with those.

For an alternative viewpoint, try Meghan O'Rourke in Slate. "Previously unpublished critic" she calls him. Ouch!
Charlie

Charlie---What a great quote from Sister Carrie--boy has THAT dated. It is SO easy to pick passages where the author seems to nod. That certainly is one. I liked Sister Carrie when I read it years ago. My guess is that I read fairly quickly over passages like the above!

Previously unpublished, eh? Well now, that is interesting.

I don't think the article is especially well written.

But then, to borrow words from Iago, "I am nothing, if not critical."

Charlie I read your post the day it arrived and waded through all of Myers words.I waited to join the discussion until I could see others had read it as well.

As usual I am divided. I read Snow falling on Cedars and enjoyed it ..although to be honest I would have to re read it to tell you exactly what I liked about it.

As a child I read the dictionary. In fact I still do. I am an indiscrimanate reader. I will read cereal boxes, indexes, fiction, non fiction and can even find adventure in a good cook book.

There are books I read that were given a lot of critical acclaim I found dull and boring. I have no patience with books that I have to struggle to read. If I am researching a subject and need to understand it then I am willing to take the time and effort to re read until it becomes clear.

When I read I want to be absorbed in the story. Who posted they wanted to BE part of the story? That is the way I feel I want to be in the story. I want to be so lost in the story I am transported to the locale, to the time of the story. When that happens then to me the author has written a worthwhile story.

The story ought to flow. It ought to be understandable as if the author was telling it not writing it. Some of the examples used by Myers made me laugh. NO ONE SPEAKS THAT WAY...because you would lose your listener if you did. When I come across a paragraph where the author seems to be showing how erudite they are instead of moving the story along ..they lose me. I cannot even give an example for when I do I stop.

I often re read a book when it is made into a movie or a TV series. Mostly ( and I am smiling here) because I dont recall the story being quite the same or even totally different. I am thinking of War and Remembrance, Winds of War and The Thornbirds in particular.

When my husband died I read a whole series of books by an English author whose name I cant recall now ( 8 years ago) but they were charming stories about a couple of small English villages and the people who inhabited them. I didnt feel like I was any of the characters but I did feel like I was an invisible visitor who learned to know and like them all.

Some of the books I have checked out of my library that were in the NEW FICTION section I found similiar to some Myers mentioned. None stayed with me but were returned unread.

Nice to read what others think and I apologize to whomever posted the letter written by the Civil War soldier and thank them for sharing the same. It seemed appropiate at this time.

anna

What an eclectic group, representing so many different tastes in reading. How delightful. And the examples of mispronunciation had me laughing (which always feels good.)

I had four children in the space of 4 years (the last two were twins) and the word "chaos" seemed to fit my circumstance so often. I included the word in all my stories about my family, to friends and strangers alike. I was nearly forty before my sister, bless her heart, corrected me. I was stunned. I thought of leaving town, the country, of drinking hemlock. All those years I had been saying, out loud, "Chaay oos".

I read more non-fiction than fiction, and the fiction I do read is all over the place: mysteries of all sorts, slice-of-life novels, like The Handyman by Carolyn See, sagas, like The Living by Dillard. But I'm with those who say they don't finish anything that doesn't capture their interest. Hey, at nearly 67, I don't have time to spare. Some books I race through. Others, I pause and ruminate over the finely wrought wording of ideas and metaphors--I often take notes on 3 x 5 cards to savor again, to remember. Some books bring to mind so much in my own life experience that I lose track of the story and have to put the book away for a while.

Well, I see your eyes glazing over. But one last thing. When you use a phrase in a language other than English, please include a translation.

HOWZAT

Perhaps, the newer stuff is beyond me or I just don't like it!!?? I enjoy mysteries,too, Annafair but also read a fair amount of nonfiction. Again, its the story! It just doesn't matter whether the story is true or fiction. And, please don't use a "plethora" of words to describe things that are simple. For instance our library discussion group just finished reading "A Thousand White Women-A Journal by May Dodd" by Jim Fergus. Historical fiction based on a true premise. Very different but also very interesting, well written and the story moved along. I would not have picked this book off the shelf so am glad that our leader did. I liked "Feila's Child", "All The Pretty Horses"(the movie seemed pretty true to the book and was actually enjoyable), "Cold Mountain".

I also read the dictionary, Anna, plus any books that have information in them. I even keep two books on baseball near my TV for looking up stats and other info on the game and players. If anyone likes the game, don't miss Delores Kearns book, "Wait 'Til Next Year". I have yet to read George Will's, "The Boys of Summer" but I will "around tuit"!

We are such an interesting group which makes this place and life itself more exciting. I especially love the discussion groups at this time in my life. My hearing loss is now so profound that I am no fun when it comes to discussing or as my oldest son tells me "I cant tell you a joke anymore because you dont understand the punch lines."

I miss that because he is the best story teller and I recall with a great deal of joy the days when he would tell me some wild tale and then surprise me with a funny punch line.

Here I can participate on an equal basis and none have to hear me ask "Would you repeat that last remark?"

I used dubonnet to tell you about mispronunciation. One year I read that dubonnet was going to be the IN color for fall. I read it out loud and of course pronounced it du bonnet! My husband said how do you spell that word? And when I told him he said Oh that is dubonnay!!!I laughed but I was so pleased to know the correct way because I used the word in reference to wine in the correct spoken way it was only when I read it I mispronounced it ..So just be pleased you now know the correct pronunciation of chaos. I also appreciate your use of that word since I had 3 children under five at one time and chaos was certainly the way my life seemed to be!

Have to go vote ...we had an editorial in yesterday's paper suggesting that everyone who is displaying a flag should be using their right to vote today.Just a thought ..now I am off to use my right and privelege to choose our next governor and representatives.

anna

Your last paragraph referring to the editorial is profound. I wish that there could be some sort of "honest accurate" survey at the end of the day in which they were asked only two questions:

1 - Are you displaying the flag?
2 - Did you vote today?

Robby

ANNA! You were probably reading the dear little books by MISS READ, who wrote over 40 books about Thrush Green and Fairacre. The illustrations are a very special delight, being very similar to those in the A.A. Milne books. Her real name is Dora Saint, and both she and her husband are retired teachers.

Annafair, and Mary Page: You have both called to mind some of my early reading. I devoured the Miss Read books and was disappointed that there weren't more. Funnier and more satirical were Benson's Lucia and Mapp books. Does anyone remember them?

It is with delight I find that others also read the dictionary. I thought I was the only odd-ball who did that. But come to think of it, the glory of words is really what keeps us reading instead of only watching stories. Annafair, I so identify with your avidity in reading anything in print that comes before you.

And Charlie: I love what you said about sentences. Again the glory of words and the way they're put together!

Yes, Lady C, I read those as well. With great Joy!

Charlie, re sentences:

Just thought of one I've always loved:

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."

Bet most of you know who and what that is.

Lady C- Maybe a year ago there was a regular Mapp & Lucia fest here. There are still a couple of them in the archives.

I have never developed a "critic" mind set. I can point out that I didn't like a certain book, but usually have no plausible critical reason that I can point out. Yet when I really have been involved with a book, have been a part of it, and feel fulfilled after reading it, I can probably tell you what made it a good experience for me.

Since I have an aural sense of story I presume it must have something to do with the rhythm of the writing. I heard stories told over and over by my parents and grandparents as the evening entertainment. Then also our mother read to us every night and we always had a good book going so it was wonderful to come sit around her in our pj's and hear the next chapters. She read us all most every Dickens novel. Some of them twice. The series of Tarzan Books we had were dogeared too. So we were eclectic even in what we had read to us.She also loved to read us collections of letters by famous people or diaries and journals, trying to teach us that we can all write, not just stories by famous authors or books by classical authors.We also had many epic poems read to us by my grandfather who was a thwarted actor I believe.

I was privilaged to come from such a reading and story telling family. But I am no critic and if material is good or not so good some of it I still enjoy. Still there are all those books I have never been able to read just waiting at the library.fp

Wonderful stories, Faith. Thanks.

Did Myers really like that excerpt from Sister Carrie? I really have to question his taste!

Charlie, what are all those famous and popular quotations from Shakespeare, Mark Twain, the Bible, etc., but sentences that captured the imagination and spoke a truth for us.

I'm picking up names of new authors (new to me) that I need to check out. Dillard, Byatt, Miss Read.. If this group recommends them, they are definitely worth looking at.

Lady C, I had heard your quote before, but could not remember who wrote it. It sounded like something Mark Twain might have said. I looked it up, tho', and on finding it listed under Jane Austen, could only say, OF COURSE!. BABI

Lady C, I can't resist saying I read the Benson Lucia series at night and have started again on Queen Lucia for about the 100th time, love the way Benson writes, that clear, deliicious prose.

ginny

Babi- Myers didn’t specifically point out that passage from Dreiser – he said that he preferred the time-tested classics like Sister Carrie. I thought I’d just use his technique against him.

Ginny- You're STILL reading Benson!! (still crazy after all these years....)

Yeah I just started back after finishing Darling? a brand new novel, needed Benson's mastery of the language to soothe the mind for a while, hahahaa.

Well, I've finally finished Mr. Myers for the second time, I thought for a minute it was from The New Yorker (whose articles and short stories seem to run to book length) but I see it's the Atlantic, I really appreciate your bringing this to our attention, Charlie.

I thought he made some good points very awkwardly. I have never seen such awkward prose, I found it fascinating. There's something about the way he phrases his sentences that is stultifying, am I the only one affected?

Look at this thing:

As a fan of movie westerns, I refuse to quibble with the myth that a wild landscape can bestow epic significance on the lives of its inhabitants. But novels tolerate epic language only in moderation. To record with the same somber majesty every aspect of a cowboy's life, from a knife fight to his lunchtime burrito, is to create what can only be described as kitsch. Here we learn that out west even a hangover is something special.

What strange sentence structure, I don't know what you call it. I find myself fighting my right hand to diagram these jerky convolutions and my mind wandering off to other things while he's making a point.

Since it's impossible to read while your mind is thinking of other things, I've had several fits and starts trying to finish that thing. I made so many copies of flagrant examples my example is almost as long as his article.

As far as what he's actually SAYING, I thought he made some good points badly. I agree with him on Guterson. Guterson's Snow Falling on Cedars was the first book we ever read here in the Books, and I remember thinking much of the same thing he has, of course I did not know that Guterson was now a major literary figure. I note his interest in the "amateur" reviewer? There's something vaguely inconsistent and troubling in his simultaneously supporting and labeling the reviewer as "amateur." ....

He's hung up on "tautology" and a couple of other phrases, and Prolux's phraseology which I find more poetic in the examples he cites than his own clumsy prose rendering of the reasons why Prolux is bad. I haven't read Prolux, but I got more out of the passages he quoted than his own explanations of what was wrong. There's quite a contrast there, but I think it's not what he thinks it is. ahhaha He's quite nasty in places too, and in other places the style of his article changes, I would be willing to bet he either did not write it all or somebody edited it heavily.

It's an irony, really, I can't seem to wade through his prose to appreciate his meaning, but I really appreciate being kept up on, as he would say, "what passes for" literary criticism today.

ginny

Ginny, Maryal also mentioned that there was something odd going on in Myers' article , but she couldn't put her finger on it. Hope I'm quoting her accurately. I've been thinking about that because I, too, had some sort of aftertaste I couldn't name. Maybe it's the ring of personal resentment I hear. One can almost see a sneer when he puts down "stuttering tulips" and whatever else critics call "evocative." What I find amusing, though, is how often he repeats his disdain for repetition.

--------------------------------------------------

I'm ok with tackling a book I find difficult. For me, it has paid off, because what I found difficult a few years ago feels easier now. No, of course I won't keep ploughing through if there is no enjoyment, but I have to admit some of the enjoyment (in a well written book) comes from doing the extra work or from hanging in until I feel hooked. Sarah and I have agreed that we both had to do that, hanging in, in The Shipping News. I do love that book and just think what I would have missed if I'd given up in the first part of the book.

I find the skill to tell a good story often makes a difference in my enjoyment of a non-fiction book. Doris Kearns Goodwin and the author of the biography John Adams, David McCullough, write such wonderful biographies. Reading them feels like reading good fiction.

betty

And, don't forget Mr Pooter.

I have not read the Miss Read books! None of them. Do I look in the adult or the children's section? I'll bet they are wonderful.

There were no books in my home. No one read. The town we lived in had a Carnegie (sp?) library, and I discovered it, when I was 10, riding around town on my bicycle. Young people could only check out two books at a time, so I would always slip several extra books inside my clothing. The library never discovered my crime but my mother did. I had put the "extra" books in a neat row on my window sill. I loved pretending I owned them. I never intended to keep them forever. Mother took them back so I wouldn't be asked why I had returned more books than I was allowed to check out.

My dear mother began to buy books for me at second hand stores and fire sales (there were no garage sales back then). The first book that was truly mine was "Elsie Dinsmore." I still have it and have read it dozens of times. I now own several thousand books, but I still remember opening that book for the first time.

HOWZAT

HOWZAT, Miss Read is a British author. Not children's books. They are available for sale in this country, however. They are very small books, and very quiet. Village life and personalities. These books are like reading a verse of well known and beloved poetry. Not at all high brow, they are nevertheless an exquisite experience.

The Mapp & Lucia books by Benson are also British, and progress from village to town to city. They are very funny, in a quirky, intellectual way. I still remember with a chortle that Lucia's husband liked to name the rooms of their house for Shakespeare plays. Their bedroom was MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. Well, that tells you a lot about these charming books.

Oh I disagree, somewhat, Mary Page, there was a LOT going on in the little kingdom of Benson, in fact, I almost brought here a couple of his sentences, laughed out loud this morning again at one of them, he was very sly and very quick and the reader really has to know literary references. (The only rooms I can find in Riseholme are called "Hamlet" and "Othello." )

For instance, Lucia, who is Queen of her little English village, is caught out by a visitor to the town, and suffers a great series of humiliations in one evening to her snobbery, not the least of which includes the revelation that she, in fact, cannot speak Italian, despite her sprinkling her phrases with it. The next morning she reflects on her new rival, Olga:

....Indeed it looked as if Olga's nature was actually incapable of receiving cultivation. She went on her own rough independent lines, giving a "romp" one night, and not coming to the tableaux on another, and getting the Spanish Quartet (whom Lucia mis- identifies in a hilarious "comeuppance,") without consultation on a third, and springing this dreadful Pentecostal party on the fourth.

Pentecostal party, get it? hahahahaah Benson writes what is called a comedy of manners and nobody does it better, not even Wodehouse.

But I agree on the Miss Read, calm calm calm....er....calm and when you're through you're through, and calm. If you want a small town well written book you want the Mitford series, much better written than the Miss Read, all of which I have read, and most of which I found perhaps too calm. Agatha Christie always said you can find more malice and more going on in a small English town than anywhere else, and I think these small microcosms of life are very interesting and not at all calm, in real life. There's always something mental going on.

Howzat, bless your heart, what a sweet story of a book lover, I can see those books lined up now. We really must get up somewhere a Memories of Reading or something, that story is much too good to lose forever, thank you for sharing that with us, you are the exception to the rule of the family which reads produces a reader.

Betty, you're no slouch yourself, hahahaha: What I find amusing, though, is how often he repeats his disdain for repetition. hahahaa Love it.

I did scoll back before I posted and did see Maryal saying she thought the piece was not particularly well written, I agree with that one!

Makes you want to get up our proposed diagramming discussion. You know one of the most interesting sentences there IS to diagram, by the way?

To him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance, but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Diagram that one and wonder.

ginny

I love your enthusiasm about diagramming sentences but I cannot share it. I couldn't care less about nouns, verbs, adjectives and what will modify what! If the sentence flows across my mind and forms that picture of person or place that the author is telling me about then I am satisfied. If I have to stop and decipher the words, and untwist the sentence, and try to understand the meaning, then the picture is lost.

Thanks to whomever mentioned the Miss Read books. I haven't read her for years but I am going to again and right away. And as for the Mitford books---Jan Karon lives in, and bases her books on, one of my favorite places--Blowing Rock, NC. She is one of those authors whom I wish would write faster, faster, faster! Ooops! I am guilty of repetition there but sometimes I think it is necessary for emphasis---unless it is overdone as some writers are prone to do.

And as for reading dictionaries, one of the best birthday presents ever given to me was the Complete Oxford English Dictionary in Reduced Format--- with accompanying magnifying glass! I could sit and read it for hours.

And Faith solved a minor mystery for me, I think. I recognize now that I too have an aural sense of what I am reading and probably that is because my early recollections include the sound of my father's voice reading aloud to us nearly every evening. I will often complain that I cannot get into the "rhythm" of an author's writing. Sometimes I have to work very hard to find the cadence and sometimes I just give up because I have never fallen into step with them. And then the authors that I have loved for many years----well, we march to the sound of the same drum and that is probably why I love what they write and will read and re-read them many times.

Charlie, I compliment you on your choice of this article. I agree with some of the others that it isn't particularly well written and Myers is all too often guilty of the same faults he is criticizing in others but I do agree with his premise. Many of the so-called "modern" authors attempt to disguise with obscure words and convoluted sentences the sad fact that they have little or no talent.

LOL! Good for you, Charlie! And how well you must know the book, to find that particular piece of pomposity. ...Babi

Well, I'm still muddling through the article -- about 1/4 left to read. Myers reminds me of the Quaker who said something like this to his wife, "All the world is wrong but thee and me, and sometimes I wonder about thee."

However, his comments will no doubt make me read a bit more discriminately, and not just gloss over long convoluted phrases, without trying to understand them. Now if I don't understand the writer I have license to say, "Hmm, that is a bit of drivel (drivle?), isn't it?"

I'd still like to know more about Myers. Is he "an unpublished reviewer," a scholar, or a college student unhappy with the prof's syllabus?

For those of us lucky ones who read and seem to hear the words spoken, isn't this why Shakespeare sings to us?

But there's this graphic sense too. Benson's so good at slyly showing Lucia when she's been found out and tries to extricate herself. Kind of reminds you of Hyacinth Bucket, but Lucia is smarter. And who can forget the flood with Mapp and Lucia on the table floating out to sea. What a picture!

