tar

Moontanman, Well you are right, I am a wishful thinker. I went to a private school for boys (at the time) called Pingry. They had an honor code. I thought that was the proper way to live, and I always held working for the benefit of the team, rather than personal advantage, with honesty and integrity high on the priorities list. I was amazed as I hit the "real world" at how many people lied and cheated and took advantage of other people. Quite against my upbringing. But still I give people the benefit of the doubt, at first, and let them prove me wrong, if they are A$%h0132. But in defense of my theory, Pingry groomed Ivy league type individuals, the kind of individuals we are talking about that would be the lawyers and doctors and business leaders of our society. (I personally left after 9th grade and went to Public School, where there was plenty of majority around, and plenty of non-Pingry behavior. Big football player used to copy my homework for geometry after Gym. Unheard of behavior at Pingry. He would look toward my test paper in class and I would cover it up. Cheating was punished at Pingry. Even seeing someone cheat and not reporting it was punished just as severly. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, But we have already had the French revolution. "Let them eat cake" was not an acceptable answer to "the people have no bread." The elite are held these days to higher standards. But elite we still have, like the owner of the Dallas Cowboys. But a basketball owner was separated from his team, "by the majority" who would not have a person both make racist remarks, and be the leader of an NBA francise. His elite position was overpowered by the majority public opinion. It actually was tyranny of the majority, as it was what he said to his girlfriend about who she should associate with, and could easily have been a statement of jealousy as a racist one. Is it "right" to remove an individual from the franchise they built, based on the opinion of the majority? Regards, TAR Ten Oz, The royal blood idea has definitely been discounted. What with the inbreeding of the royalty in Europe causing all sorts of "challenged" characters. And I am in no way suggesting a superiority of any particular race, in terms of the genes. History has proven that expanding the gene pool results in better individuals. Although there is a tendency for certain fine characteristics to be passes on, based on the survival of the fittest. I am reminded, for some reason, at this juncture of the Camir Rouge in Cambodia. They killed all the elite folk, all the scientists and leaders, all the educated and capable, because then they would have no competition, and could rule unchallenged. Such is the kind of rule a Mullah attempts to have, where they keep their people poor and uneducated, purposefully. A population "without" the top 10% in capability and trustworthiness is more subject to oppression, than a population with such a "responsible" elite. Regards, TAR

Inow, In failed front number three, you hypothesise that: "Three - People tend to act in their own self-interest and will generally prioritize their own well-being and continued access to power and resources over the greater good of the many. There are clearly some noteworthy exemptions to this trend, but the trend is indeed what most societies seem to face." And I would disagree with this hypothesis based on the fact that capable and trustworthy people have led, are leading and will lead our societies. And the fact that we even have working societies proves that the most capable and trustworthy amoung us, actually are. And they have not endeavored to accumulate wealth and power for their own advantage alone, but have worked toward impoving the situation for others, as well. I am thinking of a fellow I know up in CT who owns and runs a manufacturing facility up there. His father built the place. His father's sons worked there and supported it in various fashions over the years. It employs 30-50 people and each and every one is "supported" by this fellow's efforts. This fellow and his family could be the elite you are talking about. They have hired help, they have a house on Cape Cod. The mother, (father has passed) even at 88, cooks and plans for functions at the Catholic church. They are good people. Excellent people. Another son has a business that he has established factories in other countries and established help for unwed mothers over there. Indications to me, that having the ability to overpower and subjugate people does not mean that such is the nescessary outcome, and for society to be in the state that it is in, in most locales on the planet, capable and trustworthy folk must have been, for a long time, operating with much more than their own self interests, in mind. Regards, TAR Ten Oz, I suppose you are referring to George W. Bush, who did not seem to have the intelligence of a Bill Clinton. Personally, IQ wise, I put myself in G.W.s intelligence range, and would rather have a leader I can figure out, than one like Clinton, who, being of higher intelligence than I am, could "fool" me. The both of them, obviously had to have some leadership abilities or they would not have been elected president. And obviously neither could have made it to the post without the "backing" of rich and powerful folk, lawyers and business owners and state politicians and Hollywood producers, and the like. If you are suggesting that there is a group of people that are "better" than George Bush in the capability and trustworthiness department, I would still gamble that these people are amoung the 10% or so, that lead this society. From the right or from the left, from the Military Industrial Complex, to Hollywood and the Church and the University's Philosophy dept, or the Business leaders, or Wall Street. And to the thread point, there are "reasons" why these 10% should be given a little authority over the 90%. Primarily because they are our leaders, and they are the best we have. Otherwise, we could have a tyranny of the masses, and that might not be desireable. Regards, TAR

