If there ever was any real danger of terrorism the government and business interests would not allow for these ports to be turned over to Arab business interests. There is no danger. It has been reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Terrorism fears are only convenient for manipulating the American Puppet People into a state of fear for the purpose of gaining their support of Bush’s foreign policies. When it comes to Bush business, fear of terrorism is something that gets in the way. This is a business transaction.
This is a political issue developed by the Democrats to make Bush look weak on protecting the United States. Instead of pointing out how Bush has really weakened the United States and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, they refer to a peripheral issue on which they feel they cannot be attacked for attacking the president. Additionally Bush is letting it play out because it keeps people talking about safety, about the possibility of terrorism.
The Port transaction is simply a business deal. There is nothing more to it than that.
Now we have three more undoubtedly innocent men from Toledo who have been accused of trying to attack and kill Americans in Iraq and to kill the President. All this based on an informant who was previously in the “military”. Toledo Ohio, Middle America. Toledo shivers in fear. We hear that there is a terrorist cell in Chicago too.
This is absurd on it’s face. The three (already convicted by the Media ala Jose Padilla) are accused of planning to use IED
explosives in Iraq to kill American troops. The fact that they are in Toledo, Ohio seems to escape the Attorney Generals logic throughout his interpretation. Why would they learn about IED’s with plans to use them in Iraq? Why wouldn’t they as effective, loyal to the cause “terrorists” , plan to use their weapons in the U.S. for the purpose of really terrorizing America?
The reason no doubt is that they are a group of people who are angry about American foreign policy and had no real plans to do anything. They were just talking, they were musing. It had no logical thread. But they spoke to each other about, perhaps their hope that more American troops would be killed in Iraq and how they wished they could do something. Then the investigators went to work and pieced an illogical story together about these men and the investigators gave them an incredibly ludicrous plot from which they could be tried.
We are hearing a lot about terrorist cells and terrorist Plots against the U.S. lately. We have heard how a plot to blow up a sky scraper in Los Angeles was thwarted. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the source of the information. Perhaps he too, was tortured into telling the interrogation “team” what they wanted to hear. Bush says he has foiled 10 major plots. So far then the U.S. is 10 for 10 in stopping major terrorist attacks. There are in fact no plots or few plots of any consequence. It is a fact that there have been no attacks since 911. So we can say factually that there have been no plots enacted in 4 and a half years. To give credit to the incompetent Bush White house seems mad to me. The terrorists, like the communists in the 50’s just aint there. What kind of terrorists organizations are these that can’t get it together at least once a year for a back pack attack?
There is no threat to the United States by terrorists that has any substance. It’s all a myth. Again 911 was a one time event. It has not been repeated because there is no one, or group who have the capability, desire, determination or interest to do us any harm.
That is why terrorist attacks against the U.S. are not a daily occurrence. It is not hard to blow up a back pack on a train. This requires little technology, planning and capability. It requires only desire. The information is on the internet but no one is really interested in doing anything about it.
And if someone were to blow up a train and kill 20 people, I have to ask the question…How significant is it? The answer is that it is not terribly significant except to those who were harmed. And that is a small number. 3.000 is also a small number. 2,500 troops dead in Iraq is also a small number. 100,000 Iraqis killed in Iraq is a much larger number. But that nation goes on. So must we all.
All the terrorism news we are hearing is a preparation by the government for the upcoming Air War on Iran.
If there ever was any real danger of terrorism the government and business interests would not allow for these ports to be turned over to Arab business interests.
Nailed it in the first sentence!
I was struck by the Toledo thing this morning too. Even if the indictments have the facts right (and that’s a very big if) I couldn’t get past thinking that if these guys really are terrorists, they’re the smallest possible small fry. So why would Abu Gonzo get up on his hind legs as though he’d bagged Al Capone? Only three possibilities: a) makes the threat seem bigger than it is; b) the Admininstration is in cahoots with the terrorists (but my tinfoil hat is too rusty for that one); or c) try as they might, they just can’t catch the big guys, so they have to make the small fry look big. I’ll take door number 1, Stu — I think you nailed it, too.