Ginny: I don't feel I want to parse poorly crafted sentences, but I keep reconstructing them in my head so they have more clarity and are more grammatically correct. Did that with the Updyke. Kept asking myself if he thought his garbled sytax was clever. But reading like that is wearing, no fun at all. Professor Higgins has a line in MY Fair Lady where he says there are places where English completely disappears. Sometimes I feel that way about a writer.

I want to know who this person is also. Other than the author of this article, that is. I love being reminded of the Quaker who wondered about his wife, pedln. That is perfect for Myers' tone in this article. He (do we know for certain that the writer is male) sets himself up as a judge and proceeds to bore me to death. If I had never read any of the writers he criticizes, I think I might just taste them all. That's how much I don't like the voice here.

Lady C---I'm teaching Shakespeare this semester, and sing he does! There simply is none greater. There's an internet site-- www.theplays.org where you can type in any word and get every occurence of said word in ALL the plays, with Act, scene, and line number. Then you can click again and bring up the scene.

I cannot get used to the wonders of the Internet.

Everything you always wanted to know about B.R.Myers' Reader's Manifesto.....but were afraid to ask.
Charlie

"It is a messy, broad argument, with Myers lashing out in all directions, trying to make a variety of points around an unclear thesis. One can agree with much of what he says, but the piece as a whole is a bit too unwieldy to fully convince."

Yes, exactly right.

And the thesis IS unclear. I don't think it has one really, or rather, not one that can be supported in so brief a piece.

He's a windmill puncher, allright.

Now that was a good article. "Literary tastes differ greatly and there are few absolutes. Even Dadist wordplay can have both validity and appeal, and one should be wary of those suggesting definitive rights and wrongs." this quote sums up for me the whole argument re: the divide between literary works vs genre works. And I felt the sentences of the writer of this aricle were much more interesting and kept the rythmn of the piece going so that it was easy to read it all. Something Mr. Myres piece did not do for me along with other's posting here.

Faith -

I had to laugh when reading Charlie's latest link. Reminds me when my hearing was excellent and I loved going to the movies. As a young child I never read reviews I went because it only cost 10-25 cents to see a movie and that was a double feature with newsreels etc.

As an adult I checked out the reviews and I could tell by reading them whether I would like them. If they earned high praise from a reviewer I always found them dull. When I read reviews now I wonder why anyone would want to see a movie. It seems they are all so gross and described with letters indicating violent, explicit sexual content, offensive language and not suitable for children. IMHO they are not suitable for anyone.

So I am wary of reviews. And I prefer to make my own decisions. Which includes TV shows as well.

I think wading through Myers and then reading the review of his article I would go out and at least check out the ones he abhors.

Off to the library tomorrow MaryPage to see if it was Miss Read, a name that seems to ring a bell. Only problem I have trouble hearing it!!!

anna

If you can stand one more review, I recommend Lee Siegel's in the L.A. Times, which Charlie's link (Complete Review) lists at the end (and refers to in the article as the "huff"). Surely, this is the tone and crisp writing that Myers thought he was producing. Siegel is so deliciously nasty to Myers that I laughed again and again. The main reason to read it, though, is that, piece by piece, Siegel tests each example given by Myers, PLUS makes a good case for reading "difficult" serious writing. This article isn't just a putdown of Myers (though it is that) but a testimony to the intelligence of readers.

I also want to know your opinion of tone compared to the Complete Review's tone. I thought the Complete Review's tone (talking to US, the audience) was snobby, elitest, snotty. Condescending. Siegel's tone, speaking to us, was egalitarian....strange place for me to find this, I know....in that he didn't coddle or talk down, but spoke directly, even as he was nasty (ABOUT MYERS). It's that scene of the CEO or the 4-star General speaking freely in front of someone he trusts. He doesn't "watch his language," but speaks freely.

I didn't like the way Siegel ended his article. A good editor would have just cut off that unnecessary end. Listen to me, hahahahaha, as if I know what the hell I'm talking about. Well, I did stay at the Holiday Inn last night.

betty

I have sent notices, for those interested in continuing to receive it to REPLY .... since email addresses come and go are changed and boxes get full.

But I have not heard from a lot of people who post here regularly or the lurkers that are here.

SO .... if you still want Book Bytes.....
Click on my name.
Click on my email address
Send me an email with Book Bytes in the subject line
And I will add your name to the new list.

Well done, Charlie, I agree with the new critic's assessment of Myers, wonderfully put.

Lady C, I agree totally. Now you mention Updike, and there's another one.

I love Updike? He's just good? But I never read him? And I have not finished the Rabbit series and I never will. Why? Because the man depresses me to the extent that I can hardly see beyond his miasma of sadness. I found to my shock that when I read the Rabbit series, that everything looks bleak and desultory to me, the very sky seems ominous. I guess I get too much caught up in his marvelous ability to paint a scene, but who needs to be depressed, cynical and weary?

Am I the only one Rabbit Angstrom makes weary?

ginny

Lady C, I agree with you 100% on Updyke, which is why I don't read him.

Maryal, thanks for the address for 'THEPLAYS.ORG'. Compared to you, I'm sure I'm fairly new on the net, but it is wonderful the things one can find there.

So far as I can see from the postings and the reviews, the general consensus seems to be that Myers is not too perceptive as a critic. ..Babi

How lucky you are to be so involved with teaching Shakespeare. Having taught (not Shakespeare, but art) I remember how much I learned from my students. I heartily believe that to teach is to learn. And thanks for the info re the internet. It IS a marvel, isn't it?

Another thought about "literature": If writing is an art, like painting, sculpture, etc. then a prime characteristic is that it must engage the observer (reader) in some way. If a book can't do that, then goodbye. You shouldn't have to work at it, and reading because "it's good for you, and you should" certainly doesn't work for me.

When I was younger I read for the story, didn't notice the style, construction, syntax, or any other aspect of the writing--never analyzed it. But through the years I have read thousands of books and along the way tried to understand why I loved some, hated others, and just enjoyed or tolerated others. All those Enlish lit classes didn't teach me these things; I had to discover for myself why this was so. At seventy-four, I've finally figured out at least some, and thank goodness, don't need a Myers to clue me in on what he thinks is good writing. But as clumsy as his own writing is, he still makes a point or two that I find valid. There's an awful lot of trash being published.

Incidentally have you noticed the flood of memoirs on the market? I guess every phycotherapist in the country is recommending catharsis to their clients.

My pet peeve against modern writers, and one that Myers didn't mention, is that they use too many four-letter words. It gets too monotonous. We only have a few swear words in the English language and my father taught me that you should only use them when you hit your thumb with a hammer. If you use them in every sentence you speak, then what are you going to say when you hit your thumb with a hammer?

Hemingway commented one time that English is woefully inadequate where profanity is concerned. He said if you really want to swear, you need to use Spanish because it is much richer in profanity. I don't speak Spanish, but I agree that English has this shortage, and modern writers are wearing out the few swear words we have.

As a writer, I can truthfully say that most readers pay little or no attention to the words we writers so carefully select and the way we construct our sentences and present them. These readers are interested in the story, and the only time they think about the technique and style in which the story is written is when or if they begin to be bored.

Some of us here are or have been teachers or, in my case, editors. We have been precisely trained, either in school or by ourselves through years of experience. Others are very, very discriminate readers who simply do not read as the average reader does. This is why the readers of the Books and Literature in SeniorNet are a great deal more than a cut above.

As I've participated in these book discussions and compared Books and Lit readers with other readers I know, especially those of my three electronic publications, I've come to the conclusion that we are just not typical, even when it comes to reading reviews or an article like A Reader's Manifesto by Myers.

I've read all the posts in this discussion and decided many of us have not given Myers a fair shake. He's been jumped on here, for example, because it's claimed that he has previously been an unpublished critic. I consider that unfair. What possible difference does it make? If we read everything with that in mind, new writers and critics wouldn't stand a chance.

Though the critiques of Myers' article in this discussion have not been favorable for the most part, one must admit that he has caused quite a stir. That in itself is an accomplishment, in my estimation.

Mal

You are so right. Anything that makes us think, examine our and others' views has a positive side.

Let me see ..Yes Mal .unless in editing a book it has overlooked some really literary horror I just enjoy. While I am interested in what others read I really only care about what appeals to me at any given time.

Sometimes it takes a more mature mind to appreciate some literature. And I cringe at the use of four letter words. My mother always said that there were other words in the dictionary to express our feelings and suggested WE BETTER USE THEM!

In spite of the fact my husband and all of my children and in laws worked with people whose speech was peppered with four letter words I have never heard them use the words in thier conversation. I dont believe it is in deference to me since I am often with them when they are with thier friends.

Updyke ...my one son in law was very fond of him and I used to read the books when I visited ..Must say I didnt read very far. I cant say why I didnt like them I only know I didnt.

Back to reading my dictionary. Read some new words today and had to look them up. They were good words but ones I have never heard before. I just checked my Webster's Unabridged printed in 1989 to see if it indicated how many words were included. I am sure many, many new ones could be found in the latest edition ...

thanks to all for your posts and contributions....anna

I was absolutely delighted when my children began to understand and use language. I read to them, sang to them, and talked to them. More importantly, I encouraged them to respond, to say what was in their minds about anything at all. Many evenings, the cacaphony of sound in my living room was almost deafening, with all my assertive young wanting to get a point across first. Many an exclamatory glove was thrown down. But none were "profane" in the sense we think of it.

A good example of this was my son, Michael, telling us a story about an encounter he had with some boys on the playground.

Michael, at 14, was already over six feet tall and wore a size 16 x 34 shirt. He had never been in a brawl. But this day a smaller boy took umbrage at some imagined slight and was pummeling Michael about the thighs and knees. Michael pushed him away, rose to his full height, spread his arms out full length, and said, "God's Eyes, you will surely be written up in The Book for this outburst, Sir." Well, the young combatant and his friends quickly found some other interest in another part of the playground.

"Gosh," Michael said to us, "I don't know the first thing about fighting. I mean, it has never come up. I am certainly glad all those kids went away. There were so many, I was scared to death I might be overcome like Gulliver."

I, of course, was extremely proud that all the reading, singing, and engagement in conversational reposit had paid off.

Do we know the name of the artist who painted the picture on display? Did he give the picture a name? The work is so lovely, and looks familiar. HOWZAT

Howzat the picture is Vermeer/s Woman in Blue reading a Letter and I think the title is self explanitory. I love this picture as I love most of Vermeers that I have seen. I enjoy a bil's library where he has several large wonderful book with pictures of famous paintings .

Lady C----How I agree with you about teaching and learning all the time from your students. If I didn't learn from them, it wouldn't be so much fun!

My daughter teaches art. Both adults and children of all different ages, and she is very good. I am amazed at the student work she brings home. (In her other world, she is a paralegal; artists must eat and earn the money to buy paints, brushes, and you wouldn't believe what all else.)

Malryn, good thoughts to contemplate. The Complete Review (Charlie's link) and other critics listed at the end of that page do offer a balanced look at Myers, list points of agreement and disagreement and give him credit for "touching a nerve." (Your post suggests you would agree.) Ironically, this balanced perspective suggests professional experience, the very perspective missing in Myers' review.

betty

Great thoughts, everyone. Like most of you, I'd hardly ever let a review stop me from seeing something, or reading something, of possible interest. But I'd suspect that many of us do rely on the "experts" in some way, and to some degree. Maybe an interesting topic of conversation for another day.

Let's turn our attention to a short but interestng article that was suggested to me for selection. As we consider our bed-rock institutions - democracy and a free market economy - we may often question why they aren't an "overnight success" in other countries. Our article assumes as its central tenet that a culture must be nurtured for their success. That their success is not pre-ordained. What conditions help this culture to take root? What are your thoughts this mid November morning?

Charlie

I skipped school for a few days, so skipped a few posts to catch up.

Annafair - on four-letter words: I believe many people use them every other word or so like a cook uses oatmeal in a meatloaf. They don't have enough to say, so stretch it out a little with four-letter fillers. We don't need to be offended by them as much as we need to pity their limitations.

Happy Birthday, Anna! Charlie, here is a link from this morning's WASHINGTON POST on the very subject we are delving into this week!

A LONG ROAD WEST

I agree with Benjamin on that one. Those things don't "offend" me in the way they do other people. I find other things much more offensive.

MaryPage- Great. Let me read that one..

Quote from Article."The complex business, tax and banking law that evolved in the West over centuries didn't exist in 1991. At Moscow State University in 1979, I remember mentioning health insurance, and a young Russian professor said, "What is insurance?"

This gives an unrealistic view in my opiion, of thinking Russia was that ignorant of the world. I had a close relative marry a gentleman from USSR who came here in 1992. He had an MBA from his University in St Petersberg his home. He would have completed his education about 1970 or so. His occupation at home had been Manager of a Bowling Alley with Restuarant and Bar in St. Petersberg.He explained or rather compared the business as if he were the owner of a franchise here, the holder being the State, and he the owner operator. He was subject to oversight by Government, price setting, he was not able to purchase except from an approved list, etc. He was responsible for making a profit but it was sent to the government as a participation tax and in effect was much like our income tax. His business sense was of course different than ours in many ways, but he certainly understood our system of free markets and definitly knew all about insurance. His problem came in translation. He and my relative were married a very short time and he returned home.

As a young man only 40 or so he felt he could prosper more at home than here. His opinion was that it would take a number of years for the general populace to catch up with the elite who did understand the markets,banking and free trade just as the author states that the U.S. had to do at the inception of our country's freedom from a monarch.

Though he did not stay here I felt I learned a lot from being acquainted with him. And he felt the way to go was to go to Germany and let that country lead the way for Russia to join the rest of the world. He had a deep down admiration for (W)Germany and what it accomplished after WW11.

I did notice that he avoided really discussing Democracy or any system of government. He readily discussed Markets and how the World Economy functions. fp

fp

Good article, MaryPage. The one point that stands out to me - one made by a Sergei Karaganov - is that there is now a momentum to the process of closer ties between the US and Russia - a momentum that must not be lost.. As another (former) Soviet leader rightly says, this will require a change as much in American attitudes as in Russia's.

It's somewhat ironic that while the growth of democracy and a free-market economy will meet "cultural" obstacles - so will the progress of mutual trust between these former arch enemies.

Charlie

I do not know a single Russian, but I have read a great deal about Russians and their country. I must confess I hold a soft spot in my heart for these people.

When Vladimer Putin was elected President, I was anxious because he was ex-KGB, but I was glad that the old time Stalinist candidate that was running against Putin did not win. And, for a while, I was afraid Putin didn't have much regard for women--he never mentioned his wife, nor was he photographed with her. I have decided that Putin is extremely reserved, and probably shy about appearing in public. This is just a hunch, not too much that is "personal" is written about him, or his family. I am quite sure that he speaks and understands more English than he lets on.

When we think that eleven years have passed since "the wall" fell, we assume more progress should have been made towards democratization. But, we must take into account how backward the countryside outside the cities was, and is today. This doesn't mean the rural folk are stupid, but that they have been isolated and regemented for so long, that they are hesitant to believe things can change for the better; they are fearful of putting their trust in yet another "scheme."

In the cities, crime syndicates have a choke hold on commerce. The police are riddled with corruption, government agencies are open to bribery, and ordinary people are confused and afraid about their future. The average income for working class Russians in Moscow is $120 per month, and retirees, $35 per month. That's just the folks with an income at all. Unemployment is very high, and some who are working have not been paid for months.

Ouside the cities, there is no real road system, so there is no real transportation system either. There is no real banking system in all of Russia. The telephone is a reality only for those in large cities. Computers, even in Moscow, are not the norm (40% of American households have computers.) Television has either the government line or junk programming (it was starting to blossom, but recently the government has brought back "control" to news and discussion programs by buying up the fledgling, independent stations.)

Russia today more closely resembles our western frontier when it was still trying to control lawlessness so that civil society could prosper and grow. When we were building the systems necessary to bring product to market, to finance commerce, to transfer raw materials into goods, we were more than a bit heavy handed and had our share of scandals. We Americans worked on Democracy as we went along, by fits and starts. And, we are still working on it today.

We need to make sure what we do "for" Russia, and all of Eastern Europe, is "real help," that is, if they ask for it.

HOWZAT

In order to keep my thoughts coherant I printed out both your email and the link from The Columbus Dispatch.

I certainly hope there is no turning back. Sitting in front of my TV set watching the Berlin Wall come down I remember feeling astonishment and hope.

We were stationed in Europe during the time the Berlin Wall existed and my husband flew into Berlin. We were there when the Russians invaded Czechoslavakia to put down the uprising of the people.

I remember what the base commander said at the mandatory meeting all wives had to attend upon our arrival in Germany. My husband asked me what he said and I told him it was all lies because there was no way to evacuate dependents if the Russians used nuclear arms against us.

I felt a great sense of relief when Russia seemed to be moving toward democracy. For people who lived under the old ways I think it will always be hard to concieve of democracy as we know it. Democracy is not Utopia but the closest thing we will ever know for a people to govern themselves. And as Howzat observed we are still working on it.

For the younger Russians who never knew the old way I think and hope they will push toward a more democratic society. I think Howzat expressed my own feelings well.

anna

Anna found the same cogent point I did in howzat's post # 633: That the institutions that make our society what it is are still even now a work of progress of sorts. There are times when we must be particularly sensitive to protecting the institutions that we have, and there are times when we must reevaluate them and come to terms with their meaning in our modern world. This goes to the very heart of the "culture" that creates the ideal environment for these institutions - we're pragmatic and fluid. We consider, but are wary of, the "etched in stone" School of belief.

I've always felt that the best way to look at our revered founding documents - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - was as "working" documents. Because the institutions that they initiated and protect are dynamic and evolving.
Charlie

Here is an interesting site re Vladimir Putin. It was developed by the Russian Electoral Headquarters.

V Putin

A new underground shopping center in the center of Moscow? This is amazing to me as it seems as though it were yesterday that Soviet citizens knew nothing about the west, newspapers and radio were owned by the state and the citizens had no knowledge of such things as "underground shopping centers" - and shopping itself was a disheartening experience as they had little to choose from.

Doesn't the word "Soviet" mean Council? However, I understand what that person meant when he talked about the soviet presence as "grey, untended and broken." Obviously in the backwaters of the big cities the communist party is still the party of power, but changing.

Recently I started to read a book about Turkey who also wants democracy, but doesn't know how to achieve it. We here in America do not appreciate the fact that we have always had it and do not have to create it. It must be very difficult to go from one system where you are told what to do and think to another where you have to choose. Being taught that "profit is exploitation" is unimaginable. How does one teach millions of people that is not true today when that is all they have known?