Inow, In the failed front two, you state that "we see the exact opposite", and while I can think of a few examples of airhead children, not possessing the skills and abilities of their parents (my plumber's son for instance,) I can think of many many more examples, of managers, leaders, store owners, craftsmen, scientists, movie producers, business leaders, thought leaders, military commanders, and politicians, who actually have the credentials and abilities and the ethics to be capable and trustworthy leaders. And where we see brilliance in disenfrancised individuals, we might get gang leaders, or revolutionary figures and such, but they are still the "leaders" of society from the cliche, to the classroom, to the quarterback on the field, to the college sorority leader, to the school board chairman, to the mayor and the representatives to local, state and federal government. The people that the president picks to be on his cabinet, are in the "at least a standard deviation to the right", in any number of capability and trust indicators. They were the quarterback on the highschool team, and the president of the debating club. Think of your own place of business. The leaders make decisions behind closed doors in meetings with stakeholders and in accordance with the laws of the land in with the goals of advancing themselves, their "followers" and society. My guess is that you either are on the inside or the outside of the closed door. And if you are on the inside, you are capable and trustworthy, in fact you are the most capable and trustworth individual available. Board directors are usually picked based on their capability and trustworthiness and on their proven capabilities to lead and be revered by their peers. Regards, TAR Inow, In failed front one, you say the elite individual has simply won the lottery of birth, and by that you are saying perhaps that somebody could have been born in a farming village in North Korea, or with a silver spoon in their mouth in London. This idea smells of reincarnation ideas, with a soul floating around and landing in this or that situation, based on the quality of their previous life, or in your idea, based on a "luck of the draw" princple. I am not convinced that one "could have been" somebody other than the person that they are. And at birth an individual possesses the genes of their parents, and the geographical location of their mother, and the house and town and state and nation of their mother. And the economic condition of their mother, which has a lot to do with the endeavors of the individuals in their family, tribe, association of tribes, and what they built in terms of economic engines and laws and scientific advances, prior the indivdual's birth. An idividual born in a backwater in the Amazon jungle, is not likely to be the head of the debating club at Princeton, unless they move to NJ. Regardless of where they fall on the bell curve, in terms of capability and trustworthiness indicators. Regards, TAR

Inow, I like your James Madison Federalist Papers quote, "Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." - James Madison, Federalist 10 And this, combined with Ten Oz's point that originally only land owners and white land owners at that had voting rights, led me to consider why it might be beneficial to HAVE the elite have a little extra voting power. I got this thought, thinking about the bell curve, when it comes to intelligence, and considering that our leaders probably come from the same group of people that find themselves out more than a standard deviation from the norm in abilities like strength, intelligence, persuasiveness, charismatic behavior, persistance, judgement, trustability and so on. It might not be unlikey to find that these people would become the elite of society, over time through either outright ability or inheritance of the wealth and power that their parents accumulated. Under this thinking, the elite have both a special ability to be the capable and trusted leaders, and a special responsibility to not abuse their power and use it to the detriment of others, or in the oppression of others. But, in the context of this thread, it is also wise for the elite to structure the system in such a way, that mob rule, without the guidance of the most capable and trustworthy, could not succeed in taking the society in an unworkable direction. Regards, TAR But leave the majority with the power to keep the elite from taking the place in an undisireable or unworkable direction.