This has the potential to force a real discussion on Iran. There is a company that’s tied to CSX that also is expanding it’s worldwide delivery service with a new mearket of UAE-Iran. Door to Door delivery service from Iran to your town usa…global economics say that Iran is much less a threat than we’ve been told or at least, bombing will hurt business at Dubai too. Oddly enough, UAE generally supports Hamas, which is about all the evidence that’s credible for most of the US terror convictions or asset freezes…that really needs to come out for discussion.
or any other nation suspected of having a majority Muslim or Arab population.
Not that such support needed any solidfying.
Earlier today, I was shaking my head at the fact that neither millions unable to purchase medical treatment, millions unable to purchase housing, nor Abu Ghraib photos had caused such discussion of the pros and cons of corporate rule. Anti-Arab frenzy alone could do this.
But now I am thinking, no, those aspects of the subject will not be lasting. They will think them and forget them, and beg pardon of their politicians for having thought them. And demand the invasion of Iran, and probably the UAE.
Even putting the white man from the company on CNN to talk to Wolf has not reassured them. He is seen simply as a raghead lover who will allow dangerous Arabs to defile the sacred ports of Amrika.
No, not this time. I’ll easily admit the idiocy of prejudice in my country but this case really isn’t it. I have to commend some conservative voices in the MSM for distinguishing the subject in a good way. It’s one of the voice we’ve needed for a while now. That could all change tomorrow but the core of this issue is port security and a president’s wavering justification.
What’s odd is to hear the liberals decry the discussion and that’s a dead tipoff to look for a hidden agenda.
company, or the Singapore one, run US ports? It is not like there are several fine port management companies right here in Amrika and staffed only with blond boys named Biff Pepperidge, who will be doing all the loading and unloading.
The UK company that DWP just bought was the only one even in Europe, that I am aware of. There are only a handful of big port companies in the world!
This is what I mean about thinking on the subject of corporate rule.
All companies are in business to make a profit, and all companies, if they want to become large enough to run big ports, will hire the cheapest workers they can get, just like Halliburton, who just does not happen to have a port management wing.
And as for “port security,” drugs, weapons, and human beings are the three most profitable businesses in the world, and have been throughout history, at least weapons and human beings have been. Drugs did not become such big business until UK tried to colonize China.
“Port security” could impact, and possibly reduce, revenues of American entrepreneurs and wealth-builders.
That’s way more complicated than it has to be but I understand.
The cold truth of globalisation is hitting home to the average American. Questions are coming fast furious….
Why didn’t we know about this?
Because you watch the news.
Why hasn’t this been on the news?
Because this is part of how the news makes money and all of how politics works.
You mean ALL of our ports are owned by other countries?
No, not really. They’re owned by businesses that own the other countries too.
Who the hell voted Bush president, anyway?
You did, dear.
as you say, they watch the news. They know about Halliburton, they know about Wal-Mart. It is not like cronyism and shady deals are some incredibly new thing that none of these news viewers had ever imagined could possibly occur.
It is grumbled about to an extent in what US has instead of a left, and there are the occasional feisty editorial writers who will give it a shake or two.
But only the addition of the word Arab to the mix causes this kind of bipartisan across the board outrage.
The cronyism, the shady deals, the questionable business practices, the greed that puts money above human lives, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, were just everyday annoyances until the A word was dropped in.
And I am quite sure that if you took out that A word, if this whole deal had involved say, a Romanian or even French company buying the British one, that all the shadiness and cronyism and greed would be aggravating but bearable annoyances.
It is beginning to appear to me that most Americans had no idea who ran their ports, or how, or even that there were not many companies in the world who could do it, which would make their ostensible and long-standing concern about “port security” a thing of a rather vague nature. And the fact that in all the “port security” speeches and rants, etc. that I have seen before this have never mentioned the state of the global port management industry, tend to confirm that impression.
