PDA

View Full Version : Careful!


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Unregistered
02-26-2003, 04:38 PM
http://www.ala.org/alonline/news/2003/030224.html#santafe

akiy
02-26-2003, 04:54 PM
This thread has been moved from the Anonymous forum to the Open Discussions forum.

Please note that the Anonymous forum is intended for "delicate" subject matters regarding aikido for which people have a need or want to keep their identities from being revealed. I encourage people to keep this in mind before starting a thread in the Anonymous forum. Please do not use the Anonymous forum in lieu of registering when posting a non-sensitive issue. Further abuses of the Anonymous forum may result in your IP address being banned.

-- Jun

Kelly Allen
02-27-2003, 03:20 AM
This kind of thing is exactly what the terrorists wanted.

Jim ashby
02-27-2003, 03:26 AM
Welcome to 1984 gentlemen.

Kelly Allen
02-27-2003, 03:44 AM
sorry James you lost me!

Jim ashby
02-27-2003, 06:22 AM
George Orwell coined the phrase "Big Brother is watching" in his book 1984 about a totalitarian state where even thinking inappropriately was a crime. We're rapidly passing even Mr Orwell's worst nightmares.

Have fun.

Neil Mick
02-28-2003, 02:44 AM
This was a quote that ran in Aikidojournal. I reprint it here because, IMO, it eloquently expresses what the gov't wants us to feel: fear.
Originally posted by Brian H:
I am telling you as a person living in an urban area, you have every reason to be mindful of the very real danger you are in from international terrorists.

The danger to any given individual is slight, statistically it is even less than getting struck by lightning, but unlike lightning, a blood thirsty terrorist is not natural.

When I was a rookie cop, I never envisioned that I would eventually get police training that, among other things, would make me fully qualified to get a side job in the hazardous waste industry! It is a different world now than it was just a few short years ago and it holds new dangers and even some old dangers closer than before.

If you think I don't take this whole situation seriously than you could not be more wrong. 9-11 was not something I watched in horror on TV. I bailed out of the class I was in and hit the street armed to the teeth, in case there were follow on attacks. I was scared as hell, but I had a job to do.

And yes, it galls me when you accuse the US of "genocide" when Saddam HAS committed true genocidal acts against his own people.


If we choose to live in fear, democracy is dead.

Michael Neal
02-28-2003, 09:04 AM
Neil you are a fanatic

Neil Mick
02-28-2003, 01:55 PM
Neil you are a fanatic
Does this example of name-calling not prove my point? When the labels and slurs start to fly, debate ends.

When debate ends, democracy itself dies.

Kevin Leavitt
03-01-2003, 07:14 PM
As far as fear goes....fear cannot be imposed on you. It is something you personally develop.

Fear is created out of ignorance. You impose ignorance on yourself.

Using the government or others as a scapegoat is the same as blaming teachers for not raising your kid properly...it is a cop out.

You alone are responsbile for how you react to something.

A good book on the subject of personal perspective and fear is a book by Victor Frankl called "Man's Search for Meaning".

If you don't know who Victor Frankl was, he was a Nazi Concentration Camp Prisoner for 3 years who endured many tortures. He learned that out of everything the Nazi's took from him, they could not take from him how he choose to respond or react. He could still control them. After that, he no longer feared them.

Food for thought.

Neil Mick
03-01-2003, 08:35 PM
As far as fear goes....fear cannot be imposed on you. It is something you personally develop.

Fear is created out of ignorance. You impose ignorance on yourself.

Using the government or others as a scapegoat is the same as blaming teachers for not raising your kid properly...it is a cop out.

Food for thought.
OK, good point: but it's more than that. There's the element of deception. Ppl can be deceived into being afraid and pressured into acting a certain way.

Yes, they are responsible for their actions, but some of the responsibility must go to the organization or person propagating the deception.

And example is the Palestinian crisis: the soldiers in the IDF are totally responsible for their crimes, but they got into that state of fear partly from propaganda, partly from the fear engendered by suicide bombers (even so, there are 1000 IDF "refuseniks" who refuse to serve in the West Bank, and instead must serve 1 year in prison. These reservists are under the same stresses as the general population, and yet they have no problem refusing to do an action they find morally repugnant).

But on the whole, I agree that individuals carry the weight of responsibility for their actions. Still, the why's of their actions must also be considered, don't you think?

DanielR
03-01-2003, 09:18 PM
There's the element of deception. Ppl can be deceived into being afraid and pressured into acting a certain way.
I think this falls into the same category of "fear out of ignorance" Kevin outlined in his post. Of course, in totalitarian societies the brainwashing can be quite successful - history provides plenty of examples. But in a modern democratic society people have the opportunity to think for themselves - if they are willing and able. Your reference, Neil, to the Israeli "refuseniks", is a good example. However, I do take issue with the way you presented it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I (admittedly being somewhat sensitive to the subject) got an impression that you're saying that save the refuseniks, the IDF soldiers and officers act out of fear or under deception of the government propaganda. I'm quite certain that's not the case.
the soldiers in the IDF are totally responsible for their crimes
An off-topic, but since no international tribunal took place yet to judge the actions of IDF, I think the term "crime" is a bit hasty, wouldn't you agree?

