Time Heals All Wounds.. And Then Kills the Patient
<Previous Next>
Thu Mar 18 08:29:29 2004
Golden Puppet Salsa (dance)

strings extend from your fingers I look up and see your face above intent on your motions detached and attached from your every move

A delicate operation, you think I will take just this motion from above but you are seduced by yourself thin wires remain your only link

A thought remains, we teach the apes the little things To sweep, to feed, but still exclaim "Forget not, lest the inmates run the asylum" The idea is strange for just a little while And then our eyes meet the puddle

An interesting division of view on terrorism, perhaps akin to the "double standard" that feminists note: Idea that terrorism has a cause, and that it is typically the result of an injustice done upon reasonable people repeatedly marginalized or polarized. This suggests that removing the impetus for terrorism, and having better communication and dialogue can resolve the situation. Another perspective: Terrorism is a transgression, and either has no reason, or the reasoning is inherently criminal in nature, and so it should be fought with police/military action. These relate to two very different views on human nature, that humanity is basically reasonable in nonexceptional circumstances, and that humanity can stray from civilized behavior and should be punished when straying. Another, nuanced viewpoint would be that value differences, with a possible difference on the categorical imperative, explain how differently people act, and that while punishment and bluster offer little validity (besides the idea of 'beating into submission'), neither can one expect convergence, and there is very little substance to the idea of a value-neutral reasonability. The third viewpoint, being less rosy, is unlikely to be often heard. In the meantime, we of course will see a lot of press by people with the 'judgement' view and the 'make things right' view. The question for the third viewpoint, "Okay, but what does that mean, practically?" is a good one. I would suggest that it means one should indeed examine the causes of the conflict, try to fix them (ignoring the claim that it's appeasing terror/agression or will be seen as a victory by the opposition) if it can be done so without making too much sacrifice. If one is really very certain one is not acting improperly, or that no comprimise is possible/desirable, then one should resolve the situation as carefully as possible to avoid collateral damage, while at the same time soliciting input and cooperation with others, to make sure one's head is indeed screwed on tight. At all times, complete transparency about the overall political plan should be maintained.

I have a lot of sympathy for this guy. I don't support the ELF, but I do see it as a moral value to protect the planet, and I view with great distaste those who argue "I earned it", as their justification to damage the planet with a fancy, gas-guzzling car. Private property, I still think, is a good thing, but it should not be used as a shield against protecting Gaia. I'm not confortable with destroying SUVs (although it is tempting), but when it comes to spiking trees, in proper circumstances, it seems entirely proper, and in general, very carefully-targeted, not-human-harming (except in exceptional circumstances) vigilantism is acceptable.

Finally, looks like Microsoft isn't going to get off as easy in Europe as they got off here. I still am disappointed in our legal system about that..