I’ve had the impression that most folks here prefer that I not get too deep into the machinery of the terror machine in my explanations. Short of the necessary details, I can say that you’re partially right about the connection to a racial profile because that’s the identity that’s been hammered into the heads of the public. In discussions that are allowed to go further, it is the discovery that Bush doesn’t regard critical factors that were involved in 9/11 as important when it comes to what he wants and that is a major betrayal. The Americans feel swindled out of their trust they placed in him. The Rep electors feel used and betrayed and the Dems …well,….I just don’t know about them for sure.
Rumi, are you saying there is a real threat from terroists? When you speak of a terror machine. I mean I think it’s hyper exaggerated. Most of the car bombs are said to be suicide bombers. I’ll bet that isn’t happening. Suicide bombers are usually bombing for revenge from what I can make out, personal revenge to a personal attack on a family member.
I don’t think the Iraqi’s are inclined to do this and I think there are few foreigners who would be willing.
If there is a real terror machine why can’t they produce more attacks than they have?
The war in Iraq and the “war on terror” are two seperate, distinct situations. There is a real threat from terrorism in the world but it’s not exactly as represented. Iraq is a war that has many different kinds of conventional and unconventional types of warfare in it.
Well is somebody blowing up some back packs on a train a threat to the world or just a criminal.
911 was very dramatic and everything but it didn’t stop the Earth from turning.
What’s the threat, who are they, what are their capabilities? See I don’t think there’s anyone out there on an organized effiicient level, that’s why we see back pack bombers.
If Bush continues, I suppose it’s possible, I don’t know that it has reached that stage even now.
that UAE is a client state. The orthodoxy of the 911 events is accepted without question beyond hearings that debate which agency should get more money.
Most who oppose the crusade oppose it because “Saddam did not have WMD.” Far more merely oppose the way it is run, and believe that their preferrred politician could run it better.
In short, the view of events is so far from reality, that discussing them is kind of like trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.
And most Americans, indeed most westerners anywhere would prefer that you not get too deep into a lot of machines. Some because Jesus and the Rapture are coming soon, and others because they simply could not bear it. Even though every aspect of their life is burdened with it, they could not bear to know why, or with what.
You know, when I discuss a culture other than my own, I try to regard the people with respect and even present shortcomings in ways that allow a bit of face-saving on their behalf.
Do you really hate Americans as much as the underlying distaste for us you seem to harbor?
I didn’t hear anything by DTF about hating anybody. But I will tell you that I hate America. And I live here. I am an American by culture. I am disgusted with this nation. It’s fascist…period.
I don’t have to beilieve in the neighborhood God or America. That’s a little scary for me or for anyone perhaps becuase you don’t have as much to hold on to. But it makes the world more interesting, I feel. Love of country shouldn’t extend beyond the landscape, your familiarity with it and people.That’s all a country is.THere is no reason that love of country should ever translate into joining an army and becoming a soldier. The military is for fools. The lowest forms of life can be found there. The military reduces an individual into a killing machine during war times.
Also I don’t think you need to be reverent about another culture or your own. I believe all major human cultures are horribly defective, distorted, imbalanced and have drifted away from whatever our natural inclination as individual beings would have taken us.
Or at least beneath my heretofore perception of your intelligence.
Suppose you had a little sister, who became involved with drugs and an abusive partner, who peddled her to his drug-dealing colleagues, and beat her.
Many family members try to reach her, but about him, she can believe no wrong. In her reality, he loves her, and the drugs are her friend.
To you, and these other family members, the reality is quite different.
In your opinion, would discussion of the disconnect between your sister’s reality and yours, be an expression of hatred?
I welcome the discussions and agreement is not an issue of concern. The discussion can also be tainted by inherent anti-American prejudice that is destructive regardless of it’s justification. I just get the impression that this view of Americans is so strong that it has to be thrown in my face at every opportunity as the reason we will never find solutions to these problems.