SwansonT, Thanks, I will use the correct spelling of impugn from now on. Overtone, "It's got nothing to do with "sides", or countries, or ideologies." I am thinking that it does. Call it a hypothesis, but when a Boston Red Sox fan walks in front of a section at Yankee stadium, somebody is likey to throw a peanut at him, even if its just good natured rivalry behavior. In the case of Daesh there is a particular "story" that they are following, and they need a villian inorder to be the hero. It happens to be the Jews, and the U.S. and anybody that fights on the Zionist side against them. And as we agree that Daesh members are bigots in their indiscriminant killing of anyone who is Christian or Jew or appears at all to "side" with such against them, it appears that sides and ideologies have a lot to do with this. So if you feel that Israel has stolen Palestinian land or if you feel they bought it with international blessing as a homeland, you are liable to be on one "side" or the other. Interesting article on the web I saw earlier was about a writer who walked around Paris for 10 hrs. dressed as a Jew, and took much verbal abuse. This is contrary to how I would have expected enlightened Frenchmen to behave. Somewhat bigoted on the face. Are they Anti-semites, or are they pro Hezbola? Depends on which side they are on in terms of whether Israel's homeland is a good idea or a bad one. I do not agree with your characterization of the Jews, and I have my own characterisation of the Iranians that differs slightly from yours, and yes its skewed by seeing that group of Iranians burning my flag, and by seeing the hostages returned from long captivity in Iran, in Lanstuhl at the army hospital. But that does not make me incapable of rational argument, or incapable of giving an Iranian the benefit of the doubt. But several years back when Israel and Hezbola were at war, the Iranian were on Hezbola's "side", not the Israeli's. And several years back when Israel and Hezbola were at war, the U.S. was on Israel's side, not Hezbola's. I understand that Hezbola takes care of her people and Iran takes care of them, and it's all against the evil Zionists that have caused them their misery and despair...except I am on the Zionist "side", by virtue of my country's support of Israel. So the side thing, is important to the discussion. And as the "story" goes, ideology is also important, because Sharia law, is basically living as Mohammed lived, and Jewish tradition is to basically live as Moses lived, and Christian tradition is to basically live as Jesus lived, and Western rationists basically live like Socrates lived...and so on. Ideology is central to the discussion. And "countries" have everything to do with it. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Eqypt, Lybia, U.S., Russia, Italy, France...and Daesh claiming an Islamic State exists in any territory it controls. Nationalist tendencies have a lot to do with it. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, WTH number 1. Overtone linked an article about David Duke running for an office, losing, and getting half a milliion votes. WTH number2. If the character of the U.S. is being impuned and half the population of the country being called bigots, I was wondering which half of the country built the Patriot missiles that are protecting Israel's schools. The bigoted half, or the unbigoted half. In other words I don't think Overtone is looking at this Daesh thing, and Iran as an ally, with complete, unbiased rationality and adherence to the facts and history of alliances and such in the area, and the U.S. role as ally of Israel in particular. Regards, TAR And the Lybian thing, with Daesh cutting the heads off from 21 Egyptians, tips the scales against Daesh even further. Overtone had suggested that Iran had not attacked anybody lately. Figuring the Iran/Iraq war as not recent, I thought a reminder that Hezbolla threw some Iranian missiles at Israel 4 or 5 years ago, might be in order. I don't know if the missles were made in Iran, but at the time Iranian financing was alledged.

MigL, Well I don't know what set it off between Overtone and me back in some other debate, perhaps on the shutting down of the U.S. government by the Tea Party, or some other thread where he/she took my stance, which was a rational and hearthfelt stance, as an indication that I beat up blacks and gays and probably my wife, and abused children and such. I don't do those things and fight rather solidly against those that do. I see you refer to Overtone as "he", and somewhere along the line, I got an indication "she" was a "she". In her profile he/she does not specify, and it should not mater, except if "he" thinks I am impuning his manhood by referring to him as her. Perhaps it would be good to know if Overtone is a male or female, gay or straight, American or Dane, Lutherin or Buddist, Black or Indian. Not that those things matter as to an objective/scientific view of the world, except that when it comes to interpersonal, and by extention international affairs, such distinctions DO matter. Not that one race, gender, ideology, nation, religion is superior and should rule the world, but that people tend to, with good reason, favor themselves over second person, and second persons over third. In Overtone's case he/she is painting me as a third person, in every regard, and I simply am not. I am on some of the same teams as he/she is. I might have mutual friends work for the same company, live in the same town or nation or on the same continent or planet. Beautiful works of art, or fine establishments of social value could have been built by my relatives or people on various of the teams that I put myself on. In Daesh's case, I have put them all in the "they" category. They are off all my teams. They are my enenmy, until they change their ways, or until they are dead, or I am dead. (or until I change my ways, along with 280 million Americans, which "ain't" gonna happen.) So yes, I think my team is better than Daesh, for all the "Western" reasons the OP pointed out. And I think the U.S. and her ideology and laws and people are "better" than Daesh. But I include the Croatians in Detroit, and the Jews in Sussex NJ, and the WASPs in West Virginia, the people in Hollywood and Wall Street, the people from the Red and the Blue states. America is 1000 times better than Daesh, and not because of TAR and not inspite of TAR. Although I am on this particular team and will take responsibility for her victories and defeats. And I am wholeheartedly in favor of the defeat of the Daesh team. Not Muslims, not Men, not Syrians or Iraqis...Daesh. Regards, TAR In the Army (while in Germany) I befriended three soldiers who were room mates (and female). One of them was a good buddy I traveled around Germany with (and made out with once at the end of a drunken evening,(we just laughed afterward, because it was not our relationship). One of the three was gay and had a girlfriend who was a Sergeant. At the time, being gay was against the uniform code of military justice and could get you thrown out of the Army. I did not "tell on" them, and even went on a "date" with the gay soldier (who was half black) to a Gay Bar in Kaiserslaughtern, and that act together with going to the same gay bar and dancing with my straight sergeant (married, two kids,) as a goof at the same place, put me on the same team as the gay community and the folks that were gay did not hide it from me, so I knew who was. My own roomates were a Swede from the Mid West, a black from California, and a black from the South somewhere. All straight. We were all there, protecting Germany from the threat of Soviet tank invasion, and supporting the communications of the team which was going to launch a rescue effort of the Americans held hostage in Iran. So Overtone, I think I might be on many of your teams, and in this discussion I think it important, not to discriminate against folk based on their race or creed or Nationality, but based on the content of their character. And Daesh fails the character test. America passes. Regards, TAR