As the author says "undoing communism is a hundred times harder than establishing it."

How to privatize land? How does the government give land away? That's a question to think about. In our early days we had homesteading as one way to give land away - strange to think about the ways a government can equally privatize land.

In the other article that MaryPage cited this bears repeating: "We have to change not only Russia's attitude toward the West but Western and particularly American attitudes toward Russia," former acting prime minister Yegor Gaidar said in an interview."

But much also remains for Russia to do - e.g." A major problem is the country's primitive banking system; by and large, Russians cannot obtain mortgages, cannot withdraw money from a branch in a different city and do not trust banks enough to keep their savings there."

Seems impossible to us - and it is startling to read that the tragedy of Sept. 11 might break down many barriers to the establishment of true democracy in Russia.

Enjoyed reading all the previous posts and liked both articles, Charlie!

I've worked with numerous Russians for many years, primarily in the science disciplines, but also in the diplomatic community, and education sectors. Those with whom I have remained in professional contact are, by and large, the professionals from the Russian Space Science program and their American counterparts in the NASA program, members of the senior Russian military in the USA for educational purposes (i.e., the program at Harvard for senior officers, the Fulbright Senior Scholars Program), and some officers who are invited by American military to participate in the USA's transition programs from a military to a civilian life. The latter is particularly important to the Russians in order to avoid the temptations that Dr. Ken Arbek (a former senior Russian biochemical research scientist, now residing in Northern Virginia) spoke of in relation to "possible disappearance of anthrax spores from Russian labs."

The latter group (all men) are desperate in their attempts to survive in the Russian civilian society, which I am told by Russians, does NOT look favorably upon military officers trying to take advantage of their rank and former network connections to be successful in the civilian sector.

The many Russian women and men whom I have known , worked with, hosted for various educational programs, etc., have been enormously hard-working, assertive (often to the point of aggressive beyond the point of acceptance by American standards) and determined to succeed in their endeavors. NOTHING will stand in their way, especially if they have been fortunate enough to travel to the USA.

I remember one female academic who was in the Washington area on a 6 month grant. She refused to return to her home institution at the end of the grant period and LOCKED HERSELF IN HER OFFICE in Washington for 3 days. It was over a weekend, building security was unaware that she was still there, and it was not until the following Tuesday that she was discovered, by maintenance staff who opened her office to clean and prepare it for the next visiting occupant.

Another desperate woman (also the recipient of an educational grant), met and married an American man in the USA. She then began to systematically abuse her own body (self-inflicted cuts, bruises, etc.) so that she would be able to "prove" that he had abused her and she could file for divorce. The American husband was absolutely appalled and sought psychiatric counseling for his Russian wife.

There is a huge Russian emmigre population in the Eastern USA with a strong Russian Mafia presence. It is recognized and felt often in Ney York City, of course, but also in Washington and along the Eastern Seaboard. This is NOT the Italian Mafia, which American police and intelligence have been fighting for decades, but a much more violent and despicable influence with little or no regard for the "American way of life" other than that our freedom and democracy it suits them, makes their life easier (and discourages Russians from trying to call on American authorities for help, since "hey, I have the right to free speech, protection of my property, etc." are common refrains in American society.

I used to teach citizenship classes to Russian Jews who arrived in the Washington DC area. Many of the people were elderly and after a brief time, they RETURNED to Russia. American lifestyles can be confusing and sometimes downright frightening to those from abroad who have never experienced what we take for granted - and demand for ourselves. I always wondered how could anyone return to Russia and leave the USA, but after a few conversations, I began to understand. It takes a lot of hard work and adapting to our American-style culture to live it. American is NOT Europe; Americans are NOT Europeans. And anyone who thinks otherwise just does NOT truly understand Americans. For the elderly Russian Jews, even the promise of freedom to think and believe as they wished (and many were Jewish only because of birth and really knew nothing of Judaism per se) was "just too much;" too strange, too hard to adapt to at their age. And so they returned to their former homes.

Russian politicians are altogether a differnet breed than those we have in America. It was interesting to read an earlier post where the author mentioned the lack of personal details about President Putin, particularly any mention of his spouse or home life. Putin is NOT Gorbachev; his wife is not like the former Raisa Gorbacheva; and Putin himself is much more astute than he might SEEM on TV shots.

Make no mistake: Putin is a well trained former KGB operative and division director, who stepped out of that role to assume a political responsibility as Russia's leader at a time when rapidly deteriorating health was overtaking the previous leadership. It is best to have him as an ally (if not a true friend), than otherwise.

Mahalia again you have written a post that is informative and especially interesting to me since my ex-relative had the "agressive" attitude and thought he was being assertive. So much he couldnt comprhend in our social interaction. He was astute as to our business, banking, trade. We often had discussions about what he knew we thought was rudness and what he thought was simple interaction. He tried to explain to us that much of the way of life so intregal to us meant nothing to him or his friends or family. He felt that though he wasnt a communist nor had he ever been the best government would be A Social Democracy. I ask if he meant like the old german before ww11 and he denied that, but he seemed to think that Britain had a form of that when the Labor government was in power. So he didn't even recognize his own policy's at least by names I am familiar with.

I do not know what a genuine democracy is by the way my acquaintance talked. I dont think democracy is the market economy but he did. Because of this it was difficult to understand his attitudes towards our courts where I think our freedoms are made clear and upheld down through the times since our founding. He thought the courts were just for the punishment of criminals. I presume the judicial branch of government is very different in Russia.fp

Mahlia, I was astonished at your post. We have a Russian bride in our family. I am just about the only member of the family who has not yet met her; we keep missing one another. My cousin's son married her not long after a surprise divorce, after a visit to Russia. We were all totally surprised. Well, everyone describes her just the way you write! "enormously hard-working, assertive (often to the point of aggressive beyond the point of acceptance by American standards) and determined to succeed in their endeavors. Nothing will stand in their way...."

My young cousin has sent her, at her insistence, to get her MBA. Then she made him move to D.C., where she has a high powered job. We have all been waiting to see what comes next, because she did not need to do this. He is rich by birth, and is a lawyer to boot! We just haven't been able to figure it out! Oh, she is young and very, very beautiful. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I saw a tv show once where our Mafia got drawn into some kind of dealings with the Russian Mafia present on these shores. I cannot remember how it came out in detail, but the Russians did the dirty on our Mafia and thought they could get away before being found out. They didn't. I sort of seem to remember it was our law that told our Mafia what was going down. No! It couldn't have been! (Actually, I think it was!)

MARYPAGE - I am so proud of your bravery! Claiming THE Mafia as OUR Mafia. Way to go! LOL

Of course, it could very easily have been the American Mafia (and make no mistake, there is still such an entity alive and well in the USA), working with law enforcement AGAINST the Russian Mafia. The latter would certainly understand their own kind (regardless of ethnic or national background). These fellows understand levels of violence that woudl make even some of our most seasoned law enforcement members pale.

Your description of your family's young, beautiful and determined Russian bride sound oh, so familiar! You may have read about or seen the several TV programs during the past couple of years about the hundreds (thousands ?) of American men who have traveled to Russia (often soon after their own divorces to American women) to explore the Russian "Bride Market." Men will be men and a beautiful woman turns heads in any society! Smart, clever, determined (there's that word again!)and desperate Russian women who are unemployed or earning such pitiful amounts of money that they have absolutely no future, take advantage of "marketing ploys" or the emotional upheavals of American men (of varying ages, but usually well-to-do or at least settled in a profession with a good income, property and various assets).

On the one hand, it must be understood that the Russian women are truly desperate. On the other hand, once they marry, they become less desperate in a nanosecond and begin "working the prospects" of further education (which will, of course, make them independent of their husbands, which is particularly useful when the ultimate divorce happens - and it does by the thousands!); employment in a professional capacity; and improving their usually limited English language skills. It is NOT unheard of for Russian women to marry American men, settle here in the USA, but maintain strong relations with former boyfriends in Russia (or in some cases who have also relocated to the Eastern USA) completely without the husband's knowledge. And it is also common for married Russian women who are separated from their Russian husbands to present themselves as "single and available" to the many American men who travel to Russia to "find a wife."

The more intelligent women, obviously like your new relative, will "make a match" and continue to improve themselves professionally. But the "homeland heartache" kicks in often and many find themselves wishing their husbands spoke Russian fluently (or even a little bit), understood Russian culture better (and it is VERY different from American culture), or had a better understanding of the emotional conflicts they (the Russian wives) are undergoing.

Good luck to your relative and her husband. Not all intercultural marriages between Russian women and American men descend into chaos and unhappiness, but unfortunately a large percentage do. American men have a very hard time with Russian women's "pushiness." American women have an enormously difficult time with the "two-faced" aspect of Russian females (which is a survival tactic, pure and simple), the public "little girl" tone of voice and mannerisms of "Baby wants a lollipop," and the often physical "hanging on" to the American husband. One women I know (a retired Dean of Faculty at a major university), spoke of her NEW Russian daughter-in-law: "I'd like to slap her teeth out! She is so "cloying" in her behavior, it makes me want to gag. She's bright, intelligent, articulate and we could have such a good relationship, but she ALWAYS sounds like she needs MORE, MORE, MORE attention! She's never happy, let alone satisfied. My son runs around after her like a deranged puppy. Actually, I'd like to slap him, too." I've had several talks with the husband, who used to be one of my own students, and cautioned him that if he doesn't do something to curtail his wife's behavior in his Mother's presence, the latter is really going lose her patience and get really "up close and personal" with his Russian bride.

(and usually will simply NOT put up with it, which causes discord between the married couple) (some in marriage-oriented brothels, others in scam "romance and love" encounters, others by joining small businesses run by Russian women who travel back and forth to the USA

my mother was a russian woman.she arrived in the us in 1911.she did not like america.she said it was nekulturny ie a nation of boors compared to the czar's russia.she was preparing to go back to russia when ww1 broke out and kept her here.she met my american father,married him and reluctantly stayed lin the us dissuaded no doubt by the outbreak of the bolschevick revolution as much as by my father. my wife and i were in russia for a few weeks in 1986 and discovered that the women did all the hard work in cities like moscow kiev and leningrad while the meen generally stood around waiting for the government vodka stores to open(there were lines of men at the liquor stores that went around the block)and when iquestioned them at the sight of the women doing heavy work at a construction site near the kremlin one of them said"charoshie zhenskie rabotaute kak luhschad"that is: what good women they can work like a horse" my wife,a kansas girl born and bred ws quite unenthralled. russian women have had a very tough time of it.the nazis killed 27million russians and stalin is estimated to have killed another 30 to 40 million during his reign not making any distinction between men and women and children.the new russian woman,at least some of them,are out for what they can get without too many scruples about how.

SPIRO - I can certainly understand your Mother's disappointment and dislike of American culture. Coming from a country that has had the great historical and culture richness of Russia, as well as the enormous tragedies of war, our young country must have indeed seem uncultured. Those of us who have interacted regularly with Russian women in more recent times can appreciate (as women and professionals) the harshness of the backgrounds which many Russians have encountered.

While being personally put off by the rudeness and aggression of many of the Russian women I've encountered, I realize that the harshness of their backgrounds contributed significantly to their personality. As women, we can applaud their effort to work hard for themselves and their families, commiserate with the enormous abuse they have suffered at the hands of the government and the males within their own families, and also understand the often expressed hopelessness they feel. However, what causes a breach for many American women with whom Ive spoken about this issue during my own years of interacting with Russians is the constant tendency to try to take advantage of us (American women) as solutions for problems are offerd or financial support extended to individuals. Definitely a different mindset, based on different life's experiences. But most women I know (and myself included) enjoy a challenge and have not given up their efforts to work with Russians.

I know absolutely nothing about this, and should not give voice to an opinion. I cannot help but wonder, however, if Russian women have truly been doing all of the real work in Russia and all of the former U.S.S.R. for centuries, and I have read of this over and over again, it would make perfect sense they would now be desperate to get out of there and on to a better life. It would also tie into the fact that Russia is having such a difficult time becoming a successful democracy with a good economy. With the men unaccustomed to real work, and having had everything handed to them previously, they really would not know how to behave.

I'm still scratching my head over the concept that Democracy is the only answer to Russian success - seems to me there are several successful monarchies. And than of course the other question 'how do we measure success' - is all success measured in dollars or in big or is personal freedoms, which is how I would measure success, only available in a democracy? Has Democracy now become interchangeable with Capitalism? How does personal freedom relate to free trade, which we here in the States do not even enjoy. Does that mean we do not have personal freedom or enjoy the principals of Democracy?

Not knowing anything about the Russian legal system I am wondering, if the government essentially owns all and everyone is like a franchise owner can the government sue the franchise owner? And what recourse does the franchise owner have if the government does not live up to its contract. I understand communists do not rule but how is the government set up to provide freedom and security for the people - or is the purpose of the government only to secure national security, budget the taxes so that the government buildings and land including housing, streets and services are funded. What kind of legal system do they practice in Russia?

And what is all the 'do' over pushy woman when we seem to find all kinds of excuses for controlling and pushy men who are usually using fundamentalism as their justification.

AND, if we were talking of another culture...say, Chinese or Turkish cultures, we might be listing ways that those women were having difficulty inside our culture. So, we're really talking of diverse cultures, not just about "Russian women." Also, our culture often influences our perception. If we were French people assessing people from Russia, our conclusions might be different.

I ran into similar cultural concerns all the time doing therapy in Berkeley. If someone with a Chinese heritage walked in for therapy, I knew to spend a good amount of time talking of how difficult the decision to seek therapy was. (Many wanted their families NEVER to find out.) My goal was to do a quick suicide assessment, since emotional troubles could have reached a serious level before they would "give in" and seek help outside the family. One Chinese fellow told me, "It was either here or the police station," since he had decided to kill someone. It was one of the better one hour sessions I ever experienced, because I knew before he did (and bit my tongue to keep it to myself) that, actually, he had decided NOT to kill someone since he was sitting in my office. In about 20 minutes, he said just that. We went on to do good work together for most of the semester. He was basically a good kid, so young, under much pressure from family to do well in school, who kept everything to himself, emotions, etc. Looking at how a mix of Chinese culture and American culture impacted his life was where we began after the crisis was resolved.

betty

Generally, when 70% of any given population desires specific change, change will occur. But, not right away. Inside that 70% are all sorts of "groups" that have to come to concensus on every aspect of "the change." And, the most vital tool that all these groups need is information, good and bad, about what ever it is they want to change to. Russia does not have a free flow of information to the general public about how Democracy works.

Almost every Russian understands how markets work; Russia has a huge underground economy with product and customer quite readily finding each other. Peasants in the countryside understand markets.

But Russia's history has been heavily stacked against the general public. Before 1914 the Russian people were ruled by Czars and their extended families and hangers on. The country was mostly agricultural, with the general public being mostly peasants, a large contingent of which lived in huts with dirt floors. Illiteracy was the norm. The few large, beautiful cities were built by rich, ruling families, and the general population served the commerce generated by the rich. These cities drew artisans of every sort, and skilled craftsmen and their families, merchants and sevice people. And, eventually, a middle class, of sorts, and a stable economy was established. This process took hundreds of years, and life was hard for all but those at the top. It was brutal in the countryside.

The revolution that began in 1914, with Stalin coming out on top several years later, "changed" Russia, by force and repression and murder, from a monarchy to a dictatorship. For the next 70 years, the Russian people were subjected to regimentation of the most severe kind. Except for breathing in and out regularly, they had to get permission (after standing in line) for every thing.

But, everyone had a home, and food on the table.

Today, this "Democracy Idea" that everyone was so enthusiastic about has put the old and the young at risk--even into the streets. People with no income, or income too small to provide the basics are not only scared themselves but they are scaring others who are only slightly better off, which is a large part of the population. This fear is rippling through a society that now does not have the safety net previously provided by "The State."

So, yes, most ordinary Russians equate "Democracy" with "Economics."

HOWZAT

Where did I read that the difference between us is that "democracy means that the government depends on the people for their power while living under a monarchy or communism means the people depend on the government"? What was Ayn Rand's description of socialism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need."

MARYPAGE - to be completely fair, I have also met a lot of hardworking Russian men, although they have been among the upper echelons of Russian scientists. In talking with colleagues at NIH, (several of whom have spent long periods in Russia in recent years)we discussed the enormous negative impact on Russian society caused by alcoholism. The data are truly frightening when translated down to the "man/woman on the street" who are unable to work. In talking with younger Russian professionals, they speak of female older relatives (especially mothers and aunts) in terms that keeps bringing the word "drudge" to my mind.

I don't think that American-style democracy works in Russia, since our idea of freedom of government means that the citizens have a strong voice (and thus some control) over elected officials and how they represent us at the local, state and national levels. This is NOT the case in Russia. Sure, there is corruption in government everywhere and the USA tends to weed out the bad representatives. But it is NOT as pervasive as in Russia's government, where officials who were not so long ago Communists have simply changed their public persona, while keeping up their old connections.

Although the USA is in the midst of a horrific recession with extremely high numbers of unemployed in many sectors, we still have a sense of economic honesty (some may NOT think of Wall Street in this context!), which is absolutely NOT present in Russia. To function in a democracy, there must be assurances of some sense of stability and safety; that the elected or appointed officials will stay in touch with their constituents and represent them fairly or face being kicked out of office or having the TV and print journalists show up at their doorsteps. American investors whom I've talked to in recent years range from agricultural-related CEO's, representatives of well established high tech corporations and much more recent small business owners (many from the scientific community) and major franchise representatives.

ALL of the people with whom I've discussed business ventures in Russia in the past 4 years have been initially excited and optimistic about their efforts to develop business relations. However, in follow-up conversations, they have indicated that their initial enthusiasm was quickly blunted by the absolute archaic way of conducting business among the government leadership (often "back-room" type controls so out of touch with modern business practices as to be absolutely "unreal"), as well as the out and out untruthfulness of government representatives working directly with the Americans or through second or third parties. And for the Americans of Russian background or those who speak fluent Russian, it is often worse, since they are expected to "give in a little bit more" since they "understand" what is really happening in Russia.