I apologize if I offend you. That’s not my intent.
Returning to the subject of your hypothetical little sister, there with her abusive crack-dealing pimp, would you consider yourself anti-little sister if you would like to see her in a loving relationship, healthy, free from drugs and enjoying a happy, productive life?
There is objection mainly because
-2 of the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim extremist terrorists from UAE.
-There was UAE funding of terrorists
-Nuclear materiel was passed to Pakistan through UAE.
Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are extremist. But to continually state that rampant anti-Arab racism is behind the objection to this business deal is starting to sound like race-baiting.
to mention the discrimination, prejudice and revilement is considered a greater offense than the bigotry itself.
You will notice that any time racism is mentioned, for example, when the subject of a “caught on tape” police beating, or the over-representation of Afro and Latin Americans in the poverty class is mentioned, he who mentions this will be immediately pounced upon and denounced, dismissed and demonized for “race baiting” or my personal favorite, “playing the race card.”
And the rabid and foaming anti-anyone perceived as Muslim, Arab, or having the physical or sartorial appearance of possibly having suspected links to Arabs and/or Muslims is no exeption!
The only difference I have noticed is that in the case of “Arabs the pouncers are more likely to attempt to justify their prejudices, whereas with Afro-Americans this has decreased, though occasionally you will hear the “oh now he’s playing the race card” followed by something along the lines of “well, it’s a fact, they commit more crimes” or “well it’s a fact, it’s harder to find your blacks that are qualified for the higher paying jobs.”
But you know, as with the Holocaust Deniers this is a good sign. Just as those who deny the Holocaust happened are a step up from those who approve of it, those who either deny or attempt to justify ethnic bigotry – or anti-gay bigotry, for that matter, are a step up from those who see no need for either denial or justification.
because it is a corrupt regime that has been known to support terrorism. To describe that fear as anti-Arab racism is race-baiting, a set-up hoping that the debate will reveal actual racism.
There was a guy…a talk show host on TV who said on an interview show Arabs should not be allowed to operate ports in the U.S. period.
Thanks to this kind of exposure Americans are begginning to develop a prejudice against Arabs. It’s becoming ok to say Arabs should be identified at airports (racial profiling).
There is only prejudice in this world. There is only racism. There isn’t anything else. The general rule is….doesn’t matter what country ….the lighter your skin…the better your being. It’s true in U.S. Mexico, South America, Europe, India anywhere where there is a variation in the color.
To say someone is race baiting is to assume the possibility exists that there is no racism somewhere. No racism exists only in individuals with unique experiences and unique exposures to people whose skin color varies from their own. It does not exist in cultures, only among individuals, in my experience.
In some countries and some places racism is thin only becuase there are no differences in skin color. And therefore no exposure …so no prejudices. But upon arrival the stories begin.
By the way violent American Rap movies have done alot of damage to the way any person with darker skin is seen throughout the world, especially Americans who happen to have black skin.
You may have no idea what these films have done to the way people outside the US…who are not attracted to violence-who never really experience anything like the exaggerated violence shown in the movies see dark skinned people in America.
And of course the implication and assumption here in blogs by Larry Johnson for example is that Arabs are not quite as human. It goes unquestioned even here, though it stick out and screams out for somebody to say something. Larry Johnson for example said Arabs at Guantanmo should be sleep deprrived. This is torture. I hate anyone who wants to torture someone else. I can imagine what it must be like.
Not long ago, before Hurricane Katrina, some pundits were saying racism didn’t exist in the United States. It really is quite unreal, the discconect from any kind of reality that America is experiencing.
I only have to look out my window. I see it everyday. I am affected by it. It’s part of our culture. Culture is not something you can easily escape from.
“To say someone is race baiting is to assume the possibility exists that there is no racism somewhere”
No.