Overtone, Hezbola is funded by Iran. Hezboa is against Daesh. So they are an ally. Should they make military advances into Israel, they would become our instant enemy. Not because TAR wants to defend the stars and stripes, but because we have pledged support to Israel, surrounded by Nations that would rather she was not there. Israel has our Patriot missiles to shoot down missles aimed at her schools. Do you figure the KKK built those missiles, or not? If you would rather not have "people like me" in the negotiations with Iran you should publically here state with no mistake which groups and countries and ideologies you side with, and which of the same you side against. You cannot float out there as some morality queen, privledged with the knowledge of the right way to be, and not specify to us, what the right way is. Sure I know who you have impuned, but who do you revere? Regards, TAR http://abcnews.go.com/International/International/fresh-offensive-hezbollah-troops-fast-approaching-israels-border/story?id=28917828. Is there anyone in the world, other than you, that is doing it right? Anyone whose flag and people and laws and idealogy you would defend with your life? Anyone in particular who you can figure will stand against Daesh, on general principle, because they are bigots and murderers and extortionist and kidnappers and rapests and thiefs, to name just half the items on the "bad" side of the scale that is now tipped? If this is a Shite against Sunni battle I would rather not side with either. Each has their good aspects and their bad. I don't think it is such, and Sunni Muslems should not be impuned by the actions of this criminal, unsanctioned lot. But neither should half the population of the U.S. be impuned because some idiot somewhere beats up a gay guy. We just put such individuals in jail. And when a whole big group of people act in a criminal fashion, we declare war on them. Overtone, There was a fellow at my work, that I heard had some connections with a white supremists type group. I was raised quite contrary to such leanings. I had as little to do with the guy as I could, and I did not trust his judgement. Don't impune me as KKK, or even those who voted for Duke. They may have voted for him because they agreed with his stance, on more issues than they agreed with his opponent's stances. If you talk about rational debate, take the issues one at a time and discuss them rationally. Don't be predudice of any opinion I might have, just because I am a WASP. I should not be lumped in with David Duke. I have German blood in me, and my dad had a German machine gun bullet rip the nerve in his left shoulder and lodge in is side, leaving his left hand crippled for life. I am not a Nazi, nor do I hate the Germans. I think you need to paint your narratives with a much finer brush.

Thread, Saw this on Yahoo this morning. 'The Birth of a Nation:' 100 Years Later, the Controversy Endures Associated Press February 12, 2015 By Hillel Italie

Overtone, Overtone, You don't stop Daesh with good intentions. You have to come up with a better plan than that. I am thinking that debunking their propaganda would be a good start. You are no help with that, as you seem to have it in for "people like me", which are the people who would like to separate fiction from fact. The young people drawn to the cause of Daesh are lured by promises of living some some of ideal life. I am not sure what the young men are promised, although there was a study done in an African country surrounding the youth drawn to a terrorist organisation there, that said the draw was 34 dollars a month and a cell phone, as well as food, clothes and shelter, and a cause to be part of. But the woman drawn, I think are liable to have a rude awakening. It might be good to try and find out such truths and make them well known so young folk do not go and find martydom for the benefit of some warlord. There are other "people like me" who don't think it helpful to demonize the U.S. and demonize the Jews, and to glorify the holy war against the Zionists. Why do you engage in such propaganda yourself? I think it might be dangerous for the Jews for instance for Iran to have nuclear weapons, as not 5 years ago the leader indicated he would like to destroy the Jews. Perhaps we do need Iran's assistance to defeat Daesh, but if you are willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, after they held American hostages while I was in Germany 35 years ago, then I would think you should not impune Americans for having a KKK 100 years ago. Are you a "self hating" American? Or do you call another nation your own? Would you go fight for Daesh and become the "wife" of a Daesh leader, to defeat "people like me"? TAR

