[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I was referring to the sheep at the time of 9/11, the point being a lot of people simply believe what they're told.

Ultimately, just about everyone believes what they are told, if they seek to find the "truth." If you don't believe what someone tells you, you scrounge around until you find someone that tells you what you want to believe. Unless, of course, you are first party to the incident in question. Then you rely on your own (unbiased, objective, honest, all-inclusive--hahahaha) opinion.

Happened upon this and think they have a good point.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...editorial.html

So you scrounged around and found somebody you want to think has a good point. Was he even a first party? No, he scrounged around, read some congressional report (OMG-the fountain of unbiased truth!), and believed what he wanted to believe. He certainly didn't want to believe Cheney. He even, in his graciously unbiased manner, says Cheney is wrong about everything. Of course, he doesn't present the "evidence" of any scrounging around to find someone to tell him that Cheney is so ultimately and completely wrong. And he certainly is no first party participant in all (any?) of Cheney's incidents of being "wrong." He appears, to me (in my most objective unbiased opinion, heh, heh) to be very biased and untrustworthy.

And his article doesn't discount, other than his distaste for it, the fact that, even as he admits, public opinion favors the CIA over the biased Senate report. His notion that the graphic pictures of Abu Grave "torture" was the "real" and total truth that persuaded most to opine against torture, is just another instance of people believing what someone tells them.

The Gruber thing passed because beyond arrogant remarks there wasn't anything to it. He even went before Congress and Issa couldn't lay a finger on him.

What finger was he supposed to lay on him. The dude out and out admitted (as we are "told" by the several videos) that it was necessary to lie (merely "arrogant remarks") about the ACA to get it passed. I understand that your glad the ACA passed, regardless of the hoodwinking method. So you prefer to believe what is told to you if that supports it.

A limiting factor here is our position as global cop which creates complexities others don't bear.

Under what authority are we the global cop? Certainly not a constitutional authority. Constitutionally, the authority of the federal government to be a "global" cop is strictly limited to protecting the U.S. from the rest of the globe, not to police the rest of the globe. I know, I know, the Constitution is just dreck which handcuffs us from doing what is necessary--like policing the world. Does Russia recognize us as the global cop? It certainly doesn't act that way. Don't believe I've heard them even to admit to such a thing. How about China? Iran? Cuba? etc.?

Additionally the technical, economic and social considerations of a more globalized world provide a dynamic for which we have yet to find a balance.

That kind of thinking stems from a statist view of nation states being the all powerful monopolies over their people. In such states, the "balance" was, and mostly is, in the interests of some form of hereditary monarchical, or dictatorial, fascist, or oligarchical, ruling class. The purpose of balance of power between such states was to prevent wars which would diminish the wealth and power of the ruling classes. That fits well with pre-American Revolution thinking relative to the purpose of a state. The peculiar circumstance of the American nation being born, in which the state was to be the servant of the people, at their behest and consent, rather than the state dictating to the people created a new "dynamic" which made it difficult, if not impossible, to find a "balance" with other states.

Insofar as other states have become more like the American state, that has made some balancing viable. But the balancing has been corrosive to the American state by the statists in our society who, in response, wish to create here a more top down system to fit their ideological theories, thus compromising our original identity in order to fit a balancing with the rest of the world.

Technological, economic, and social considerations, as such, are not a new mix into the desired "balance." They have always been there, and have constantly changed. What may have changed the overall "dynamic" is the possibility, through technology, to more easily create the one world, top down, all powerful state, or to create the reverse, the bottom up world of federated people.

In that sense we can be, not the world's police, but its teacher. Or we can all succumb to the old statist notion and create the one world benevolent (hopefully) dictatorship.

Simply carrying a big stick doesn't cut it any more. Jeb is going to have to deal with this just like Obama has.

Carrying a big stick is more important than ever since our distant border is no longer a protection. And if we wish to protect our now fragile national and individual independence. Dealing with it depends on whether we strive to continue with the original American experiment, or to dissolve into statist mentality.

And that's exactly why the torture issue is so important.

Yes, it is important that we be honest about who we really are, as a people (if that's possible) and as human beings. If your object is strictly to get to a Christian heaven, then by all means, turn your cheek to whatever violence besets you. But then never waiver from your fundamental Christian principles. If you wish to follow Christ, there is much in this world, especially in the materially rich world made possible by America's freedoms and creativity from which you should turn your cheek away, and disavow.

That path is strait and narrow, and most will fail, or choose not to follow it.

I understand that American Christianity is different. It allows that God gives to those who help themselves. I like that. But, maybe it has also allowed those who want the material things, without the religious obligation, to create a godless society yet keep some remnants of Christ-like niceties in place. Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. We can call it some form of "humanism." Don't torture. Give to the poor. Be just. Be equitable. And so on.

But, to completely divorce these notions from some supernatural religious obligation, which requires obedience by individuals, rather, it is more efficient (and less personally responsible) to administer these humanistic qualities through and by the state. The individual is now free to enjoy all the good created by a once Christian society, without the required dreary personal obligations.

Here's the catch. If you remove Heaven as the goal, there is no longer an obligation to turn the other cheek. Humanism, in order to survive materially, cannot be humane to those who are trying to destroy you. To be human, in its most fundamental requirement, is to desire first to exist. Existence is all you basically possess. All other possessions and enjoyments are dependent on that prime principal. If you are confronted by wolves who wish to eat your substance, who are attempting to destroy you, the most basic human response is to destroy them first.

Whatever problems you may incur afterward can be dealt with then. You cannot deal with a problem if you're dead. If you are confronted with an intractable enemy whose goal is to destroy you, and you attempt to negotiate without some severe force and threat to immediately deter him, you will likely die.

So the truth may not only set you free, but it can be used as a weapon of deterrence. Let it be truthfully known that if you are faced by imminent threat of destruction, you will use whatever is necessary, including "torture" if your enemy does not relent.

That is the "truth" of being human--without God.

Did you see Cheney on Meet the Press last week? What a joke. He's still lying about it.

Says you. Sorry for this bandwith. If it's too long, just disregard.