I have two Russian friends who are loyal to their mother country. Both are very proud of the schooling there but at the same time, they feel that better opportunity abounds here in the US.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that at this very moment, Saudi Arabia is dickering with Russia about not selling their oil at too cheap a price to the world. Seems Russia offered their oil to us just in case OPEC withheld or raised the price per barrel while we are all fighting terrorism. Why does no one mention that this war is very much about OIL availability!!

Ann I have an idea that people are afraid where that thought will go_oil availability_ just when we have a Bush back in office. It seems so disloyal, so politically incorrect, doesnt it. Not that I am saying it is ...I am not..I am just expressing why it is not discussed on tv or in the press.

I have heard on one or two discussion groups this though expressed and the moderaters will not take it up. There is a call in show on Tv cspan I think where some one asks your question of the "experts" on the show and so far no one will discuss oil in regard to this bombing action in Afganistan. They just naturally say that we are fighting Terrorism, which we are, and going after the organization that blew up our WTC and killed 5,600 people, which we are. fp

Oil -- OK. But I still maintain this is about the drug trade and now both the leader of Iran and the new President of Peru agree that terrorism and drug trafficking are linked at the hip. I've shared several times in different discussions the financing of Britain has been through drugs, many of our most distinguished wealthy families either added to or received their wealth from drug trade which includes off-shore money laundering banks which is the connection for the Bush family. While George Bush Sr. was in the CIA the Castle Bank was where the government laundered drug money that financed other operations. Banking connections goes back to Preston Bush, the father of George Bush Sr.

ANN & FAITH My sense of Saudi Arabia's concern with the Russian offer of oil to the West is that since the Saudi revenues have taken a serious nose-dive recently, the Kingdom is seriously worried. Hence, if another source of oil at reasonable prices (is there such a thing when it comes to oil?)is made available, it will drain the Saudi resources even more. Of all the Gulf region, the Saudis are the last of the pack to thoroughly understand that they absolutely MUST change their thinking on this and other issues. The traditionally ultraconservative thinking is so deeply entrenched that it will take some time for the Saudi leadership (if it is not soon overthrown) to make the necessary changes. The Saudi Foreign Minister's visit to the USA is a sure signal that the leadership realizes that "something" must be done, but not sure quite what. It's a very complex issue.

In the meantime, the Russians have every right (and as good business sense demands) to offer alternative means to the West for obtaining oil. The Caspian route has been one such venture with alot of corruption thrown in from the nearby NIS regions, but if it's feasible, it will eventually come to light. The exploration for vast oil reserves off the Northern China coast continues (with little if any notice being given in the Western press).

As far as the politics of discsusing the oil issue simultaneously with the response to terrorism, it is "just a Washington thing" not to do so. Yes, indeed, it is MAJOR politics, but so far Washington has been able to keep a lid on this topic in the press. Make no mistake: it is a very important consideration - one that is causing Saudi Arabia to twist into knots at the thought of competition from the Russians. China is also watching this issue very carefully, espcially now that they have achieved membership in the WTO. Regarding Bush and oil: it's been a very long time since the issue of oil belonged only to the Texans!

Chechnya (Sp?) has lots of oil. One of the reasons Russia invaded Afghanistan is they wanted a puppet government in Afghanistan. The Russians wanted to build an oil pipeline across that country in order to have an easier route to deliver oil for export from the Chechnyan region. The Russians still want to build that pipeline.

HOWZAT

About the oil connection and the drug connection, well, there is another connection as well, and it connects those 2 and the terrorists and the ultra-rich tax haters.

It has been written up in THE WASHINGTON POST, but not much ballyhooed, that the Clinton administration requested the banking firms who engage in "off shore banking" to supply our government's terrorist unit with a list of all off-shore depositers. The only purpose was to identify and track the money trail financing terrorist activities. It is perfectly true we might have stopped them in their tracks to begin with if we could have stopped the flow of funds. Well, the Bush administration at first agreed with the request, per the POST article. Then the big money that had contributed to the Bush campaign in order to get him to lower taxes made howling protests. Their names would be on those lists! They put BIG MONEY in those off-shore banks in order not to have to pay taxes on it! The NERVE! We of small funds have to shut up and pay our full share of taxes! They demand huge tax cuts AND hide their money to avoid paying ANY taxes on it! It boggles the mind, it does! And we are calling Russian politics and business corrupt! Look Homeward, Angels!

Well most of the people who talk with me about Russia do not call their politics corrupt. Oh they talk of the Russian Mafia and I am sure the old underground blackmarket that operated throughout communist ruled USSR did turn into the criminal ring known now as Russian mafia. There is no doubt that the drug money from all over the world has helped finance the terrorists. But what Russia offered to discuss was a straightforward deal. It involved selling oil to U.S. and the building of the Afganastan pipeline to transport oil to ports. The pipe line of neccessity would be part of those talks. Oil people from all over the world have to be in some kind of agreement for any of this to take place. The world of finance is as much if not more intertwined than the world of politics. Seems like a Nation does not have as much effect anymore as a Board of Directors of a Multinational Corporation. fp

I enjoyed Mr Oldequist's writeup. Hey folks, they are trying to catch up to us but they have a ways to go. The neophyte Russian democracy is still learning how to hide the bumbling ineptness of their internal corruption from the eyes of their constituents. Just give them a decade or two and they might prove to be as adept in deceit as any one of our major power driven corporations and cartels.

I have really enjoyed reading the comments on this topic. A while back Charlie mentioned our treasured US documents that set the foundation of our democracy. Russia does not have such a set. I spent April/May of this year in Gorno-Altaisk, a city of 50,000 in the Altai Republic, as a Rotary International Volunteer teaching English. This area is in southern Siberia. I might add that it was an incredible place with amazing people. But I definitely have some thoughts on Russia.

I was told time and time again that life was hard, is hard and will be hard. Other than a somber demeanor out there on the street, it looked to me that Russia was doing okay. But in visiting with people and my students I learned a lot. It sounds to me like the Russians had heard of democracy and saw what it was doing in some other countries and thought, why not, let's give it a try. So they have, but they have no foundation, no infrastructure, no clue as to what it is all about. No nation mentored them, they were left to what they thought it was all about. I might add that democracy as we know it here in the US is definitely not for everyone in this world. Other nations can have good political systems that work in a whole different way.

Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous, in my opinion.

I would encourage any of you to visit Russia, particularly the smaller cities.

I had an interesting situation - on my return back through Moscow I made arrangements for a 4 hour tour so that I could see the "big" sights. I was thrilled and very excited to be in Moscow. My guide and driver couldn't get over this enthusiasm and joy that I had. They discussed it in Russian between themselves. Later my guide told me of the conversation and they had decided that the reason I was so happy was the my government would not let me down. I heard that and said no way, that has nothing to do with my emotional state. And yet it has hung over my head and I have done a lot of thinking about it. I thought about my security and freedoms in this country. 9/11 occurred and my naive eyes were opened to my government. Yes, we have handled a lot of that situation well, but I am amazed that an event of that magnitude could not have been sleuthed out before it was executed along with this whole anthrax business and how little we know about it and its dimensions. I guess I depended on the government to know about these things.

Enough from me...Kathy

loselbern your right. I am sure that our first administration were not anywhere near as adept as they now are at the deceit game but also at the robbing peter to pay paul through taxation game. Of course the constiuents themselfs were not demanding that the government be so paternalistic as they want now in this millinium. Despite the fact that we have had the same constitution for 225 with its few amendments, we are not the same type of country that we were when this democratic Republic was founded. I would lay odds that given 225 years the Russian people will find it's way (along with the rest of the world) to new and interesting hybreds of democratic type government.I would hope it is a great deal sooner for the sake of the general populas of Russia.fp

Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush. I've been ruminating for a couple of weeks on what it is, exactly, that I think is so promising about these two. They fit together well and, depending on my mood, the reasons for the good fit are not very complimentary to either, or the reasons are, surprisingly, complimentary. Maybe it's as simple as a random fit, just one of those unexplainable fits.

Speaking of Bush, would someone PLEASE, Laura Bush, ANYONE, PLEASE tell Bush it is NOT "Nuk.u.lar." Nuclear is pronounced just as it is spelled..."Nu.cle.ar." Every time he says Nuk u lar, I want to SCREAM!!

betty

Betty, well at least he calls Prince Charles by his correct name, the "Prince of Wales," instead of like Dan Rather does, "The Prince of Whales?"

Listen some time? It was particularly awful during Diana's death and funeral reporting.

ginny

"Tear-ist" is the one that gets to me.

KATHY - It was good to see your post. I've looked for you in the TRAVEL folder, thinking that you would check back in after your sojourn in Siberia. I've been receiving a lot of email from Russian friends and colleagues since Sept. 11th (several of whom are military officers getting ready to retire and are frightened about what awaits them int he civilian sector). Whenever you care to do so, I'd really like to hear more about your venture in Siberia - perhaps not in this discussion, but elsewhere. My husband and I have been invited to teach in St. Petersburg and we are "considering it."

You're absolutely correct in your comments about Russia not having the infrastructure or full understanding about American democracy. And our type of democracy certainly does NOT work well in all other countries. I've seen that first hand in my own travels and postings abroad.

Hey Charlie - what's wrong with a little Texas enunciation! LOL

Nuthin' really, ma'am. I second your sentiments re Kathy Hill. Good to see her around again!

I live in a comunity that has about 30 Russian familys. Out of 160, that is a pretty high percentage. They are never a problem and good neighbors.

Ginny.. do you still have all those dogs and a cat??

dapph

No, no, Charlie. It's not tear-ist that is so bad. He says, "Tare," as in, "We won't stand for that tare." And, ahem, saying "nukular" isn't just Texas pronunciation.

betty

In an article that appeared in yesterday's Miami Herald, columnist Leonard Pitts takes on the Attorney General. John Ashcroft has determined it necessary to pursue Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, using as his attack point the issue of distribution of controlled substances. Oregon's Act, one of the few like it anywhere in the world, has been a source of controversy since it was passed by the citizenry in 1988.

Now let me admit that I have cast a wary eye on Mr. Ashcroft since his elevation to the Top Cop job in the Bush administration. Let me also admit that I have always had particular trouble with the anti-big government philosophe who sees no irony in telling others what very personal decisions they can and cannot make.

In Destiny of dying patients isn't attorney general's turf, Mr. Pitts questions Ashcroft's rationale in attempting to limit individual rights in this way. What about you? Does anyone have "any business" interfering in a decision so personal as this? Reasonable people can certainly disagree on this one. Let's hear from you.

Charlie

Charlie---I love the portraits that you (or someone else, perhaps??) is choosing for our weekly discussions. Bravo.

I think I'm going to enjoy reading this article. Seems to me that Mr. Ashcroft managed to sneak something through when we all thought that he was dealing with terrorists (tare-ists) day and night. The man has an agenda. Will read article tomorrow.

Yep. That gnaws at me too. I fear John is furiously at work on other things, even as he "fights terrorism."

[and thanks re the portraits - it's amazing how many there are on the "subject"]

I have strong feelings in support of the Oregon law. My only problem with it is that it is extremely limited. What if someone has a chronic extremely painful ailment which is likely to kill them two or three years down the road? Why must they wait until the last 6 months to find relief? For most of this country's years, doctors discretely helped patients with a little higher doses of drugs which let them slip away peacefully when it seemed appropriate to the patient and the doctor. It has only been since the age of law suits, life-extending machines, etc. that doctors have had their hands tied in this regard. They also used to be able to help terribly demaged or deformed infants by not feeding them, etc. to prevent their miserable and very expensive lives from being very long. It was all part of the doctor's job. Now we keep the severely head injured folks (like my son) alive to spend several years in wheelchairs in nursing homes, etc. even when they ask to die, at great expense of health care hours and resources. To me, the Oregon law has only made a small dent in the limits put on doctors, patients and their families.

Politicians, etc. who fight such a basic freedom are almost always using their religious beliefs to control other people. They are the same ones who want no abortions but don't want any welfare for unwed mothers.

I live with chronic pain of severe arthritis at one level or another and still find life good. Some years down the road I may not. Why should the religious beliefs of someone I never met in Washington decide whether I have to keep living at taxpayers' expense and in great discomfort? I believe I will know when I can still enjoy enough about living to want to stick around and when I can't.

Charlie this certainly upset me. Oregon had this fight for a long time and finally got the bill passed that allows a terminally ill patient the right to decide for herself when and how she would like to leave this life. It doesnt matter one bit that I don't like having this law and would not have voted for it. They did want it in Oregon, and now the federal government is meddling in state business again.

I think Mr. Pitts make his case against the Attorney General very well. "John Ashcroft is no better equipped than I to make end of life decisions for another person." said Mr. Pitts

Of course this is why I would not vote for such a bill. It leads to more and more legislation in order to meet everyones expectations of what is fair, right, moral, ethical etc and on ad infinitume...and as in Sweden every death decision is now sort of a board of directors directive.

I am like Mr. Pitts in that I could not tell you sitting here relatively comfortable this evening how I feel about this question and I change my mind about the issue everytime it arises. My personal feelings regarding the legislation I mean, and would I vote for a similiar bill or not. Still I am definitely of the opinion that the federal government should stay out of a states right to have such a law by the will of the states population. Faith

Some of the fears of those who opposed this Oregon law and voted "No" proved to be false. Throngs of people did not thoughtlessly sign up to die. After the law had been in place for only a few years (was it 2? 3? can't remember), a detailed report was published, leaving out names. It's been a while since I read this, but the total for one year was 2 and some similarly low number for each year listed.

Another fear was that doctors would be forced to do something against their conscience and ethics. In the report, one personal physician was uncomfortable, so he helped the patient find a physician who was willing to write the prescription...I think it was a colleague, someone the patient already knew, if I remember correctly.

Another story concerned a family member who was initially against the decision, but slowly came around. This family member lived far away, unlike closer family who understood right away. Two or three stories were of patients who went through the two-physician diagnosis of less than 6 months to live, then changed their minds.

A poignant story was about the woman who had fought hard, publically, to get the bill passed, but who died without using it. This was already a public story. I lived there during that time and remember reading wonderful newspaper essays she wrote. The importance of the law, she said, was that it was there IF SHE NEEDED IT. Before her death from a long, chronic disease, she wrote that she did not plan to use the new law, but she wanted it in place in case it became necessary....for herself or for others.

betty

Only the other day, George Bush, in a sound bite on television, said ". . . I know I sure wouldn't want somebody coming to my state and telling me what to do." I forget now what this was in reference to. Well, evidently, it's okay for his attorney's general to (figuratively) go out to Oregon and tell them what to do.

My son, 43, had terminal lung cancer, and the cancer had spread to his brain. The radiation and chemotherapy made him so sick that, if it hadn't been for marijuana, he wouldn't have been able to eat at all. Ashcroft has also told Californians they can't dispense marijuana for medicinal purposes, like they voted to do. We don't live in California. My son's friends got him the marijuana illegally, bless their hearts.

When it was obvious that none of the therapies would stop the cancer, and when he was taking so much morphine it made him vomit, my son decided he would die early. He told us that he loved us, that he loved living, that he thought it wasn't fair that the cancer was robbing him of a normal life span, but that the quality of his life was so poor he just didn't want to live it any longer. My son made his will, and cleared up things that he didn't want to leave undone.

With his brother and sister, and his grandfather and I around his bed, my son (illegally, we don't live in Oregon either) took the pills that ended his life. We sat vigil until the end.

It has been over three years. It is no easier for his brother or his sister or his grandfather or his mother to live on without him--he was such a wonderful person. But none of us would have had him suffer any longer.

I agree with Ben, it seems we used to have more common sense.

HOWZAT

As we in Canada watched (on TV) Sue Rodriguez fight for the right to doctor-assisted suicide and get turned down over and over again, I couldn't help but think to myself 'what a stupid government and what stupid laws they have enacted'. Later when I was diagnosed with tumours on my liver (they turned out to be benign) I decided that if it was terminal, I'd make one, and only one, request for a doctor-assisted death and WHEN (not if) it was refused, I'd make my living so costly to the government that they'd be glad to end my life for me. Sue fought so long that by the end she was unable to move and that left her completely at the mercy of the authorities. She only proved that her (the legal) method was innefective. It was heartrending to see that beautiful and strong-willed lady becoming more and more helpless as she pleaded for a decent death and being turned down repeatedly.

I, too, have very strong feelings about AG Ashcroft's view on such personal decisions as when one wishes to terminate one's own life. Surely, there are matters much more important to the security and well-being of this country than this. I want his efforts put toward the terrorists, those who are in his country illegally for criminal reasons, those who are running crime networks be they US citizens or whatever. In my view he needs to stay out of the patient-physician relationship.

As Ben notes here earlier, the Oregon law is too limited, in my view.

When I took a directive for care to my physician some years ago and stated emphatically my wishes verbally, his response was to the effect that we in small towns are more fortunate in this regard than many in large cities and large city hospitals where "Boards" and whatever get into decisions over people and families they do not know.

I knew a woman who stockpiled her pills so that she would have a choice of when the pain became too bad. [Doctors and the politicans can talk of pain management all they wish...they aren't there yet!] How sad to have to deny oneself the pain management now in fear that it may be needed to end it all. She fretted about what if she didn't take enough and ended up in a coma and a vegetable. I don't believe people should have those worries when they're dying.

Reading this article has prompted me to email my US Congress people to tell them how much I disapprove of AG Ashcroft's "mission." This is a gross intrusion into the private business of both individuals and the states. AG Ashcroft is out of line on both counts.

Thanks, Charlie!

š jane›

Howzit's family demonstrated wonderful generosity and wisdom when they supported their son in following through with his decision to die. The decision to continue living or not can never be successfully legislated - it's a decision made in the deepest personal core of a human being. It's simply NOBODY else's business. Not even Ashcroft's, misled as he may be on this issue.

I find myself very much in agreement with Mr. Pitts, even tho' my personal beliefs would not include taking my own life. To paraphrase his words, I am not about to start bragging about what I would do until I have been there, and done it!

More importantly, those like myself who want to trust God to the last cannot tell another person how much they can endure. I would never want to see someone I love suffering greatly. I would find it easier to endure the suffering myself. And I consider a deliberate prolonging, by artificial means, of such suffering, to be criminal! Preventing a natural death is as much an interference as causing an assisted death.

I wonder if Mr. Ashcroft has ever had to deal with the issue on a personal level? ...Babi

CHARLIE: Thanks for bringing this article to our attention. As was ably said by someone who posted before -- I would not have known about this if it weren't for this article.