Overtone, I am in an automatic morality hole in your eyes on about 8 counts at least. I am white, of German/Swiss/British Isle ancestory, a confirmed Presbyterian, educated at Lutheran founded institutions, a registered Republican, a former U.S. Army soldier, somone with a 401k, a male, a conservative leaning person that believes in individual responsibility, and a fellow who would rather not see an Olympic Hero of mine, wanting to be thought of as a woman. If I wish to be on the side of people that do not want their clitori cut off, I believe I am on your side. Together both we need to stop Daesh. Regards, TAR I will take responsibility for the Crusades, and the Enlightenment, the KKK and the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. The bombing of Hiroshima and the defeat of Hitler. Thank you very much. Overtone, Perhaps I am taking exception to your take on this because you appear to me to be stomping and burning my flag. While I was serving in the Army in Germany, during the Iranian crisis, protecting West Germany from Soviet tank invasion, I was out at a carnival in Kaiserslaughtern in civilian clothes and a group of about 7 Iranians were stompting on, and burning an American Flag, I went to intervene and saw two other American soldiers from my base, one of them black, turn and walk away. We were ordered not to engage in any incidents amoung the civilian population. I stood there with tears in my eyes, ready to fight and die if they approached me. I am crying now, because I should have died that day, protecting my flag. The bastards did not realize they were burning the symbol that was protecting their right to be at a carnival in a free country in the first place. Regards, TAR

I heard that Kayla Jean Mueller was forced to marry a Daesh leader before she was killed by Jordanian bombs. This is not behavior acceptable to anyone. It is rape. Overtone, I used to work in the copier industry and overtoned meant there was too much toner on the page, and it was likely scattered and smudged, making a bad copy. An overtone can also be characterized as a beautiful harmonic. When morality police are at work, or racial purity KKK members are lashing uppity blacks, or Nazis are gassing Jews, I am on your side, and know what the right way to be, is. You can not impune Catholics, and Protestans and Jews and Arians and Muslims as immoral bigots, and at the same time, live by their combined codes of proper behavior. Regards, TAR

Overtone, " I "aligned" the KKK with Daesh. Why are you talking about Republicans? " Because you are clumping KKK with Protestants and when you said the KKK was still a viable faction, they had just changed their name, I thought you were impuning the Tea Party. I happen to be an atheist, and a registered Republican, but I was raised Presbyterian and campainged for McGovern in New Hampshire. I have the Protestant work ethic and have the Pingry honor code deep routed in my character. New Hampshire has a state motto...or at least used to "live free or die". You are liking the parallel between Protestans and the KKK and KKK and Daesh. I say you are full of huey. You are not looking at it meaningfully you are experiencing some confirmation bias. The things Daesh is doing are things long outlawed in this country. Outlawed by legislators that initially were WASPS and male WASPS at that. If the moral majority of the country is to be impuned because they have contructed the glass ceiling for women, and disenfranchised blacks and latinos, and all are morally bankrupt and misguided religious zealots that are just like Daesh, then its a wonder that the same exact folk have founded a country where a person's god is his/her own to worship, and folk live under each other's protection to seek happiness. If Moslems from Kosovo are murdered in a U.S. city, the power structure in America, as WASPy as it is, or as dominated by male Irish Catholic policeman, will protect them, because that is the code we go by. You can not impune bankers as interest charging money grubbing Jews, at the same time you apply for a student loan, or a mortgage. Sure you characterize someone who hits a squirrel with a shovel until its dead as an abuser of animals. Or you can characterize the same guy as a heroic protector of his two and five year old daughters, against a manegy and possibly rabid aggressive rodent. I am saying that Daesh is a manegy possibly rabid threat to humanity, and America's desire to defeat Daesh is not out of bigotry. Ten Oz, You might have a point, why Daesh and not the other hate groups around. But I think its because such a large percentage of the oil in the world comes from the ME, it is important that it be controlled by somebody on the same side as the world. And the other groups are more easily put down by local authorities. Like I might add, Waco Texas. Regards, TAR

Overtone, So do you figure my society is tolerant and unbigoted, or do you figure it is intolerant and bigoted? My example of film made 100 years ago, 5 generations ago was to point out that the morality police upheld rules and morays that we still believe are good rules and morays to uphold, and that in addition they upheld rules and morays that we now find should not be upheld. I certainly remember the back of the bus days myself. I was always brought up to not be predudice and to protect the rights of everybody. I had several lessons on women's rights from my Aunt, a very intelligent woman who assisted with women's rights movements in the 60s and I remember not understanding what the big deal was that he was used as a pronoun that could cover a man and a woman. I was around when Ms. began to be used instead of Miss and Mrs. But my point was that morality is choosen by the people that consider themselves moral, and a society announces it morals by making laws that everyone should live by. You and I have locked horns before, you taking a liberal set of values and me taking a more conservative set to the party. That does not make either of us the morality police. And it does not make me guilty of beating up gays, or dragging blackmen behind a pickup truck, or make me incapable of finding those acts as abhorent as you find them. The question on the table is do we have enough folk on the planet that think Daesh deserves to be defeated to make quick work of it? Has Daesh's burning of the Jordanian Pilot a month before attempting to trade him for a would be murderer, tipped the scales? If you wish to impune Republicans as immoral, ignorant, bigots that is a different subject, and does not carry sufficient parallel examples in current U.S. society to align Republicans with Daesh. Regards, TAR And Puritans burned witches. We stopped doing that.