There are some people who are not racist, believe me. I live among people who are ‘color blind.’ I ‘judge’ people by the light in their eyes.
‘Race baiting’ means to see racism where there is none; to accuse others of being racist without any evidence.
Distrust of the UAE is not racism. There is evidence that this is a corrupt and dangerous regime.
Here is the US State Department’s Travel Warning:
I wonder what the travel advisory is for UAE citiizens coming to the U.S..
are citizens of UAE. The others are from far eastern and other mid-eastern countries, (guest workers?)
93% of the work force in UAE is foreign.
I imagine the 15-20% of actual UAE citizens are rich enough to travel anywhere with grace and ease.
One could make the argument that it could not exist in individuals if it did not exist in cultures.
Humans are not born racist. If you will watch small children of different races playing together, you will see that they do not separate themselves according to skin color, or ethnicity or religion if they are old enough to have even the faintest grasp of something like I go to the mosque and David goes to the synagogue, and Jeet goes to the temple.
They do not discriminate, they do not revile, they do not dehumanize or demonize. All these things they must learn from their parents, or the larger culture.
Once they are adults, they have the ability to choose and develop their own attitudes, opinions and beliefs on this and all other subjects.
But DTF people and children… especially do not choose their attitudes. Not initially. We are not that free. If we think we are that free… that everything is a choice… whether to be rascist or not… we are hopelessy doomed to forever being prejudice..
When you learn a language, the language itself is filled with prejudice,slanted, it’s indicating value or non-value and it has emotional non verbal content.
We are not creatures of thought more than we are creatures of feeling, of sentiment. Rascism is not usually an intellectual exercize. It may have an intellectual component, a rationality but it is essientially a felt experience.
I noticed hostility in myself after 911 toward Arab looking people I would see on the street. That is to say I felt it. I wasn’t looking to feel it, it just happened. I have felt that same way after being attacked by a black person. How many other people have had similar experiences?
i happen to think that when a black person is attacked by a white person that black person might feel something related to a subcultural perception that he has learned without even having to think about it, about white people.
Now, if you think you are prejudice free, not only about skin color but really about anything at all…..all you have to do is be aware of what you feel. Because what you feel is more basic to your being, more powerful than what you think.
So, I don’t like to hear about how people are not prejudiced. I am more interested in people who admit their prejudices. They are the people who are telling the truth. You can learn something from them. The other people who claim to have no prejudiced are prejudice and are lying.
Rascism isn’t something you choose, it’s something you have to overcome should you wish to expend the effort needed. Culutre, the culture you grow up in is a life long struggle to battle against, it never ends. I am speaking of the parts of the culture that limit or hamper one’s awareness.
feelings and thoughts are different things, but that does not mean you cannot think about your feelings, or have feelings about your thoughts.
To use the examples you cited, if you choose to believe Washington’s official explanation of the 911 events, that is a choice. It may be a choice that is influenced by feelings you already have, but whether and how much to consider that, how much thought you give to inconsistencies and unanswered questions is up to you – something only you can decide: a choice.
This is a choice similar to one made by a young man whose sweetheart tells him an improbable story. He may have very strong feelings for her, but being capable also of thought, it is thoughts that will direct his actions, whether to decide that he cannot bear to know that she has deceived him, and therefore believe her story because he has such deep feelings for her, marry her and make the choice to not think about whether she is faithful or not, or whether to question the story, despite the feelings, and make the choice not to marry her, precisely because of the depth of his feelings, and his desire not to spend his life doubting the sincerity of the one person in whom he should be able to have absolute trust, nor bind her to a man she does not love.
If you are white, and a black person attacks you, unless you are very exceptional, you will have some feelings of hostility and anger toward the individual who attacked you. How you process those feelings, how much power you wish to accord that individual over your feelings, and for how long, is up to you. Some people may decide to take the anger to their tomb, to let it hold sway over every aspect of their life.