I agree with all who have posted. The federal government has no business interfering with the will of the voters of the State of Oregon. This was a heavily contested vote. There would certainly have been good voter turnout over this issue. I can not imagine that anyone could argue this is not the will of the people of Oregon.

Luckily, up until now, I have not had to watch a loved one struggle with the pain of the kinds described in other posts. My heart goes out to those of you who have had that experience. Maybe I need to move to a small town before I get old and ill so that I have access to the kind of treatment JANE describes.

I don't think it is up to me to insist that someone else's pain is or is not bearable. It is not my place to tell someone else how to die when they are very ill or severely injured. It is certainly not the job or the time for the Attorney General to be interfering with a valid election in the State of Oregon on "trumped up" grounds.

Marjorie

Right on Mr. Pitts - I recall all the snafu over Ashcroft's religious views when he was being 'OKed' for his position. He and his supporters went to great lengths promising the American public through the Congressional process that he was an upstanding very Christian man who knew to hold his personal views in check - our problem is we believed a politician who wants 'the' position.

We still have not developed the behavior of emailing, writing, phoning our representatives, raising a hue and cry when we learn the history of how someone served in the past, demanding more balanced leadership. We say to ourselves, Oh the president won the election, let him have the people surround him that he wants.

This administration leans to the Christian Right and is very aggressive getting around road blocks in order to do what they think needs to be done without, as they say, looking at or taking a pulse of the nation offered through poles. When what they accomplish pleases us - all is fine - when it does not please us - they are like a run-away train. How many of us realize the week following 9/11 Medicare was sold to an HMO. Look on the back pages of the New York times that week and you will see the article.

Politics unfortunatly has little to do with personal feelings, Ashcroft's or our own. It is not only about having the numbers to sway but the legal knowledge to road block or push forward an agenda.

This issue hits many buttons - the political, our own philosophy of life and death, religious views, personal versus societies view, fears for the future (that slippery road), legal, States Rights. I would think 'the pursuit of happiness' needs to be qualified because if the constitution is obligating this government to provide a structure based on that premise than, do we or don't we agree that personal freedom means the freedom to choose our death without legal and social ramifications for our families.

I have spent the last 40 years of my life alleviating pain and anguish of dying persons. Many times I have held their hands as they cross that last bridge to the "hereafter" sharing their final decisions and wishes. Therefore, my own personal views are strong re. this issue. I am definitely in oppostion to my zealous, Baptist preacher sons Christian opinion and we dispute this point often. I unequivocably disagree with any politician who enacts legislation regarding this personal, individual dilemma. Who do they think they are? They or one that they love should be saying, "there but for the grace of God, go I." These precarious decisions do not belong in the political arena . This is an area that my dogma can not be penetrated by some fast talking politico.

good for you Alf - I totally agree.

Since I live with chronic pain, I have completed a "Living Will" and filed copies of it at my doctor's office, and with my immediate relatives. This states my wishes that no life-sustaining procedures are to be used if my condition becomes terminal. This is only a partial solution to the problem since it does not guarantee doctor-assisted death, but it does make it clear what I want done if there's any doubt in anybody's mind. I also keep a gun, but that will only work if I'm still able to use it. This all sounds rather morbid, and I'm not really a morbid person, but I believe that everybody has the right to make decisions about his life and his death.

Some of you might be interested in going to the SeniorNet Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide discussion to see what people who are going through, or have gone through, decision-making about this have to say. It is located in the Social Issues folder. To find that, go to the SeniorNet RoundTables discussions page by clicking the link just below this message board and click the link, or click the link below.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Shasta:

Because of polio when I was a child, various injuries over the years and arthritis, I have had pain day and night for a long, long time. I've carried a Living Will in my wallet for over twenty years, and all of my kids know my wishes.

Mal

I live in a building that houses only seniors 60 years of age and older. The average age of the residents here is 82, so it gives you an idea of the overall attitude of our neighbors. Every single resident here has a Directive, or "Living Will" pasted on his or her kitchen cupboard door, along with lists of medications and phone numbers of whom to call, etc. If there were a way to post a desire to have assisted termination, that desire would be posted there, too, and I think I can say with certainty that it would be unanimous.

When my sister, whom I loved dearly, was on dyalysis and suffering also from other painful symptoms, would beg me to help her end it all whenever I visited her, I would come home and weep. I could have done it, I knew how, and I have always wondered deep inside how long I could have kept saying no. She knew her children would never even consider such a thing, and she was right. She died, after suffering a great deal, a year ago, but I still find myself questioning whether I would have had the guts to go through with it if she hadn't died.

Lorrie

I think so many professionals have convinced us that those wanting death are either depressed or not really with it - that coupled with our own desire to preserve life and strong training 'Thou shalt not kill' makes doing anything to help preserve the dignity of death without pain difficult. I wonder though, there are probably many a vet. who could help - on the battlefield I bet there were times gratefully but with difficulty they brought death to those dying in excruciating pain.

I remember posting for awhile in the discussion on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and learning that it didn't matter what your wishes were nor where they were written or who in your family was instructed to see that your wishes are carried out, the decisions is taken out of your hands by the nurse on duty and the philosophy of the hospital which 9 out of 10 times is to maintain life even by machine or drip. They are more concerned with being sued than maintaining your written wishes. Lesson to learn - stay or go home.

Of course the other side of this coin which makes it all so confusing is that no one from the Death Camps ever asked to die or asked a fellow prisoner to help them die. Sobering - and so I do not know what to think but I do agree each of us should have the right to make that choice.

Regarding some discussion about oil prior to to post #670:

http://www.practicalradical.net/followthemoney.html

There is a whole list of interesting aricles there.

And here is one going all the way back to May about giving money for not growing poppies. Perhaps the money we are chasing is our own.

http://www.midwestacademy.com/Comment/bush.html

Lorrie, Lorrie, I've been looking for your name, wondering where you were. Well, here you are! Glad to see you! Something going on with you I didn't know about?

Such a touching story of your sister. The part about what she was asking....the more I think about this, the clearer I am about how each person must honor the voice inside. That is each person, the doctor, the patient, the family member. No doctor should be forced to prescribe; no patient should be forced to live or die; no family member should be required to do something against an inner voice. Family members shouldn't be put in this role, anyway. Physicians should be.

Lorrie, despite the ambivalence beforehand....well, I'm thinking of what I've said often enough and deeply believe..."You'll know what to do when the moment arrives." Maybe years from now, when everyone has had time to more openly discuss this, people can learn that there is nothing wrong with a family member saying, no, I won't be able to help you do that. That's why I believe this should be in the hands of physicians and patients, with proper safeguards, as in Oregon.

Barbara, I have read the same thing....that one has a 50/50 chance of a hospital honoring written directives. I also believe that this kind of information is easy to gather (time consuming, but easy), that it is possible to find a hospital that prides itself in including families in holistic care, listening to patients wishes, honoring written directives.

Ideally, you can call each major medical center in your area, each hospice organization and say, "Send me your institution's materials on end-of-life issues and the statistics you keep." Then ask what system is in place for families they have served to be available to answer questions from families to be served. Comparing written material from one place to the next will offer SOME comparison. Asking questions of Hospice should provide better information. Asking your physician for an assessment of the hospital's past compliance with written directives might be good.

I've given thought to contacting an attorney BEFORE the whole process. This might be a good option in a city with only one hospital. I'm thinking of a letter to the hospital on an attorney's letterhead asking for compliance. I've given thought to asking a brother well ahead of time to help me implement a personal system....such as signature sheets that HE carries around to each nurse, doctor, medical director, saying, in effect, that she/he intends to comply with the attached written directives...sign here, here, and here, initial here, here. I've thought of using a permanent ink "DNR" (do not resusitate) somewhere on my body that will be seen by a medical person, but located in a tolerable position. A nightshirt with "do not resusitate" across the collar bone area? A necklace with two-inch high letters? I've thought about this a lot.

betty

Mr Pitts is one of my favorite columnists and always write a sane and intelligent opinion..And he doesnt fail me this time either.

Over the many decades I have lived I have seen dying change drastically. When I was a child people did not go to the hospital to die..yes people died there but they didnt go for that purpose. They went with idea they could be helped to live. When they couldnt be helped they returned home to die or never went to the hospital in the first place.

My father, my father in law, and my husband died at home in their own beds. They were made as comfortable as medicine would allow ( morphine) They were terminal ( although that is a fairly new term) and no one suggested the best place for them was a hospital.

My sister in law plus any number of other family members, and friends in later years ended up in hosptals, hooked up to (life saving equipment? ) none of which could save their lives regardless of how long they were on the machine. To me that is cruel and medical torture.

I know unless you have a Living Will ( since it tells what you wish if you are dying that seems an odd thing to call it ) and with you if 911 is called they will resuscitate ( by law they have to) or if taken to an ER the same thing. You almost need someone there with you to defend your wishes.

When my husband wished to die at home I was called by the office nurse and his doctor to encourage me to consider putting him in a hospital for his last days. I was told that when the time came I would call 911...I didnt but even then I had to pick up a red do not resuscitate sign to be posted in our bedroom where it could be seen and a bracelet with medical information. I did post the sign to remind me how intrusive laws have become. I did not put the bracelet on because I knew no one would call 911.

My personal opinion is NOTHING should be done in a hospital to prolong a terminal illness that could not be done at home without all the equipment hospitals have. IF you cant do it at home then you shouldnt do it in a hospital and I think it is the duty of medical personnel to do not only what the patient wants but what the patient deserves. Compassion and understanding that life does end and the kinder we can make it makes us truly civilized. Everyone deserves a gentle departure. It isnt always possible but it certainly should be our aim. I am not talking about taking a life here but helping the dying to do so with some degree of dignity .

What was done to the loved ones I spoke of was neither kind or dignified. And certainly not gentle.

anna

This is causing me to re-think some of my beliefs about this. I have thought that God is in charge and suffering is a way of getting closer to Him and readying us for the life beyond - purifying our soul. Reading your posts here causes my husband and me to consider re-organizing our thoughts. We just watched a show on C-Span about it a few minutes ago. The moderator sited an article by Ellen Goodman:

Ashcroft's Odd Targets

Linda

Great article as were some of the others available to read on that site. The Ashcroft one though does make you blood boil doesn't it as we see power having gone to ones head and to be in a position of power that affects the dying.

If you saw CNN's "Beneath the Veil" you will want to see the sequel tonight at 8:00 PM Eastern - "Unholy War". The gal who went to Afghanistan before to do her first filming has gone back for more!

CNN's UNHOLY WAR

I have another link about more of what Ashcroft is doing...

http://www.sptimes.com/News/111501/Opinion/Ashcroft_s_unlawful_r.shtml

Linda---Thanks for those links to other articles on Ashcroft. I thought this man would cause trouble but I never dreamed that he would use a terrible situation as a distraction as he went about his task. He bears watching.

My television schedule shows the program CNN Presents (which is the one that's supposed to show Unholy War?) coming on at 10 pm tonight, Saturday, on cable in the Dallas-Ft Worth area. Thank you Hairy for bringing it to my attention. I only wish I had seen the first one that Shah did. I didn't realize that CNN had "programs", I thought it was all news. HOWZAT

They might show Beneath the Veil again. Watch for it in your TV section in your paper. They did have it on at 2PM Eastern today even.

Here is another article about Civil Rights from Salon. I haven't subscribed to the "Premium" news there so only the first part of the article shows up, but you get the general idea:

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/11/16/rights/index_np.html

It's entitled "Bush's Jihad Against Civil Rights."

Linda

One part of this whole issue we have avoided is the cost (very often to taxpayers) of prolonging life when it isn't chosen by the patient. This may seem a crude point to make, but it is certainly part of the picture. I am not saying anyone should be killed to save money (our society doesn't condone such thinking, let alone expressing such thoughts) but since my son's eight long years of half-life in a nursing home, which came after several hundred thousand worth of intensive care and hospital "rehab", I have often wondered how much is spent in medical and maintenance money in just such situations. Couldn't we make much better use of our health care workers, facilities, and dollars?

Oh, another thought: Why do doctors have such a difficult time understanding that chronic pain has many symptoms in common with their list of symptoms for depression, but they are NOT the same thing because they have an obvious reason and are not a chemical problem within the brain. I have had a change in mood, lack of my old patience, trouble sleeping, less inclination to go anywhere, gain in weight, etc., etc. since I developed arthritis. Am I depressed? No way, because I can still get excited over making plans, doing things and being with people, it is just that it takes me so long and causes so much extra discomfort to get dressed, walk as fast as others, etc. Of course people whose joints hurt don't sleep as well and those who must get up to take pills sometime during the night will have interrupted sleep. Am I tired all the time? (One of the depression check list questions.) Sure. Pain is tiring and pain pills slow me down and make me doze off easier. So what?

The last doctors I have had over these 12 years have all wanted to treat for anything they can deal with better than osteoarthritis, which tends to leave them frustrated. I don't want to be treated for anything else. I just want the medical establishment to find some ways to fix these failing joints like they do bad teeth.

I wonder what Ashcroft's attitude would be if he were in the last stages of a terminal illness that caused him a great deal of pain and great distress to his family?????

Ben, have you tried Fosamax for osteoarthritis? I used it for a while and my bone density tests showed some real improvement. But Fosamax has to be taken on an empty stomach, and it caused me so much stomach distress that I had to discontinue it. People who are able to tolerate it report significant benefit.

Benjamin makes a very cogent point when he says: "For most of this country's years, doctors discretely helped patients with a little higher doses of drugs which let them slip away peacefully when it seemed appropriate to the patient and the doctor. It has only been since the age of law suits, life-extending machines, etc. that doctors have had their hands tied in this regard." I have heard this same thought expressed over and over - there are two nurses in my wife's family - one an oncology nurse who says, as does Alf, much the same thing. As Ben says, these types of decisions have been made quietly and privately for years. It seems that advances in medicine, the ability to prolong life have also brought with it questions of ethics that physicians are increasingly reluctant to deal with, for legal and moral reasons alike.

It sounds like Faith would make a better attorney general than John Ashcroft (i.e., putting personal beliefs on hold in the name of the law and the will of the people.)

Charlie

Normally I'd think that a lot of keeping a terminally ill person alive as long as possible would be in the financial interest of whatever hospital that person happened to be in (your medical system in the U.S.) but they do the same thing up here in Canada where no one profits and where there are waiting lists of people wanting to occupy the hospital bed that the terminally ill person is filling. As Mr Spock would say 'It's simply not logical'.

I also notice that the same people who made 'liberal' sound like a bad word are doing the same with the word euthanasia. Personally,in my mind, they're both 'good' words. It's also these same people who claim that 'all life is sacred' as their reason for being anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia but the evidence is to the contrary. If all life were really sacred to them, they be chipping in a few pennies each and saving millions of destitute children in the world's poorer countries, but, they don't do that - the reason they're against abortion and euthanasia is because they don't want anyone else doing something that conflicts with their belief systems i.e. 'my god doesn't allow me to do that so you'd better not be able to do that either'. They're also the same people who, during the Reagan years, cut off some forms of foreign aid to third-world countries who were handing out condoms to their poor in order to lower the birth rates, lower the abortion rates and lower the AIDS rate.

While in general I support the idea of a person being able to select the time of his or her death, I also realize that euthanasia must be very carefully hedged in with safeguards to prevent abuse. There are literally millions of Americans (not to mention other nationalities) who would more than willingly put their old parents to sleep just to get their money. No, I do not exaggerate. Observe yourself and your friends carefully and you will note that the prospect of coming into a large sum of money (however large is defined) does very strange things to us all. Greed is a powerful and insidious evil that lurks in everybody. It can spring up unexpectedly and make us do things that we would never have suspected ourselves capable of.

Careful, Careful, Careful with this mercy killing thing. It is very dangerous and shaky ground.

JERRYJ - There is a lot more risk with families being allowed to make life and death decisions than with the patient and doctor having that right, for just that reason - greed. Terrible to say this, but I have thought three or four times about whether I want my oldest daughter as such a decision maker if I am unable. I trust her implicitly on financial decisions (she is an accountant) but the decisions over health care might leave her more confused and tempted. (Of course, as much as I have lost in the market the last year or so, I shouldn't worry any more about the greed factor.) Still, I would rather die a little sooner than way too late in one of those prolonged, expensive situations, partially just to leave a little more for my family to put to use. Seems like dying might be a smidge easier if I was thinking about a great granddaughter getting to go to college or somesuch concept.

Regarding Mr. Ashcrofts interference in States Rights he has also stopped, and is continuing to try to stop, California from using its new law allowing marijuana for medical purpose's. He won't let you have pain relief and he wont let you die. We in my group feel he is way out of control in his office and has other plans in his agenda one being abortion rights. You will see him try to get a court reversal of Roe vs Wade. Now my personal opinions regarding any of these laws are not pertinent to my feelings that he is trying to federalize our state courts. I think everyone in each state should beware because even if it is a law your in agreement should be removed don't forget that if he has that federal power over your state then he will have the power to divest your state of laws you want. I am very leary of this man and his use of this office. fp

Ashcroft is out of control and a danger to our free society.

Can we expect any more from this selected administration????

dapph

Read about the tribunals they plan to have to expedite the amount of people they will take to "trial."

Civil rights are being thrown to the wind.

This might give you a little idea of what is going on:

The Bill of Rights

and

Warming to Big Brother

Let's write to our Representatives in Congress!

Linda

I just read the two links Linda put in her post above. I do not think enough people are paying attention or if they are they are nt saying how concerned they are. They may fear being called unpatriotic. In times of war there is a power that can be used called Martial Law. It has never been enacted over all states but I do remember that for a time it was enacted in Reno Nevada in 42 and I don't know when they lifted this law. When there is Martial Law all municipal courts, city and county police, city laws etc are superseded by martial law . They said they did it to protect the armed forces from the licentiousness of the gambling/liquor/prostitution in that county. During war time there may be limited use of these types of acts and I wouldn't yell to loud about it. But when these "rewritten" laws are not limited to a specific time then you better watch out. The end of the article said the difference between U.S. and China is that when these chilling laws are passed in China there is no recourse and in US we still have the Supreme court. Well, watch out for that too. We have a court elected president remember.

I believe that Lincoln declared Martial Law during the Civil War - the only time that the federal government has declared that state over the whole of the country.