In this country, the U.S. I am free to want to turn over the magazine with Bruce Jenner's picture on it, without fear that the morality police will come and give me 20 lashes for the transgression. That does not put me in league with Daesh however, even if Daesh would also wish to turn over the magazine. I am Daesh's enemy and have no desire what-so-ever to live under Sharia law. I will be dead, long before that ever comes to pass in the U.S.

Overtone, and Bill Angel, There would be, I think a concensus amoung people that freedom and food are better than oppression and starvation. But bigotry is not such an agreeable subject. In this discussion, I wish I could recall, or find the title of the silent film that was made in the same time as "Birth of a Nation", and had hooded morality police in it, but their targets were not blackmen, but out of wedlock and nationality love affairs, infidelity, murder, corruption, lying and stealings and other transgressions against the morays of society. They punished transgressors, and in the case of the movie sometimes got the wrong guy, and had a certain bigotish streak, which was certainly oppressive and terrible to have hooded men enter your home to punish you when you did not deserve punishment, but they also punished the ones who did deserve it. In our discussion here, the question is whether or not Daesh has crossed the line, and deserves punishment, and defeat, at the hands of the world. The morality that we have cobbled together in the United Nations and World Court has a European flavor. A bigotry of its own that suggests that what France thinks is right, is right, and anybody that thinks otherwise needs to be straightened out. Sure we have vestiges of the British Empire and the Crusaders, and the Ottomans fighting it out in the Middle East, but I do not think your tact, Overtone, is unbigoted. You have suggested we can understand how to fight Daesh better, by recognizing its parellels in our own country. I would like to take it one step further and ask that we recognize Daesh in our own hearts as well, because we each have divided the world into those with our morays and those without them, and we each wish to have our way of life be victorious over the way all those other "bad" ignorant, crazy folk do it. The bottom line, and the way forward, is not to disavow your own morals, but to back the folks who hold the same, and fight the ones who would submit upon you morals that you do not desire to go by. But you have impuned half the population of the U.S. and by suggesting, if you were suggesting it, that the "Moral Majority" of the U.S. is in parallel with Daesh in their bigotry, you show me, that you do not "get" what it is that Daesh is doing, that is the evil part, that needs to be defeated. Regards, TAR

Thread, The open shield arrangement is an interesting figure in itself. It is made up of 6 30 60 90 triangles. And as you can see the x designating the hexagonal planes that go through the diamond of the Spherical Rhombic Dodecahedron, are parallel to the outside line of the "extra" portion of the shield. This makes for a nice regular division of the diamond into the Tar degrees. Which again, are only Pi away from being actual degrees. The center clay figure is a sphere with the six (sides of the cube) flattened and the "edges" of the sphere rounded slightly by rolling from center of flat side to center of flat side. Just to see the relationship between the cube and the sphere, by making an inbetween figure. Regards, TAR

String Junky, I was looking for the title of the film I was thinking about and I came across "Birth of a Nation" as well, but I don't think that is the one I saw. The story line did not seem right. The one I was thinking about involved KKK type morality police, but centered around a guy that hired a live in housekeeper...I don't recall the details well enough to mention them because I might be remembering peices from several movies, but I will continue to look. Regards, TAR

Overtone, The KKK has been mostly abandoned in the U.S. I have for instance been taught, since I was a child in the 1950s to look at the KKK as the intolerant, criminal bigots, that they were. There are however holdouts that you run into every once in a while that hold on to racial or religious purity, as a guideline. I remember for instance, seeing one of the first movies ever made...forget its name...but it involves a guy falling in love with his hired maid from another country. The hooded people portrayed in the movie where the grocers and lawyers and workers of the town. They were the moral police, the conscience of the place. The deciders of right and wrong behavior. They frowned upon lies and decieption and infidelity and murder and theft. In the Daesh situation, they decide who the apostates are. They probably figure they are right. They probably figure they are fighting the good fight. They may well believe they are living as Mohammed lived. They might be simply fighting Mohammed's fight, until all the world is for Allah. They, however, fail to see that all the world is already for Allah and every person on the planet has already noticed their association with the universe. Overtone, I think your advice to see Daesh as KKK is good advice. Also probably good to watch that old movie and understand that common morals are a facet of society, and understanding the rules by which your group is going is a base human operational characteristic. Which gets me back to an earlier suggestion. We have to come up with a common story, that everyone can live by. (other than Mohammed's example alone.) Regards, TAR