Neil Mick
03-02-2003, 01:18 AM
Your reference, Neil, to the Israeli "refuseniks", is a good example. However, I do take issue with the way you presented it.

I (admittedly being somewhat sensitive to the subject) got an impression that you're saying that save the refuseniks, the IDF soldiers and officers act out of fear or under deception of the government propaganda. I'm quite certain that's not the case.

An off-topic, but since no international tribunal took place yet to judge the actions of IDF, I think the term "crime" is a bit hasty, wouldn't you agree?
A crime committed is still a crime, whether or not it has been tried (or even investigated), or not.

We shall have to agree to disagree about the IDF, Daniel. Some of the acts committed of late are amazing in their display of brutality and atrocity.

I won't debate the issue here, as it is off-topic from the thread (which, IMO, deals more with internet censorship and actions motivated by fear), but I will say that I appreciate your candor about your feelings on the subject, and I admit to having strong feelings, as well.

:ai: :ki: :do:

deepsoup
03-02-2003, 06:19 AM
I think this falls into the same category of "fear out of ignorance" Kevin outlined in his post. Of course, in totalitarian societies the brainwashing can be quite successful - history provides plenty of examples. But in a modern democratic society people have the opportunity to think for themselves - if they are willing and able.
I rather think the 'brainwashing' is far more successful in the "modern democratic society" than in the totalitarian regime. The fact that most of us in the west imagine we're living in a "modern democratic society" is one example.

Sean

x

DanielR
03-02-2003, 08:05 AM
Neil,

Agreed.

Sean,
The fact that most of us in the west imagine we're living in a "modern democratic society" is one example.
I would disagree. Just looking at the term, a "modern democratic society" is not a figment of imagination, it's a reality. It's modern because it exists today, it's democratic because the rule of majority through representation, with periodic elections, is implemented in it. Now, we could argue forever how well is it implemented, but that's another discussion. However, relative to a one-party totalitarian regime (and I have some personal experience with such), people in such society have the ability to analyse the available information and draw their own conclusions, rather that being fed that through all media channels. The brainwashing can indeed be successful, but this goes back to being willing and able to think for yourself.

Erik
03-03-2003, 01:31 AM
Without knowing what he really said I offer,

According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:

"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa040398.htm

Unless I missed something this has nothing to do with a Totalitarian state.

PeterR
03-03-2003, 02:58 AM
I rather think the 'brainwashing' is far more successful in the "modern democratic society" than in the totalitarian regime. The fact that most of us in the west imagine we're living in a "modern democratic society" is one example.
You little radical you.

I would like to think that in modern Western Democratic societies it would have to be more subtle then the it is. Still as long as we have our bread and circuses who's to complain.

For sure more successful though. In a toletarian regime you know all your info comes from the big G. In a democracy you are never sure.

Michael Neal
03-05-2003, 03:50 PM
Does this example of name-calling not prove my point? When the labels and slurs start to fly, debate ends.

When debate ends, democracy itself dies.
LOL! that is really too melodramatic.

Democracy allows me to state my opinions and one of my opinions is that you are a fanatic.

The word is not slang it has meaning and I use it to convey my thoughts about your postings here on Aikiweb.

Either you are way too sensitive or you thrive off of being melodramitic to try and push your argument or maybe a little bit of both.

I think that many on this board are way too sensitive especially since they have strong opinions on politics and use words like "shrub" to refer to George Bush yet put on a scene when someone(me), for example: calls Congressman Barbara Lee a "whacko."

If you are going to contantly disparage the President and every United States' action since the formation of the Republic, fine, but don't start crying when someone gives you a little bit back.

Neil Mick
03-05-2003, 06:42 PM
LOL! that is really too melodramatic.

Democracy allows me to state my opinions and one of my opinions is that you are a fanatic.

The word is not slang it has meaning and I use it to convey my thoughts about your postings here on Aikiweb.

If you are going to contantly disparage the President and every United States' action since the formation of the Republic, fine, but don't start crying when someone gives you a little bit back.
Freedom of speech, does not imply abuse of same. Also, since this is a website and not the USA, the freedoms allowed to you are limited by conventions of respect, and courtesy. Since we are all Aikidoists here, we should all expect the same verbal courtesy we would find were we to visit each other's dojo's.

You will notice that I do not use the term "shrub" very much, anymore. While my opinion of the man is obvious and not very high, I nonetheless repect those who log onto this website and take offense to the term. As such, I try to limit my disparagements to those that I can back up with facts, and leave out the baseless name-calling, which tends to lead nowhere, except to more name-calling, down the line.

There are many things to criticize in US policy, at the moment. Baseless invectives...on either side of the ideological fence...lacking any documentation are pointless, except to invite more of the same. If you feel I am a fanatic, fine: but document your opinion, instead of simple, immature name-calling.

Finally, contemplate a piece of your own advice:

Make sure you have some merit when you call someone something. Unless you have some evidence that Neil lives in a mental ward then you can't really call him a loon. :)

Jun, I hope that you did not find my comments disrespectful

Michael Neal
03-05-2003, 08:07 PM
The amount of posts here by you and their length is enough evidence that you are fanatic. And the fact that you se a conspiracy in everything that the US does in foreign affairs.