How did I miss that I wonder. Perhaps I did know it though and just forgot. The succession of states from the Union might have called for Martial Law now that I think of it in legal terms. I am going to read up on this as it interests me at this time in our search for so called safety even at the loss of civil rights. I also think we should all be thinking hard about how many "Security" changes we will allow before we rebel. fp

Being too busy Christmas shopping, I have not been in here for awhile but wanted to comment on being allowed to choose to die and Mr Ashcroft's thinking he has the right to end a private citizen's rights. In reading over the many posts pertaining to this sticky wicket, I didn't see anyone mentioning "The Hemlock Society" which I heard of while living in California. Many senior citizens belong to this group which I think may have been started in California. The word for the day is "CHOICE" and following that word is "FREEDOM"!! All of the aforementioned articles are bookmarked and I will get to them today. This is really a good discussion and I have heard much of this while walking at the beach with my senior friends who try to improve the quality of their lives by walking, exercising and praying but many of them belong to the Hemlock Society. The Hemlock Society WebsiteThere is another article about Ashcroft at this site. And a petition to sign!!! I like this quote that someone put there with his signature to the petition. "Making someone die in a way others approve, but he believes a horrifying contradiction of his life, is a devastating, odious form of tyranny." Ronald Dworkin, Life's Dominion

I should mention here that we have lost one son to suicide who was resucitated, had no brain function but was being forced to stay on life support until his brain stem swelled and then he would die. It could have taken two weeks but when we threatened to go before a judge on Monday, they decided to let him go on Sunday. Am I a cynic? Well, sometimes!

A Federal court has extended the temporary restraining order against Ashcroft's directive - the directive that chilled Oregon doctors from prescribing federally controlled substances as part of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. This gives another 5 months for both sides to prepare their arguments. More importantly, the judge stressed that in the interim, no repercussions should redound to any doctor utilizing the law as it presently exists. A minor victory.

Congratulations to Kerry Kennedy Cuomo who, at the naming of the Justice Department headquarters for RFK, had the guts to call Bush on his/Ashcroft's plan for military tribunals. Military tribunals for God's sake!

Charlie

Plain talking Molly Ivins does it again…Loved her column that appeared today in The Boston Globe, the last line of which:

Attorney General John Ashcroft has been so busy busting dying marijuana smokers in California and doctors in Oregon who carry out their terminal patients' wishes to die in peace, he obviously has no time to consider the Constitution. But he did swear to uphold it.

Ivins nails the current Big Lie: that curtailing civil liberties will make us safer from terrorist attacks. Mr. Ashcroft, let's not repeat past mistakes

Charlie

I agree that she was right on to speak up about Ashcroft's attack on civil liberties. But it wasn't at the ceremony for the renaming of the building...it was a couple of hours earlier at another ceremony, honoring recipients of the Kennedy Foundation awards. I think her timing was right on...I don't think it would have been so appropriate at the naming ceremony.

FranMMMM

You are right, Fran. Thanks for the correction. [Did you have a great summer with Barry Bonds, et al??]

Just prior to coming here, Charlie, I had sent an e-mail to some people giving the same quote you just did above. What a surprise to see it here again!! It bears repeating! Saint Molly strikes again! Love that gal!

Linda

Charlie, thanks for the Molly Ivins link. Bless her heart, she can go the the core of a thing quicker than anyone I know. She, of course, is not in the Dallas paper.

So. What are we going to do? What can we do? What have any of you done? Give me hints that I can follow. All the movers and shakers get so much email they must not even read it--I only get a form reply from my own representative that her office is glad I wrote. Used to be, when I wrote by snail mail, I got a reply that addressed whatever it was I wrote about (I never did write many letters, but over the years I've written a few when I was concerned about something.) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson never does answer back in any form, not even to say an email arrived in her office. Sen. Phil Gramm writes me a letter several months later. Hello, does Washington know we're out here except at election time?

HOWZAT

Howzat: I have emailed both my Senators and my Congressional Representative. I think if enough people did, they would notice. They are inundated with mail, of course, but that's how they know what's on our minds. I enclosed a link to L. Pitts' column with the email.

I sent an e-mail to our Rep in congress with three links attached to articles I thought appropo.

We seniors can be a mighty group if need be. Just need some organization.

Linda

A thought on a the Ashcroft/military tribunal connection... Aside from issues of martial law and overall concerns about loss of civil liberties, I see a connection between Ashcroft in Oregon and Bush enacting military tribunals for immigrants- both to me suggest a notion of "ownership"- a path that would resurrect philosophical arguments that go beyond obligation to the state, to ones that examine state ownership of the individual.

If individuals are deemed property (aha this sounds familiar) then it would make sense that the next step would be expectations that the objects are owned by a subject. So as time goes on Oregon becomes a test case- not just about individual right to die, but individual right to almost anything without permission from the owner- soon it can also become individual responsibility to perform specific functions for the owner. We make similar decisions about our posessions all the time- when to discard the TV and get a new one, expectations of services a vehicle should be able to perform etc.

Perhaps not too far afield view, with a man appointed to the highest government office rather than elected who uses religion as metaphor for political action with absurdities like "...air assault, amen" to complete a thanksgiving prayer, who coerces through fear to expand military action - after afghanistan....?the world! at this point operating unchecked by public opinion and our elected representatives.

I might not be expressing myself effectively, but hope someone gets the gist.

Interesting observations, YiLi.

You might find more information here: http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Peterson111001/peterson111001.html

And here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/opinion/15SAFI.html

Linda

Charlie, I often read Molly Ivins' column on the web site "Intellivu" where I went to pick up Mark Shield's column and enjoyed reading her "right to the point" stuff . But Mark Shields column isn't shown there anymore and I can't locate who carries it. Do you know? And an aside to Howzat; to answer your inquiry as to whether or not we, the public, and our opinions, matter to our elected officials only at election time? In my opinion, the answer is yes, and of late, I even then question our value as a voter. Sad.

Actually, I had always understood that our letters to our Congressman usually carry more weight than we realize. Compared to the size of their constituency, the number of letters received is rather small. Therefore if they get a number of letters on some subject, it is understood that they represent the feelings/opinions of a much larger number of voters. It is a signal flag that the Senator/Representative needs to sit up and pay attention. ....Babi

Go to http://www.creators.com/ .. click on Opinio and then click on Mark Shields' picture.

I like his column too.

Back in the old days. . . . My kids used to stop me right about here and ask, "Mom, was this BEFORE The Flood or AFTER The Flood?"

Back in the old days, when a newspaper received a letter to the editor it was assumed that 500 other people also held similar views but did not write. I don't know if the 1=500 is still used, but I do know that people in Congress are receiving more electronic mail than they ever did when the U.S. Post Office and telegrams (remember those?) were all there was. And everyone that invites public "feedback" has had to hire more people to read and sort the increased response.

YiLi Lin's "ownership" angle is quite interesting. I had not thought of it myself. Along that line, the idea of a national identity card would give the government, both local, state and national, the right to stop people for the sole reason of checking such a document. Do we want this? The Sudanese government has recently required such a document for its citizens, to be held on their person at all times. It is said that the identity card will used to squash desent--the government of Sudan is extremely repressive (where there is a required document there are also "lists").

John Ashcroft may look like a choir boy, but is, to me, a dangerous man.

HOWZAT

More on Ashcroft in today's New York Times:

Frank Rich: Wait Until Dark

Linda

Sorry, I do not know how to create those links- but will follow the HTML help link and learn. In the meantime, wanted to share tidbits from the NYTimes...

"...If the administration were really proud of how it's grabbing "emergency" powers that skirt the law, it wouldn't do so in the dead of night. It wasn't enough for Congress to enhance Mr. Ashcroft's antiterrorist legal arsenal legitimately by passing the U.S.A.-Patriot Act before anyone could read it; now he rewrites more rules without consulting senators or congressmen of either party at all. He abridged by decree the Freedom of Information Act, an essential check on government malfeasance in peace and war alike, and discreetly slipped his new directive allowing eavesdropping on conversations between some lawyers and clients into the Federal Register. He has also refused repeated requests to explain himself before Congressional committees, finally relenting to a nominal appearance in December. At one House briefing, according to Time magazine, he told congressmen they could call an 800 number if they had any questions about what Justice is up to.

This kind of high-handedness and secrecy has been a hallmark of the administration beginning Jan. 20, not Sept. 11. The Cheney energy task force faced a lawsuit from the General Accounting Office rather than reveal its dealings with Bush-Cheney campaign contributors like those at the now imploding Enron Corporation. The president's commission on Social Security reform also bent the law to meet in secret. But since the war began, the administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to restrict news coverage of not only its own activities but also Osama bin Laden's. A Bush executive order diminishing access to presidential papers could restrict a future David McCullough or Michael Beschloss from reconstructing presidential histories. To consolidate his own power, Mr. Ashcroft even seized authority from Mary Jo White, the battle-proven U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted both the 1993 World Trade Center terrorists and the bin Laden accomplices in the 1998 African embassy bombings. He has similarly shunted aside state and local law-enforcement officials by keeping them in the dark before issuing his vague warnings of imminent terrorist attacks."

my friend stopped by for 'ladies for leftovers' yesterday- a tradition- this year she is new to social security and talked about tracking via not only the identity card and as a possible requirement to get her SS$, but also reminded us all of ez-pass, charge cards, debit cards, grocery coupon cards, atm machines etc. which have been tracking us for a long time. I added the satellite system (that we taxpayers paid for) that will read email etc. I am concerned for our children and grandchildren- and have a renewed fervor in encouraging them to QUESTION and now to ask those questions early on- long before they become set in the ways that creep up on us all.

Reminds me of another article I saw a week or so ago. I don't think I have put it here before. I apologize if I have.

Warming Up to Big Brother

Thank you for typing all that YiLi. It's scary stuff, isn't it?

I was watching C-Span for a while this afternoon and the descendants of the Wampanoag Indians have written a book giving the truer story of Thanksgiving. Some of their references show some very inhuman acts on the colonists parts.

I began reading a book earlier this year and had to put it down because it was so depressing and negative, but much of it reads like so much of what is happening today - only in a non-technological age.

Greed, inhumanity, power are not the way to go. When will we ever learn?

Oh, the book I was reading was A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. What a trip that is - but is a "must read". I will get back to it soon. Might be less depressing than the news. :::sigh:::

Linda

for that "creators" web site. I have made it a "favorite" for future use. losalbern

Several here have talked about speaking up, of writing to our Congressional representatives. I went to look up Margaret Mead's quote...

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world---indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Betty, I really like that quote.

BTW, haven't we been on this topic (more or less) for over a week? Actually, we left death with dignity behind awhile back to explore Mr. Ashcroft's concept of his role. And I GREATLY DISLIKE the whole idea of our becoming a nation whose citizens must carry ID papers with them at all times. Hasn't this has alway been an early move on the part of repressive governments, to gain control over their citizenry? Definitely "un-American", in my view. If there is any serious attempt by any government group to bring this to pass, I will definitely be writing ALL my congressmen, and the editor of the local paper, and anyone else I can think of with a big resounding "NO!.

And now the military tribunal issue has become more alarming- people will be detained "in secret" and have "swift" - would we even call them trials- "on ships and military bases like Guantannamo in Cuba" (spelling?)- yep that was today's paper ...

Betty I have been attempting to use the internet email system (I don't care who follows cookies back to me) to contact elected officials, but has anyone been able to get through to the Senate on its web page?

Thank you- now I don't remember who- whoever posted the link to is it Peterson's? Well i've forwarded that link to a number of people.

and yes, I now hear people speak to one another in whispers- but I think we are the generation that needs to remind folk to speak in loud voices- also I have learned that I am not the only one who has had an 'aha moment' and now must redouble my efforts to get my children to listen and not just politely ignore my attempts to engage them in some critical thinking on the issues.

this forum is absolutely the best idea- ! i wonder have we really strayed away from death issues, something going on now to me is akin to "the disappeared" in south america- and if that isn't death not sure what is.....

Well, I found a Senator's page and a way to contact him, but I have to put my name and address and more before I can e-mail him. I need to think about this. My civil liberties don't seem to be intact these days.

Hairy contacting our Congressmen and giving out all the information they ask for I found to be the opening of your mailbox to every conceivable way they can solicit you for funds. In fact I never thought I was listened to at all rather I became one more address, phone and email to add to their desire for financial support. Than I wondered if the only way they would listen is if I gave a donation until I realized I cannot match the big money - I am only a straw in the haystack.

It is hard to gather groups to make a big enough public splash and if you have noticed regardless your acceptance for certain public leaders - those leaders not necessarily elected but do represent a like minded group - they have all been silent or silenced.

I'm thinking the only affect we can have is to have a wide enough community, possibly an email community to make known and keep up the drum beat about our concerns and than let the media sites in on our concerns. After all the media needs contraversy to have an interesting story.

How we affect the families not listening I have no clue - and there appears to be many more just now trusting the government to do and carry on so that they can get on with the process of making a living and spending their time with their families.

Part of this attitude I blame on the current administration - this is like their war and all we have been asked to do is go out and enjoy ourselves. Strange I always thought travel and gifts were my way of celebrating some success or milestone - almost like a decadent use of my time and money - now it is my Patriotic Duty to take vacations and buy gifts for me and my family??!??

Although I agree with the premise proposed by the author of "Destingy of dying..." I am not sure I support the analogy to those jumping at WTC. I do not object to the notion of these acts as examples of perhaps condoned suicide, however, I do object to the newest wave of acceptable standards of behavior. I think each time we use the WTC and/or Pentagon as a standard for social or political action, we are contributing to the present governmental manipulation of the masses.

Lately, anything that speaks of civil liberties or choice is overrided by an expectation of "patriotism" which has been defined by a very small minority of people in power (those we have awarded power) and actions and behaviors surrounding those unusual events are becoming the substructure of our present and future society.

So if I can be so brash as to suggest that whether people facing a horrific death chose to jump 104 stories or not is not the issue at stake, the issue is individual choice for any reason (or in Oregon's case medical reasons) to make end of life decisions. I do not think we should have to use an horrific event elevated to a symbol of patriotism and unification to get our elected representatives to engage in critical thinking before passing or vetoing legislation.

YiLi Lyn the post above says it and the last paragraph you wrote seems a rather definitive statement, and I do agree with it. fp

for suggesting I visit this discussion...

Not only dying with dignity, but living with dignity as well.

Just got off the phone with a friend and wanted to re-point-out looking at "The Hemlock Society" web site. As I told him, it is not about committing suicide but on the proper availability of "FREEDOM OF "END OF LIFE" CHOICES". Take a look! Hemlock Society I am not soliciting membership in this group, just trying to give some information here. Who knows what they use their money for!! ??

INHO, Mr Ashcroft really doesn't have the right to change states' laws. Part of our freedom lies in "STATES RIGHTS".

Ann thats what I was riled up about. Still am. I am a great believer in States rights and in a republic, which we are that is as it should be. State House and Senate and Courts should not be so easily overturned by the Federal government. faithp

Do you suppose that the Fed has "eminent domain" when it comes to overturning state enacted laws? Would that be a bummer?! So glad to hear someone else claim that we are a REPUBLIC! We seem to have forgotten that!

I learned in civics that the only true way the Fedral government could overturn without the states permission was with Martial Law. Charlie said they used that during the civil war. Faith

Federal Law does supersede State Law. However, unless there is some Federal Law (of which I am unaware) that forbids assisted death by medical practitioners, then Ashcroft has no grounds for his action. ..Babi

As I mentioned some days ago, I emailed my Senators and my Congressional Rep. (who is from this small town.) Today I got an email reply from the Congressman. I'll put it below in its entirety.

 
Dear Jane: 

     Thank you for sending your e-mail message to share your 
thoughts about the state of Oregon's physician assisted suicide law. 
It was good to hear from you, and I welcome this opportunity to 
respond. 

     As you may know, the voters of the state of Oregon 
recently approved a measure to allow physicians to prescribe 
medication to assist in suicide.  Additionally, Attorney General 
John Ashcroft announced on November 9, 2001 that assisting 
suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose'' within the meaning of 
U.S. law, and that prescribing, dispensing, or administering 
federally controlled substances to assist suicide violates the 
Controlled Substances Act.  Such conduct by a physician registered 
to dispense controlled substances may "render his registration 
inconsistent with the public interest'' and therefore be subject to 
suspension or revocation of any federal medical license.  The 
Attorney General's conclusion applies regardless of whether state 
law authorizes or permits such conduct by practitioners or others, 
regardless of the condition of the person whose suicide is assisted. 

     Jane, I understand your concern over the federal 
government becoming involved in a referendum involving an 
individual state.  However, I believe pain management, rather than 
assisted suicide, should be recognized as the only legitimate 
medical purpose justifying physicians' dispensing of controlled 
substances.  There are important medical, ethical, and legal 
distinctions between intentionally causing a patient's death and 
providing sufficient dosages of pain medication necessary to 
eliminate or alleviate pain.  Please be assured that I will have your 
thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor this situation. 

     Again, thank you for sending your e-mail message.  If you 
would like further information about my role in Congress, please 
visit my web page at http://www.nussle.house.gov or contact any 
of my offices. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Nussle 
Member of Congress

So, I still don't agree with his stand, but I've voiced my belief and at least that's registered with a tally mark somewhere, I assume. If he got enough of those from this district, it could make a difference, I choose to believe.

And, I know where he stands, and I can evaluate that with his opponent's stand come election time.

š jane›

two posts today- wow thanks for posting the reply- hmm pain management vs. assisted suicide- and yet the literature is filled with data that talks about how doctors still limit pain medications believing the suffering and usually moribund patient with BECOME ADDICTED...if I reall this is one of the reasons hospice movements took hold and flourished over the years. it has also been my experience that some physicians 'assist' by increasing pain dosage to the point where life sustaining functions are altered- so in some cases they are doing it anyway and in all states just calling the rose by some other name. can we also write this congressperson- i'd like to see his stand on narcotic access, marijuana use etc. for medicinal purposes.

yep martial law, that is what i believe bush is moving toward, this way history will be hard pressed to criticize his administrations because a) we will have no clue what he does nor does not and b) his buddies in the supreme court and our elected reps. will not have to be accountable for the loss of civil liberties.

hmm in my mood today I also wonder if the loss of civil liberties will also apply to the industry moguls and close friends who helped put him in power in the first place-

no why am I bit well over the top today, just check the next post!

WHOA ! todays NY Times...