Airbrush, I had not considered what happened to Saddam's team. It certainly explains why and how they could have made such tremendous gains so quickly. Its their country. They know the place and the people, the power structure and the economic structure. They did not pop into existence out of nowhere. Much more solid a powerbase than I had been led to believe. My ideological arguments are probably not very useful here. Its like trying to defeat the drug dealers in Paterson. That is their livelyhood and they are in their home. They are all somebody's son or cousin or friend or highschool team mate. Perhaps it is something like that with Daesh. Perhaps to understand the situation better, one should imagine their home state being overun by a foreign power, who then leaves and old power structures regain control. Perhaps I have overstated the evilness of Daesh. Perhaps they just want to control their own lives and not be treated like misbehaving children by the world. Perhaps this situation is even more complicated than already suggested, and it is not so black and white as I have been trying to paint it. Regards, TAR

CharonY, As I understand it, Caliphates hold the distinction of being the law, the government, and the religion, all roled up in one. I suppose that is what allows for Mullahs to "run" a district, because as you say, where there is no central authority the total authority thusly accrues to the local Mullah. I had a discussion with a Taxi Driver in Chicago once on a long trip from the airport to a conference location. He had come to America to escape Mullah controlled life in Pakistan. He explained to me that the Mullah had hencemen who would enforce the will of the Mullah. If you stood against the Mullah in word or deed it did not forster discussion, it resulted in the hencemen simply killing you. Women were not allowed to be educated or independent. And it was to the benefit of Mullah, to keep his "followers" poor and stupid. (uneducated). So, I do not think its the religion part of the Caliphate that is the problem, as much as it is the use of the Authority of Allah, usurped by Mohammed, and then usurped by the Caliph, or in my example the local Mullah, or in the case of Daesh, its leader. From an objective, scientific viewpoint, this opens up all Kingships and Dictators to investigation of where exactly they figure their authority comes from. But as well the Pope, and the church's influence on the developement of law and rules of behavior, and subjegation to authority, is obvious in Western culture, and certainly figuroutable in a similar fashion in other religions, that proscribe obidience to the leaders, in one way or another. So we have to talk about empires that have included Asia Minor and the ME. Alexander, Mohammed, Ghengis Chan, the British Empire, the Persians, the Ottamans. When is tieing together under one principle a positive thing, and when is it opressive in nature. Not this discussion directly, but in kind, is the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the current attempt of Putin to reestablish Russian control in the Ukraine. Russia does not have a state religion, yet Putin has accrued authority somehow, and how this is accomplished in a non-religious way, is not obvious. Somewhere submission to the authority of the throne is understood/remembered by any cohesive populace. In our discussion here, Daesh has exhibited behavior unbecoming of a governing body. It can conquer, it can rape, it can pillage and extort. But like the Monguls they can not govern. Not the way thinking people wish to be governed. The Romans governed in a reasonable, fair way. As did the British. But where dictators exhibit corruption and oppressive behavior, the governed, revolt. My point being, CharonY, that you cannot take the background of religion that fosters obidience to the leader out of the equation, of what it takes to govern, without replacing it with something real and meaningful to people. It is a strange position that us Atheists are in. We are only 16 percent of the place, and the place is primarily held together and built and maintained by people that ARE religious. There is therefore a workable substrate that religion forsters that can not be replaced by fluff and abstract nonsense of a different sort than religion offers. Sure one can build a humanist dogma, but once built into a workable, all encompassing rulebook, it would be, exactly, a religion. Best I think to continue to fight it out, and have a clash of civilizations whenever and where ever required. In the end good will win, because human judgement is involved. But while respect for other's beliefs is absolutely required, as well it is of prime importance to fight evil wherever and whenever it pops up its head. In the case of Daesh, they are clearly evil, and need to be removed and replaced by people with more respect for the place, and each other. Regards, TAR Either that, or Daesh must reform and lose their bigotry through self searching. But somehow I don't think a consciousness raising group is likely to form in this situation. Hitler did not seem open to that, Ghengis Chan neither. And most likely, not Daesh.

Airbrush, You obviously did not hear what SwansonT responded to your suggestion in the first place. Covert means you don't know about it. Regards, TAR or are you volunteering for the job? Be sure to post your picture before you go. rats airbrush, Now the Daesh leader is going to have to cut off all his sub leaders' heads for fear they are you.