Others may choose to acknowledge it, think about it, and choose to retain control over their own lives, and whatever it takes to do that, disussing it with loved ones, with a professional, they’ve made the choice to be master (or mistress) of their own fate.
This would also apply to the decision whether to associate everybody who has a similar skin color, or a similar hairstyle, or wears similar clothing as that person, with the attack.
Shall you renounce your relationships with everyone you know who has this skin, this hairstyle, etc, and for the rest of your life, vow to form no attachment with anyone who has any of these characteristics?
This is a decision, a choice. It is something you would have to think carefully about. How important are these feelings of aversion to such people?
Are they of such great value that you are willing to make such a great sacrifice? These thoughts will return you to the question of how much of your life you are willing to sign over to your attacker, and the feelings of fear and anger that his actions caused. Once again, a choice.
Or what if your attacker has the same skin color, hairstyle, etc. as you? Will you renounce your family, looking in mirrors, change your hair, your wardrobe, and avoid being in the company of, or forming a bond with anyone who shares your own, and your attacker’s appearance traits?
Or maybe you are referring to the feelings of a victim who already bears a deeply ingrained anti-Otherness of some kind, and the attack validates this for him, and so to him, there is nothing to think about.
To return to the subject of children whose parents’ values include racism, when children grow up, it is natural and desirable that they question whether the values of their parents will be ones they wish to choose to guide their own lives. And not just racism. Suppose a child is raised in a home by parents who are deeply religious. But the child, despite his feelings of love for his parents, once he is an adult and able to study and think, may discover and/or conclude that he does not share their religious faith. Maybe he is drawn (feelings) to a different faith, or none at all. He will think about this, and make his choice.
Both theologians and secularists agree on the concept of free will. 🙂
Free Will….
Well you only have to look at the demographics to see that for centuries certain nations are one religion or the other. Is that free will? I don’t think so.
First we are determined you might say genetically, we are born human were certain features or lacking certain features. Arms, legs. Then we are born into a culture. We learn the language of the culture, Then we learn the culture. We do not choose our culture. Then we become familiar with the society we live in and the time period of course that the society is placed in. We do not choose when to be born 1938 or 23 bc. Then we are exposed to the filter of all this and the emotional framework of a family. We do not choose are parents.
By the time your done with all that, you have developed a very limited capacity of perception. That is because there is an entire universe around us and we do not percieve it or exercize free will in it. Our world has become quite small and our perceptions largely determined by the above. Then I suppose, if you are able you can exercize what you call free, but what i would just call your will. And that has to butt up against everything you have been exposed to, because it demands that you are aware of yourself on a sensational level. Thats the only place where you can become aware of what you are, on a sensational level. We are just a feeling, nothing more. Thoughts are overated and sensation underrated.
I am afraid I am quite defective.
I forgot to mention of course that we are born on THIS PLANET. Not on some other planet and that’s something that I think we take for granted. It’s a big universe out there….who knows what’s out there and how many other ways there are at looking at things.
you are born, but you do choose which elements of that culture you will participate in.
An individual’s capacity for perception involves some things that are chosen, and some that are not. Obviously not everyone has the same intellectual capacity, nor the same personality. But each person has the choice whether to use the intellectual capacity he does have, just as someone with a gift for singing has the choice whether or not to sing.
And how that person chooses will be influenced by his personality. Some people have a stronger sense of individualism, others a stronger sense of conformity.
But in either case, all have the ability to decide how to apply that to their lives.
For example, someone may be very shy, but realize that if they wish to achieve certain goals, let’s say to get a job, they will need to overome that shyness enough to go to the interview, and once hired, to communicate with others as needed to do the job, and if their ambitions include advancement, they may need to overcome their shyness even more.
All this involves feelings, or sensations, as you put it, but also decisions, which involve thought.
Just as our attack victim must decide whether he will receive a greater benefit if he renounces all his friends who have a certain skin or hairstyle that resemble that of his attacker. Only he can decide which road to travel in that regard.