Michigan 'Invites' Men From Mideast to Be Interviewed By JODI WILGOREN

Rather than send investigators out knocking on doors, law enforcement officials in Michigan are sending letters today to hundreds of young Middle Eastern men who have come to the United States on temporary visas in the last two years, inviting them to make appointments for interviews regarding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The decision by the antiterrorism task force in the Detroit area, which is responsible for contacting about 700 of the 5,000 visitors sought for questioning nationwide, comes after two weeks of complaints from lawyers, community groups and local police chiefs that the vast canvass order by the Department of Justice unfairly singles out people based on religion or nationality and would be too time-consuming.

"The letters represent a conscious decision by our district to initiate contact with the people who will be interviewed in the manner that will be least intrusive," said Jeffrey Collins, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, which is home to the nation's largest concentration of Arab-Americans.

Mr. Collins refused to say what the authorities would do about those who failed to call. About a dozen of his counterparts around the country declined to comment on Detroit's approach or explain how they would carry out the interviews. Several indicated that they had yet to begin the project, though Washington has asked that all interviews be conducted by Dec. 21.

Separately, Attorney General John Ashcroft yesterday defended the widespread detention of immigrants who had been swept up in the aftermath of the attacks, saying the arrests had "made America grow stronger, not weaker," and had been instrumental in "winning the war on terrorism."

In an eight-page memorandum outlining guidelines for the interviews, the Justice Department instructed local officials to check visitors' passports and visas. They are also to be asked about their visits to local landmarks and foreign countries; about their sources of income, scientific expertise and access to weapons, including anthrax; and for a list of phone numbers of friends and relatives.

"The individual should be asked if he is aware of anybody, including himself, who has received any training which could be applicable to terrorist activities," said the memorandum, whose contents were disclosed on Saturday in The Detroit Free Press. "You should ask whether the individual is aware of any persons who have sympathy for the Sept. 11 hijackers or other terrorists."

Civil liberties advocates and Arab- American leaders said the use of letters in Detroit was a positive step toward making the interview process more dignified, but they continued to express concern about the content of the questions and the process of compiling the list. The 5,000 people being sought are men from 18 to 33 who have entered the country since Jan. 1, 2000 on tourist, student or business visas from countries linked to terrorism.

"You're asking people what are your political beliefs and what are the beliefs of your friends," said Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "That is a set of questions that has a dark history in our country."

The Detroit letter emphasizes, with a boldface sentence, "We have no reason to believe that you are, in any way, associated with terrorist activities." The interviews are voluntary, it said, adding that "it is crucial that the investigation be broad based and thorough, and the interview is important to achieve that goal."

The letter, which asked that people contact the United States attorney's office by Dec. 4 and promised to accommodate their schedules in setting up interviews, said, "It is quite possible that you have information that may seem irrelevant to you, but which may help us piece together this puzzle."

Mindy Tucker, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said she was unaware of any other region that planned to send out letters rather than contact interviewees in person, but that the approach seemed fine.

"One of the reasons that we enlisted state and local assistance is that they will know best how to conduct these interviews," she said. "We realize that each task force in each of the districts will have a different way of going about accomplishing the task."

Even as they praised the letters, lawyers and community leaders raised doubts about the strategy's effectiveness. Many foreigners may be reluctant to come forward, they said, including those who may have violated their visa agreements and fear that they will land in jail. Others, particularly those who grew up under repressive regimes, may be intimidated by the notion of contact with the government.

"Some of them may not call," said Hassan Qazwini, imam of the Islamic Center of America, Detroit's largest mosque. "Not because they have something to hide, but because they don't want to have the hassle of going to meet the officials and experience the panic they sometimes have experienced in their own countries."

Lucas Guttentag, director of the Immigrants' Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the 5,000 interviews were particularly troubling because of other Justice Department initiatives, like the detention of some 500 people on immigration violations, the increased scrutiny on new visa applicants from certain countries, and the use of military tribunals for those suspected of terrorist activity.

Asked at a Washington news conference, Mr. Ashcroft promised yesterday that he would provide an updated tally later this week of how many people had been arrested and how many remained in jail. But he warned that few specifics would be forthcoming and that the government would continue to withhold their identities.

"It would be a violation of the privacy rights of individuals for me to create some kind of list of all of them that are being held," he said when asked why he had not identified those arrested.

He added, "I'm not going to develop some sort of blacklist of individuals who have been held."

Mr. Ashcroft also said that those arrested since Sept. 11 "are not being held in secret" and that all had been given an opportunity to contact lawyers.

Senators Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, both Democrats, said Mr. Ashcroft's response was insufficient.

"To the extent that privacy concerns exist, they are overcome by the need for public scrutiny of the actions taken by those charged with enforcing our laws," said Mr. Feingold, one of several lawmakers who have formally requested details about the detainees. "A far more significant injury to the detainees' reputations comes from treating them as a single group possibly associated with the terrorists."

Mr. Leahy said in a statement, "It's time we know who these people are and why they're being held."

Bill Berger, president of the International Association of Police Chiefs, said that the Detroit area's strategy of contacting people by mail was a good one, but that in most of the country, where fewer were wanted for questioning, local agencies would have no problem conducting the canvass.

He minimized the reservations expressed by a few of his members, like Andrew Kirkland, the acting police chief of Portland, Ore., who has said he would refuse to take part because the interviews violated the state constitution.

"The chiefs that I've talked to, I think, will do anything possible to assist this country in what we're going through right now," said Mr. Berger, who is police chief of North Miami Beach, Fla.

I was not aware that any citizens civil liberties had been violated. Has this happend ? Could you be so kind as to give me the information or where it can be found...

Quite a few links have been posted at this site about Ashcroft and various things he has done recently. Here are two more about similar issues:

Liberties Be Damned

Stop the Presses

Linda

Hairy I have been reading all these things too and some others that are much to wild to repeat. I am very glad that this discussion came up and led to more people speaking out. I have been formulating a letter I want to send to both state and federal Senators and Representatives that are from my district. I have not as yet decided how I want to say what is disturbing me. I will before the next week is out. I remember the first months after WW11 started and I do not remember all these drastic measures being added. We had in place and still do laws by the number to take care of all of the problems facing us. Mr. Bush should go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war, and then we would see. I read in his interview in Time that he doesnt need to go to congress for more power, as he has all the power he needs. Whewwwwww Faith

My question was about any U.S. citizens civil rights being violated. I am aware that we are at war so to speak and not all is "normal" in our country as we are on alert for further terrorism to U.S. citizens. My concern is for U.S. citizens at this time....and the safty of those citizens..... I am reading the papers about what Mr. Ashcroft and his efforts to corrall all present and possible terroists...Again, any of you know of any U.S. citizen whose civil rights have been violated and if so , how?

and what does all this have to do about Death and Dying? Another chance to bash Mr. Ashcroft?

For most of this discussion, I have been reading, but doing very little responding until all this about questioning foreigners from certain countries. Yes, this has nothing to do with assisted suicide, but my feelings are strong on this subject. Due to an attack on our country, we are in a war mode. We have demanded other countries be held accountable if they harbor terrorists. Of course, we must do our best to make sure we are not guilty of the same thing. No visitor to our country is entitled to the rights of citizenship until he has taken the oath. People shouldn't be able to have any rights here at all until they become citizens, period. As our guests, they are entitled to our courtesy, but that is all. Let's make sure we retain the right to differentiate. It is and always will be crucial to our security.

tigerlily--I think you might get an answer to your question by reading the column "Destiny of Dying Patients....." which is linked in the header.

maryal

I think it would be interesting if those of you who are opposed to the attorney general's war on terrorism would suggest an alternative method of dealing with it. Terrorism is a new problem in the U.S., and a very serious one. It was reported yesterday that a letter containing anthrax had enough anthrax in it to kill 100,000 people. It was just pure luck that this letter didn't reach its destination.

Nobody values civil liberties more than I do, but I have no idea how to fight terrorism. Many of you seem to have a better grasp on this problem than I do. How about giving us some positive suggestions about dealing with it.

This is taken directly from Betty's post in the library and to me it fits so perfectly here in our site.

In the middle of a long talk with my son yesterday, I went to find the following quote from Abigail Adams (in the John Adams biography), written to her son, John Quincy.

"It is not in the still calm of life, or the repose of a pacific station, that great characters are formed. The habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties. Great necessities call out great virtues. When a mind is raised, and animated by scenes that engage the heart, then those qualities which would otherwise lay dormant, wake into life and form the character of the hero and the statesman."

That's another reason to read good books...

I think some of us are disheartened with the power being welded and the attempts by Mr. Ashcroft to control with that power. We are all remembering with shame, this nation's internment of those with Japanese heritage during WW2. Also, many of us believe that we should not be reducing our selves to the level of power-over people as the very people we are saying should change their use of power.

I think our national shame now is, the gentleman, married to a US citizen, went forward on his own to give information about those that attacked and others who were training at his airfield. His thanks, he has been held in jail now all these weeks. This is not an isolated story.

OK I know - this is not the political discussion - I can see how it could too easily become just that as the merits or not of Mr. Ashcroft can be debated. What I understand is being discussed here is his use of power that affects others. This is an opportunity to contend with difficulties as old John said to his son. We need new solutions as Shasta is suggesting. Do we really want to treat everyone that enters this country as if they have the plague when ever we have a national crisis that envolves their home country?

What Mr. Ashcroft has to do with the issue of Choosing a dignified death thru suicide is this..Oregon passed a law allowing physician assisted suicide. Mr. Ashcroft dug up a federal law forbidding the M.D.'s from issuing the medication as it had "no valuable medical benifit" so in effect this would nullify Oregons law. That is the Federal office of the Attorney General interfering with state law. Only as a side issue did posters begin bringing up other areas where Mr. Ashcroft's office is seizing powers that we do not agree with. Therefore it is up to us as citizens to clarify in our own minds the issue and then write letters to our own representatives regarding what we call an issue. I for one fall no where on either side of the issue of legal suicide. But on States rights I am adamant that the Federal government should keep their hands off. And as a citizen of the United States I see that we already have enough laws to do all we need to to protect the security of our country. We do not(imo) need these "military tribunals" which are secret and very, very scary. Faith

I don't have any answers. I have just been finding out more and more of what is going on and felt it was important to pass along these findings. If no one understands what is going on, then things get done before we can object. Since we were appalled with Ashcroft's move in Oregon I thought I would pass on more of the latest information since I had just gotten it. It appeared to fit right in at the time.

I will delete my last post.

Please don't delete your post hairy... I am very interested in what our government is doing to us, anywhere in this country...

dapph

Hairy don't let anyone make you feel uncomfortable. You are always interesting and anyway YOU have the right to post information you feel will interest the discussion group. We all have that right and those reading the posts have a right to skip over what doesnt interest them. Curious Minds should be able to read anything and decide for themselves if they want to respond or not.fp.

I so value this discussion and have been pleased that we have engaged in thinking (not bashing)- and for soooo many posts did not deteriorate to the kind of banter and slander going on in the political forum way back- so I hope no one gives up and we continue an important dialogue.

I think the plea for new ideas on how to cope with terrorism is valid. However, I do not think that important expectation should be mixed up with the issue at hand. Terrorism in all its forms, foreign and domestic is separate from the gain or loss of civil liberties.

An American citizen bombed and killed hundreds in Oklahoma after which the nation mourned and attempted to find means for the populace to become more secure and enacted retribution through the established systems. We did not engage military tribunals, we did not round up ethnic groups, etc. Terrorism is not something foreign-born or foreign visitors or invaders do to us. Terrorism is an act of oppression imposed upon any object-

Oppressing the populace or segments thereof is an act of terrorism. We seem to agree about this when we are judging outsiders- we unified our stand against apartheid, nazism, facism and named the perpetrators of those isms terrorists. Each terrorist system used political power to target specific groups and subjugate them. Terrorism is more than violence.

It seems to me that right now, from a place of fear rather than confidence, our government is playing the schoolyard game of "it takes one to call one", and like Paolo Freire we are witnessing the ages old process of the the oppressed thinking that freedom lie in becoming the oppressor. So we are using terror tactics not just to intimidate the named enemy, but to gain a sense of power and control of the people.

We have sent young men and women to war in the Middle East to preserve "american values, democracy and civil liberties"- key word here preserve- not abandon what has been the essence of the concept of america for over two hundred years.

The sad part is that a critical view says, a few, very few, people in power have so manipulated and oppressed the voices of the people and their representatives that their values are becoming the national values. These few people have used media, news reports, lack of information and selective information to mould minds, they have created an arena where people who express dissenting opinions are labelled seditious. They have begun to control by fear, they use flawed analogies and circular reasoning and have us believe that the only alternative is "you are with us or against us" and they use the military action in the Middle East as the smokescreen to enact agendas and erode the fundamentals of the constitution on a variety of domestic issues.

so...how else can we fight terrorism- well here's my introductory list:

1) don't be a terrorist yourself 2) demonstrate courage 3) ask questions and keep asking until the answers make sense 4) get our young people actively involved in the course of world events 5) teach them to ask questions 6) show them how to be courageous 7) impress upon everyone you meet that this is now a new world whose inhabitants must learn to walk softly, respect diversity, find means to share the planets resources

accept that ours is not the generation to benefit from positive changes, we are working for the future 9) don't be afraid to die- we all do, if not now then later 10) keep posting on seniornet the curious mind.

notice my ideas do not suggest anything to prevent airplanes from crashing into buildings- that is not terrorism, that is a manifestation. one does not make meaningful change when bogged down in manifestations victory is achieved when one moves on and confronts the root cause of any event.

Yili, I'm so glad I know you.

Your courage is showing as you list "don't be a terrorist yourself" as a part of how to fight terrorism. I think I won't try to add words of understanding or interpretation to that, but just think and think on it. There is SO much more language to use, ways to think, than what we practice.

What popped into my mind, visually, just then, was a description in some piece (the one in the heading?) of the northern alliance soldier with a weapon worn on his shoulder like a handbag. We are like that with war talk. Comfortable and as familiar as an old wallet.

------------------------------------------

Barbara, friend, that quote was from old Abigail, not old John.

YiLi and Betty: That's a wonderfully idealistic list...but I don't think it'd stop the zealots from taking over and imposing their will on us, given the chance. I wish it were as easy as "play nice." I'm afraid, sadly, it isn't. There are "bullies" of every variety in the world...from the playground to the terrorist networks, and while I do not like violence, I do believe that there comes a time when it's necessary to punch some bullies in the nose rather than turning and letting them continue to dominate others. The USA has turned and walked away so many times that the WTC was the "final straw" and, in my view, we have no choice now but to "punch the bullies" until they can no longer swagger around and try to kill us. You cannot reason with unreasonable people; you cannot reason with zealots.

It has been said that Americans are very patient people, but when the line is reached, they will react. That line was reached, I believe. We need to finish it up and mop it clean.

Remember "walk softly and carry a big stick"? Well, we've been walking softly, we've carried the big stick, now we need to get "their" attention...with a couple of 2x4s to "their foreheads" as that old joke goes.

Being a pushover or being a doormat only allows more bullies to walk over you.

Once we've cleaned out this "hornet's nest" those things YiLi has listed are good, and I think many are being taught in the schools here in the USA.

Are they being taught in the schools around the world?
Are the children in other countries/cultures being taught to respect diversity?
Should they be?
How is that accomplished?

š jane›

Thank you Jane for that very astute post. Of course, no one wants to take away a US citizen's rights but I do think we have to at least question non-citizens about their intents in our country. Certainly nothing wrong there. I also doubt if all the many Arabs will show up or call simply out of fear. If you have nothing to fear, you will show up, won't you? Well, then there is Barbara's post about the guy who did offer info about the terrorists and is now in jail. If he is married to an American citizen, isn't he also a citizen? Or is that after he takes the oath of allegiance? Maybe there is more to his story than we are being told. Just wandering around this problem without any solutions popping up.

Oh, Hairy, I was afraid you really would delete your post so I clicked on both of the URL's and mailed them to myself before you had that chance. Don't worry about us, we're cool!!

"It has been said that Americans are very patient people, but when the line is reached, they will react."

Southern translation: "If you kick an old dog long enough, he is going to bite you."

However we may phrase it I think it is true and agree with you totally.

do we also then agree that american nationals who are living or working in other countries should be without rights when abroad and should be subject to suspicion, interrogation, detainment, etc.?

did the missionaries who were preaching christianity in violation of afghanistan's codes cross a line also and thus the afghan regime who was hosting them had every right (like we do) to detain them and perhaps incarcerate them if found guilty by their military tribunal?

are we lumping all foreign nationals in america into a stereotyped category-

do we remember, for example, that albert einstein was a foreign national, are we aware that the bulk of our present economic success has been achieved with the brain power and sweat equity of foreign nationals- from computer techs to medical and biological scientists to farm workers and laborers.???

while i can't think of any terrorist act quite as despicable as the one on september 11th, i wonder how many of us reading this thread are aware of what europeans have lived with for many years--with terrorists and the threat of terrorism. that's one of the reasons european residents are required by law to carry identification. it's not a big deal. there were the red brigades in italy in the seventies and the basque separatist movement, ETA, in northern spain have been blowing things to smithereens for years. and, of course there's northern ireland. i don't have any answers here--just the experience that living here has given me. there are certain small sacrifices and even loss of rights here that one doesn't mind sacrificing for what one hopes is increased safety. have you noticed no terrorist cells have been found in france? the french are known to kick the you know what out of terrorists--so they've gone to spain and germany.

The U.S. governments first duty is the defense of it's citizens. We cannot allow our justice system and constitution to protect these non citizen terroists.... they have used our open society to kill over 4000 innocent people,some from other countries. I am thinking that some of the 600 being detained may be the "sleepers" who were intent on the second wave of terror. As I said before. I know of no U.S. citizen whose civil rights have been violated....

American citizens abroad are usually warned by our country to leave when a war seems likely, because they may be detained or even killed if they don't. As for the missionaries, they were disobeying the law of that country at their own risk, so should be ready to take the consequences. After all, they are asking to be martyrs with such behavior. It is even possible their actions triggered an attack which had been planned for a long time. I certainly don't figger this country owes them any big favors - they are lucky to still be alive.

I agree Ben. And when I saw Bush with his arms around them bragging that they were over in that country bringing the word to the poor suffering women and children of Afganistan, I was disgusted.