Michael Neal
03-05-2003, 08:18 PM
Freedom of speech, does not imply abuse of same So calling you a fanatic is an abuse of the first amendment but all of the conspiracy theories you post here is not?

Kevin Leavitt
03-05-2003, 09:14 PM
Some good points. Yes, I quess that "group think", "brainwashing" and "state deception" can all cause people to do things that they shouldn't.

However, the root cause is still ignorance, and we are all responsible for our own actions, and choices.

(some people have been burned at the stake, crucified, or assassinated for going against the grain) Then they were called heretics and traitors....today we call them saints, heros, and patriots.

I think basically everyone has the inate ability to determine what is "good" and "bad" at a base level. What complicates it is when we get into issues such as Iraq.

Some would say killing is wrong all the time...regardless. Others would say that it is justified when it prevents a greater harm. It is definitely not easy.

I think what we have to do as humans is to try and fight the causes of ignorance and "group think" and learn to think for ourselves and determine what is right and wrong. Again, it is not always easy, every day we are all "brainwashed" in someway by the paradigms that surround us. Many started the day you were born. The thing to do is simply to be aware that you are looking through the world with those filters and your thoughts, feelings, and emotions, are run through those filters.

As our good friend Bruce likes to so eloquently put it..."think for yourself!". Dogen would say "WAKE UP"!

Trying to find the truth is difficult.

To me the ultimate truth is that is is wrong and unfortunate to cause harm to any living being....however, sometimes it is necessary...and it is not an easy choice to make! We all have a duty to try and see the truth and in the end, depending your beliefs, you are held in judgement either by your pysche or a "higher being". So hope you make the right choice!

ikkainogakusei
03-05-2003, 09:30 PM
Some good points. Yes, I quess that "group think", "brainwashing" and "state deception" can all cause people to do things that they shouldn't.<snip> However, the root cause is still ignorance, and we are all responsible for our own actions, and choices.<snip>(some people have been burned at the stake, crucified, or assassinated for going against the grain) Then they were called heretics and traitors....today we call them saints, heros, and patriots.<snip>We all have a duty to try and see the truth and in the end, depending your beliefs, you are held in judgement either by your pysche or a "higher being". So hope you make the right choice!
Very well said Kevin.

:ai: :circle: :ai:

DanielR
03-05-2003, 09:36 PM
Kevin,

The ability to tell "good" from "bad" might be inherent, but, as you say, things get complicated when tackling, erm, complicated issues. There the ability to differentiate "shadows of grey" becomes much more important.

It's easy to take sides, but I think that the most important thing to keep in mind is that there are (at least) two sides to a coin.

Kevin Leavitt
03-05-2003, 09:46 PM
Yes there are two sides to the coin. For me at least the definition of reaching "Maturity" is the realization that there are always at least "two sides" to every story, neither of which has the corner of full "truth" or "righteousness".

Your ability to filter out the garbage/emotions and deal with the true FACTS and fully consider them determines IF you can make a good decision. This can be difficult to do at best!

Notice that I said "GOOD" decision and not the RIGHT one. IMHO, there is no RIGHT decision, only some that are better than others. (really who determines "RIGHT"?). That'll open up a new can of worms on the topic of ULTIMATE/UNIVERSAL TRUTHS for sure!!!

Neil Mick
03-06-2003, 01:52 AM
I think the thread has wandered a little off-topic, but I'll "roll" with it (ouch! pun atemi).
Your ability to filter out the garbage/emotions and deal with the true FACTS and fully consider them determines IF you can make a good decision.

Notice that I said "GOOD" decision and not the RIGHT one. IMHO, there is no RIGHT decision, only some that are better than others.
I agree. Right and wrong are relative to the individual, and society.

Up till now, the mainstream media has done a class-A job of acting as the press-corps of the Executive branch. Interesting, though: where they find themselves, now. As the prefabrications of the story of Iraq's WoMD become more transparent, the press is finding itself on shaky ground: finding the necessity to report the (watered-down) truth, but nonetheless not ready to confront the President about the discrepancies.

Just Sunday I read how Ari Fleischer stated that Hussein was in material breech for not declaring the missiles, previously. Almost apologetically, the paper stated that Fleischer was wrong, that Hussein DID report the missiles in a December report.

Also, the big Newsweek story about the report of Kamal Hussein verifying the work of the inspectors and saying (in 1995) there were no WoMD presents a huge crack in Bush's case against Hussein. Yet, the story was buried in the middle of the magazine. And, I'll be very surprised if any other mainstream paper follows up on the story.

Sifting through the morass of media to find the truth has been time-consuming, sometimes confusing. Yet, since few of us know firsthand the events in the international arena, it becomes critical for us to sort it out (at least in our own minds) so that we can become informed citizens.

A true democracy cannot work unless a free, unfettered press is allowed to report events with a minimum of spin. The current situation is hardly indicative of an unbiased, free press.

Sometimes, the way to sort the truth is to seek what is left unstated, by either side. At least, this has been my experience.