I disagree with you on thought being overrated. Thought is a fundamental building block of the evolution of the human species, a process I am in favor of.
I feel that thinking and sensation have to be integrated for either to be effective. I;m just saying nobdody really seems to dwell on sensation. There is not much attention paid to it, so it doesn’t develop. It’s not understood, there are few descriptive words for it so it appears to be ignored. But it is the engine of our lives. It’s the motor and the driving wheel.
Thought in our culture is usually the ratioinalzied description of where the motor and driving wheel have taken you. Rationalizing is a result of having contradicting cultural or social of famial feelings about other real organic personal true feelings. It gets convoluted. Rationalizing and thought are not the driving wheel. But thought could be integrated with the motor, the driving wheel, but not in our Western culture anyway.
You spoke about an individuals capacity for perception. Individuals usually don’t decide how to percieve, that is something that a culture decides for them without anyone even realizing it. Their is no limit to how an individual might percieve given the opportunity. There are a million channels. But we are more and more on a channel that gets slimmer and slimmer and more homogenous. This seems to follow with technological and scientific advancement. That”s what I think anyway and behind that thought is a feeling of anger. A feeling of being forcibly trapped.
I don’t think we are talking about the same things.
for thought, for that “integration.” It is true that in the west, especially the US, people are subjected to indoctrination of unprecedented intensity and duration. And when you consider the similar operation that Germans were subjected to for only a few years, and compare it to the decades-long American version, clearly the effects will be difficult to overcome.
But the fact that there are Americans on whom it has not “taken,” or has “taken” only spottily and incompletely, shows that it is not a question of capacity.
Yes, it is convoluted, and it is an “uphill battle.” But it exploits a human trait, not a cultural one.
Every parent in the world tells their child some version of “Are you going to jump off the cliff just because your friends say it is cool, and some of them do it?” And every child in the world thinks, if he does not say “Mom you don’t UNDERSTAND.” The child cannot analyze his mother’s warning, it is he who does not understand, because he does not yet have the capacity for that integration.
But when he grows into a man, it is that integration that will cause him to say the same thing to his own child, even though he DOES understand now the power of peer pressure, and the futility of trying to defeat it entirely. But the methods he employs to fight it will be a result of that integration, of sensations of memory of what did or did not work in his own case, and his own analytical thoughts about that.
And so it is with culture in the larger sense. This is how cultural change, social change, occurs, when people think. This is why so much effort is put into preventing this thought from occurring by those who benefit from the status quo.
Some effects are more marked in the west because these cultures are so new, if they can be said to have been completely born at all. Soft clay, what is taking place is the creation of culture, not its alteration.
And I believe we are talking about the same things, just from very different perspectives. 🙂
“The other people who claim to have no prejudiced are prejudice and are lying.”
You are the one showing intolerance here.
I come from an inter-racial family and I am not lying when I say I have no prejudice against a person because of their ethnicity or colour. There is so much more to a person.
Children have to be taught to hate.
However, I do have prejudice against fanatics who attack with violence and kill indiscriminately. That includes Bush & Co. Who doesn’t?
You come from a inter racial family. Therefore you have no prejudices against someone because of thier ethnicity or colour. Is that what you are saying?
No I said “and” not “therefore.”
“I come from an inter-racial family AND I have no prejudice…”
You twisted my words.
However you got this right:
I have no ethnicity or colour prejudice.
However,
I have other prejudice against extremism, religious fundamentalism, kneejerk self-righteousness.
so concisely.
For lurkers who may not be aware, UAE is a client state of the US, and its regime exists, corruption and all, at the grace and favor of the US, who will not hesitate to bring it in line should it do anything US, no stranger itself to corrupt regimehood, finds distasteful or in conflict with US business interests.
US considers any opposition or resistance to US policies to be terrorism. Increasing amounts of American tax dollars are required to ensure that UAE and other client states do not support terrorism, such as dismissing US installed puppets and electing their own governments.