IMHO, that is one of the reasons that they hate us.

dapph

According to 20/20 and his American wife the gentleman who has two children with his wife, who offered information about those that studied at and used his airfield and is still in jail was trying to do the loyal thing and told by his wife he had nothing to fear in the US government as he would if he lived in the Middle East. I do not remember what country he emigrated from. He was not alone in the expose by 20/20.

There is something else afoot here I think in the American psyche - I am remembering when the early news of the Oklahoma bombing come in most everyday citizens thought it was an act by some Middle East faction. Seems to me we have a predisposed fear to those from the Middle East in our psyche.

When this horror occurred there was concern and care for the Moslum community but now thousands of their men are to be rounded up, interrogated without the protection of lawyer client privileges.

I am thinking on YiLi Lin's post and wonder the outrage if one of our citizens were subject to tribunal justice in the Middle East or for that matter in any nation and also if members of our family were living in another country doing research, studying or carrying on business the hue and cry would be loud if they were torn from their families as part of a systematic round-up and held without the privacy we expect that is part of the lawyer client privilege.

Why are we reducing ourselves to this base behavior - that is the question to me - the going answer seems to be, to root out terrorist - OK - but what about that makes legal and humane respect for those that are not citizens go by the way side - my gut is telling me we cannot come to terms with a terrorist that would as easily kill himself in his effort to take down innocents - this has so outraged us that rather than talking about and identify the feelings this brings up for each of us we would rather turn this confused raging pain into subtle and overt aggression against anyone that looks like a young Moslum - That folks can hide within our free system that will hurt us now means our system must change to lesson our fear that someone could hide within the system - is this saying it is OK to have American terrorists among us but not foreign born terrorists - Blacks and woman's abortion clinic workers have been living with terror and that is evidently OK - and so as we uphold our fear with our use of these tactics the terrorists do win!

I do so admire your patience when our inflamed, passionate rhetoric takes us far away from the subject of the moment.

YiLi, when I asked how we should fight terrorism, I knew you would be the first person to come up with some constructive ideas because you never dodge a hard question. ( You see, I have been listening to your comments in various forums, and appreciate how you think.) I agree with your suggestions and think they will work in the long run, but won't solve immediate problems. Maybe there are no instant solutions to terrorism, and as Fairwinds says, we are going to have to learn to live with it. And of course, we don't want to discriminate against people in this country. Our diversity has always been our greatest strength.

What has happened to Charlie? Has he washed his hands of us, or maybe his computer is down?

but a reasonably seasoned SN veteran. And I'm glad to see some familiar names from my forays on the Political Issues forums, and The GOlden Age of Entertainment, where I'm discussion leader for The Golden Age of Baseball.

I was pointed in this new direction by one of your regular contributors, and after reading the posts of the past several weeks, I am struck by the much more rational tone than we have seen recently in the Political arena - even though the subject is the same.

The other day, I had to take my leave, temporarily, of the political forums, because I was struck by a very disturbing personal ambivalence.

Sure, like most Americans, I'm mad as hell at what happened on 9/11 - and when your inner temperature rises, you're apt to stand in favor of many measures that ordinarily you would rail against. But I'm finding it more and more difficult to sort out feelings and emotions and circular flights of logic, when it comes to judging many of the moves we are making - or not making, as the case may be.

Mainly, I think this hit home because for a few days, at least, there was a flood of good feeling, and warm greetings between posters who normally are at each others' throats. And it led me to say to myself, "Gee - I wonder if the general tenor of comments here will change?" Yeah, sure. In the time it took to clean up the Thanksgiving dishes, and maybe pick one time at the leftover carcass, it was back to backbiting again - and it kind of hit me harder than I thought it would.

So here I am - warts and all - ready to get involved with what appears to be a "kinder, gentler" forum. (Did I really say that? Will they take away my standing as a left-leaning independent because I said it? Will they make me stand before a military tribunal if I fail to repeat it three times a day?)

Back to the subject that I see is at hand. I have often wondered why it is that we so automatically extend the protections of our constitution to anyone who happens to be an American soil. It would seem that those rights and privileges should be reserved for citizens - or at least, those here legally.

But one of you asked a question just today - about how we would feel if Americans abroad were deprived of the rights of the citizens in the country they were in at the time?

That kind of sheds a different light on it, doesn't it?

I don't like the idea of secret trials - kind of smacks of star chambers, and totalitarian regimes. But when they're justified, I suppose we have to make allowances. However, the idea that the president, and ONLY the president makes the decision as to who will be tried in this manner really troubles me. And it's not becuase it's Bush - it would be the same no matter who it was. I was just a kid when FDR set up the same system, but I'm not sure whether in that case, it was the president alone who made that decision. Perhaps someone out there knows.

Well - I've gone on long enough - MORE than long enough for a first post. But I'll hang around awhile, if you'll have me.

A few posts back, someone asked why we feel so strongly against Arabic people. Well, I don't know why anyone else does, but as I have most likely said before, I sure know why I do. My brightest grandson, an American citizen, was kidnapped by his Moslim father (a student from Sudan) when he was two years old and I have never seen him since. As long as so many of them fail to respect our laws and our citizens, I feel no desire to grant them any rights here unless they have become citizens. (Of course, with my prejudice, it is hard for me to grant them common courtesy, let alone rights.

Hello parman and welcome you lovely left leaning independent.. How would I feel if I were a U.S. citizen in another country which a U.S. terroist group had wiped out 4000+ of their citizens, and I was detained? I would be expecting it I imagine and doubt I would be treated as well as we treat non citizens in this country. I don't believe I would be offended to be brought in or requested to come in for questioning either....... The U.S. has had event after event of terrorism and FINALLY this last event was the straw the broke the camels back....... Methinks we are way off subject....where is Charlie?.......

Welcome aboard Par!!!

Alan Durshirwutz (and I know that is spelled wrong, I am sure that you know who I mean) said today that many of the "non citizens" in this country live here, work here, grow old and die here, and can even get drafted to serve in the armed forces, while never having gained citizenship.

He said that the constitution does not use the word "citizens", but instead uses the word "people" of the United States of America.

So that non citizens that live here legally, should have the same rights that you and I do.

I like this discussion also.

dapph 8:)

I remember a young American woman screaming about her "American rights" when she was accused of stealing silver salt and pepper shakers from a restaurant in Germany. She was guilty; they searched her luggage on the spot and found them.

She forgot she wasn't in America.

I remember seeing the searches done at the borders when Franco was in power in Spain. If you're an American, travel outside the USA, and you break the law in a foreign country, you'd better understand whose law is in effect.

I had no "sympathy" for the missionaries in Afghanistan. If you go to intentionally break the law in a foreign country, then you'd better be prepared to pay the price. I don't care if that's proselytizing (sp?) or dealing drugs or whatever.

š jane›

And I also understand the stupidity of some of our citizens who bring trouble upon themselves.

Many years ago - my wife and I traveled in Europe with another couple. These weren't children - we were all in our mid 40's at the time. We had just finished touring Greece and next went to Turkey.

This was around the same time that I had seen the movie, Midnight Express - or read the book - I can't remember which. But the picture of what happened to the American young man who had marijuana with him was very clear in my mind.

We checked into the hotel, unpacked, and gathered in our suite for a drink before diner, when my friend reached into a travel bag, brought out an Old Spice stick deodorant container, and pulled out two joints.

I was horrified. "Are you crazy?" How long have you had that with you?" Well - we had toured that summer - the British Isles, Italy, Greece and Turkey - and he had this with him through all these stops. I couldn't believe it - and literally wrestled with him to take the stuff away and flush it down the john.

Now at the time I was well past my pot stage - and am not fiollllllently opposed - but the idea of the risk that he had exposed all four of us to was just too much. For the rest of that trip (luckily it was only another week) we wre "together - but separate." MY wife and I and his wife -- and my friend, in another part of the bus.

So that's one thing. But somehow, the idea of what is now being called a Kangaroo Court is troubling to me. I don't say I'm flat out against it - that's the ambivalence I spoke of in my introductory post awhle ago -- but it sure does make me uneasy. For one thing - I'm not entirely happy with the military mindset (serving during the Korean War made me a bit skeptical of the level of intelligence I saw among many of the officer corps -- I don't mean militarily speaking, of course).

The funny thing is, I have seen, over the past several days, many ooof the "usual suspects" who appear as TV "experts" on every suvject under the sun, exhibit the same divided feelings I'm expressing. I'd be much happier if I could say flatly: "I'm fer it" - or "I'm agin it." But I just can't.

Par...

Why didn't you guys, instead of throwing it away, just smoke the two joints enjoy and evening, and then not sit together on the buses any more.

Are you still friends? If not, that is too bad.

dapph

Charlie---Come back!

Do you know that there is not a dog in this world that can smell a joint over the putrid smell of "Old Spice"...

I mean "Old Spice" is the worst!!!!

8:)

dapph

To combat terrorism I idealistically wish we could just sit down and talk things out with compassion and empathy.

I wonder how much of this could have been avoided or has been caused by some things that we've done or said.

I wish we could get rid of this love of money that we have gotten into. I wish we could go back to being a mannerly people. We need to share more, give more and take nothing from another unless it is given or offered.

I think of "The Ugly American" and can sometimes see us as the rest of the world can. We need to change as individuals and as a country. Our policies are so selfish.

If the world was invaded by beings from another planet, I think our perspective would quickly change to looking at this entire planet as ONE rather than separate countries. We would immediately become the global community we are supposed to be.

The older I get, the less I want to see any deaths or violence. Life is such a gift and is so precious.

We need a world leader somehow now - a pacifist that can be trusted implicitly by all parties.

If we listen to what others are saying, they may be able to point the way.

They Can't See Why They Are Hated

I also wonder how much is going on and has gone on without our knowing about it. This is one big reason why I keep searching and sharing articles on the web. I keep trying to piece this all together. I know oil is involved. I know Bush threatened to bomb Bin Laden to kingdom come prior to September 11th - at least I read it somewhere that he did. I know we were paying billions of dollars to Bin Laden and the Taliban to NOT grow poppies and sell drugs. I know we were offering aid to Afghanistan. I know Bin Laden and Bush's father are both members of a large and lucrative investment firm that has investment in communications and defense items such as missiles not to mention OIL. I can see a conflict of interest there.

I've just been searching for truth and answers.

I did delete a post as I thought it was getting to be too much - especially with some of the negative comments. I can put those links back up. I haven't even checked them out myself yet, but I assume they are worthy of your reading them. I will repost them in a few minutes.

I have been assuming Charlie is allowing this to go on because we are discussing civil rights which was an off-shoot from the article Death With Dignity.

The times are so unusual that our talking about all of this is helpful some days. I don't want to argue with anyone. Sometimes I can't tell you why I said something nor can I further illustrate what I mean. I am just as stunned as the rest of you and there is so-o-o much to this I can't process it all. I'll be glad to share all I have if no one gets unkind and if Charlie doesn't mind. He may have another good article for us to discuss, though. Has anyone heard from him?

If we have stepped out of line, Charlie, I apologize.

Linda

Ashcroft to Face Tough Senate Grilling on Tribunals ("the wave of arrests did not materialize") http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011125/ts/attack_court_congress_dc_1.html

Anti-Terror Wiretap Rule Is Illegal http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpdas232475049nov23.story

anti-terrorism bill had almost nothing to do with the September 11th attacks (the main exception was the part about money laundering) http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/watc/20011125.watc.07.ram

America's "Disappeared" http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/561/5war2.htm (I did read this one and found it solid and well done)

Pakistani comment on civil liberties in the United States http://www.frontierpost.com.pk/articles.asp?id=1&date1=11/24/2001

"anti-terrorism bill undermines human rights convention and rule of law" http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,605924,00.html

All the Presidents' Words Hushed http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000093967nov25.story

US Frames New Rules for Visas to Saudis http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/25/int9.htm

post-9/11 life is tough on immigrants http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7924-2001Nov23.html

Jane, I fear you misunderstood my post and I apologize I didn't make it clearer that I support the military action in Afghanistan to find and destroy the terrorists who slaughtered people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I don't advocate the United States' "playing nice" or being a "pushover" or a "doormat." I support the U.S. and other countries' all out search for and incarceration of anyone, anywhere who had even the tiniest involvement in the attack. I would jail someone who made a peanut butter sandwich for these perversions of humanity.

What bothers me, though, are such things as the San Antonio physician who was asked to leave a plane just after boarding and then jailed for 10 days (was it 12?) in late September. He was ignored when he repeatedly tried to explain that he was a respected member of the community, a U. S. citizen, a physician. When he finally was released, he was told he would receive a letter of apology. After a month, the local news reported there was no letter, no phone calls of regret. (If he has subsequently received any apology, I don't know of it.)

Tigerliley, much was made of the physician's "civil rights ignored" on a CNN news report in September, though the man seemed surprisingly understanding that such mistakes could be made by well meaning authorities. Maybe this forgiving attitude was why CNN didn't stretch out the story, but the local Texas news stayed with it for a week or two. I keep asking myself, if this is how a middle eastern-looking U. S. citizen was treated, what must it be like for non-citizens?

There is something underlying my discomfort with the large number of people already jailed, the plan for military tribunals, and this new program of trading information for decent treatment in obtaining an American visa. I can think of several things that make me nervous about each of the three, but something fundamental supports all....I think.

I believe there is a growing dehumanization of the foreign-looking, foreign-sounding middle and central eastern person. We (the government and many U.S. citizens) talk of the Islamic people (whether U.S. citizens or not, whether terrorists or not) as if there are not vast differences among these people. We have a history of doing this with "black people." When someone asks, "What do black people think about ....," we're lumping all black people together, as if there are no differences among them. We forget that there are black Republicans and Democrats, pro-life and pro-choice blacks, blacks who are for and against affirmative action, blacks born in Arizona and England, older blacks who hate rap music, younger blacks who have never heard of Lena Horne, elegant Maya Angelou and irreverent Zadie Smith.

A non-citizen muslim could be a respected visiting professor at Harvard. When Ashcroft talks as if any non-resident muslim might know details about terrorists' plots, it sounds as if he thinks a visiting Jewish architect building a temple might know something about any Jewish terrorist.

If England or France decided to also conduct secret military trials and the same mindset prevailed about questioning non-citizen persons with middle eastern families, then our Mahlia (Persian) could be arrested, secretly jailed, and tried before a secret military court.

Edit...I just read your post, Benjamin, and I wonder if I wouldn't feel the same as you, under the circumstances.

betty

that I was attracted to this forum, especially since "Death With Dignity" was the subject title - because I have had personal experience with two aspects of that question.

And yet, I find that Terrorism has pervaded this forum, too - as it has all our thoughts these days. There's no getting away from it, I guess- no matter what the subject -- including, I suppose, even if we had something "The Weekly Shopping List" as a topic. I can see it now --- "Recipes for Arguing Terrorism To" - or perhaps, "Fondue For Foreigners." And how about "The Secret Trials of Julia Chials" (sorry about that.)

Hey, Dapph -- I didn't say we weren't friends anymore. And no, I didn't smoke the joint - not because I'm so straightlaced - it's just that in my youth, we said things like "it expands your mind, man." And today, I find that 70 years of watching and participating in the foibles of mankind (AND womankind, of course) has expanded my mind quite enough, thank you.

The article listed in the heading is about Ashcroft. It would seem almost impossible to discuss Ashcroft without mentioning the war.

re your post no 781. When you speak of "The Midnight Express" you are bringing up a subject with which I have had a great deal of professional experience. As you may know the U.S. has had treaties with a number of countries which provide for the transfer of American nationals who are serving criminal sentences in the other country for violation of the laws of that country, back to the U.S. for the service of the sentence, and to transfer nationals of the foreign country who are serving American sentences for violations of American law back to their country. These treaties started with one with Mexico which was prompted by the outraged families of the young Americans who went to Mexico to score a little pot or whatever and ended up in Mexican prisons serving harsh sentences in terrible conditions. Later, treaties were negotiated with a number of other countries including Canada, Peru, etc., and now with Turkey. I served as appointed counsel many times to Americans in Canada, once in Peru and as counsel to Canadians in U.S.prisons. In connection with that service I learned about the legal systems of those countries and visited a number of their prisons and had the opportunity to talk with prison officials, guards and inmates in addition to those I represented. As bluntly and succinctly as I can say it, what I came away with from these experiences is this: Don't be so fast to give up the rights and liberties we have in this country. Those rights you may be so willing to take away from others may someday be lost to you.

Incidentally, the prisoner transfer treaty with Turkey which was being negotiated at the time of the real "Midnight Express" and broken off because of it, was finally put into effect a few years ago. A friend of mine was appointed to serve as counsel to the American prisoners and had a lot of horror stories to tell about it.

Now, about Attorney General Ashcroft's policy about lifting the narcotics licenses of doctors who prescribe controlled substances for assisted suicides. The day the news came out I happened to run into several lawyers with the local U.S. Attorney's Office. Their reaction to the news was snorts of contempt. I wonder just how many licenses will be revoked or actions taken against doctors. It is most likely something done to appease the religious right.

Anyway, it's good to be in what seems to be a civilized forum at last.

While we're waiting to see if Charlie intends to come back (maybe he doesn't after last week's thing in the library...but let's don't go into it here, please), why don't Linda, Jane and Maryal collaborate and decide upon an article that either extends this theme or takes us to another? Would you 3 mind to do this, while we're waiting to see if Charlie is coming back? You 3 could decide which article to use, then use your own judgement about when to put it in the heading. If you agree to do this (as an interim measure), then we wouldn't have to interrupt this thriving discussion. If you agree, then we'll see the new article when you post it. After that article, we'll know more about where this discussion stands.

How cool to have new people join in!!!! dkrosin and Parman....Welcome!! We've got our own set of quirks and imperfections over here, but, yes, you're right, we book loving folks work awfully hard to honor a range of ideas and opinions. We try our best to keep our attacks directed toward the different ideas and not the people expressing them (try, we try).

The right not to be born. Hmmm. People with disabilities have for years watched a gradual trend in the culture, along with knowing more and managing reproductive issues, toward controlling the "perfection" of the newborn. I guess with greater prenatal screening capabilities, this is to be expected. People go for genetic counselling. Decisions are made. The issue, of course, is what is a life worth living? Most of us with major disabilities would say that, despite the disabilities, life is appreciated, is definitely better than the alternative. The subject is a complex one, though, and so is the one in the news this week...cloning cells for stem cell use.