Ten oz, You are probably right. I would be better if the Jordanians and the Saudis put Daesh down. Better certainly than if the Israelis did it, or U.S. cruise missles did it. But it would work out if everybody did it together, as well. We can use everybody's wealth, and everybodies blood in this encounter. Years ago, we, the U.S. urged Shites in Southern Iraq to stand against Saddam, and then we all of a sudden were not there to prevent Saddam from killing Shites in Southern Iraq that stood against him. And Saddam took Kuwait. Today we have a king in Syria that is being revolted against. We in the West had something to do with instigating the revolt. Some of the instigators were web instigators fostering an Arab Spring. Much from the hearts of Arab youth, and some from Western thought leaders, private and public. While we might want to see a kingship replaced by a democracy, we do not want to see the kingship replaced by a Caliphate. In your suggestion, we let the kings fight it out. Where then is our support for the people standing against the King of Syria. And more importantly, who is there to govern and watch over the economy of the Syrian people? If the choices are Daesh or the King of Syria, I would pick the King of Syria...except we have already publically announced we would prefer to back rebels than back the throne. We did not back our choices solidly enough and in many cases they were overcome by Daesh forces. So I am not sure that having the West keeping themselves out of the mix and letting it get solved locally will neccesarily have wonderful outcomes. Turkey is local, and I remember hearing that while Daesh was attacking a Sryrian town near the Turkish border, Turkish tanks, enough to subdue the Daesh forces were lined up on the border, but did not engage. And the Turkish leader verbally backed the Paris attackers and verbally questioned Israel's intentions. The local landscape is very complicated, with the Russians backing the king and the U.S. backing the Kurds and so on. Turning our backs and keeping out of it so Daesh won't recruit anyone is probably not very helpful to the cause of defeating Daesh. Daesh gets its money by stealing oil and land and kidnapping folk and holding them for ransom. This is the way pirates operate, not governments. Any land held by Daesh is not the land of a soveriegn government. By all rights we should help the King of Syria regain control of such land...except we don't want the King of Syria to have control of his own land...we want the rebels to have control, only not if the rebels are Daesh. So...either we back somebody or another all the way, or we get out, or we allow the king of Syria with Russian backing to regain the control...or something. But turning our backs at this point, does not seem to me to be a very smart idea. We certainly can not count on Daesh to make it right. We don't want to count on the Syrian king to make it right, because we didn't think his way was right in the first place and the Iraqi military is mush without Saddam or the U.S.involved, and the leaders have been known to flee as Daesh approaches, leaving the army without command and control, and probably without the keys to the armory. So which local kings do you figure would win, if the world turned its back on the region? Regards, TAR

Hans de Vries, The things you say make Western culture superior to Middle Eastern culture are the same ones I think make the difference. But as CharonY points out, much of the difference has to do with inequality between the sexes, and tolerence for peoples other than you. Some of the strides and positive changes that we recognize as having occurred in Western societies have a lot to do with human rights, and this in turn has to do with gender equality and race equality. In terms of this discussion, looking at such things with the back drop of the Old Testament holding sway in the Jewish, Christian and Moslem traditions, and considering the historical value of the Protestant movement's effect on Western Cultural developement, two recent sentiments raised by CharonY and KenBrace seem central to sorting out the differences between the "stories" of Daesh, and the "stories" on the streets of Berlin and Chicago. CharonY sees things getting better as women graduates affect change in Saudi Arabia, and KenBrace thinks the Middle East would benefit from several more Atheists. Perhaps it is the "story" that we need to somehow make more modern. We need, in some solid and long lasting way to take the sexism and slavery aspects, out of the Old Testament. And we have to take the killing the infidels part out of the Koran. My suggestion is to embrace the stories of the old testament and the new testament and the Koran as indeed the word of God, but not think of Moses or Jesus or Mohammed as representatives of some creature with particular wants and desires and foibles and preferences, but think of Moses and Jesus and Mohammed as bringing to their followers (us) some workable rules, a workable story that we can "go by" to exist with each other, and address our relationship with the cosmos, and consider the basis upon which our lives and behaviors will be judged. In this way the good, meaningful workable parts of the Abrahamic religions can be maintained. The tithing, the taking care of the poor and infirmed, the honoring of parents, the non coveting of others wifes and goods, the doing of no mischief, and all the other important and valuable societal goodies that the "good" book has infused into Western and Middle Eastern Culture. Having a few more women at the helm will not hurt our culture. Having a few more slaves at the helm will not hurt our culture. And having a few more infidels at the helm will not hurt our culture. Daesh is getting a whole lot wrong, in terms of what it takes to govern man. It is absolutely not the way most of us want to do it. We absolutely need to fight them and win the fight. Not many of us wish to live under a Mullah. But it is not Islam we need to fight as much as it is that Moslems need to reform Islam. It is 800 years old, and no longer works in modern civilization. Gabriel was a symbol, a vehical, a figurative thing, bringing workable reform to the Old testament and the New, allowing Mohammed to bind together the idol worshipping tribes of Arabia. It worked. But Allah is still the judge, not Mohammed. Not Moses. Not Jesus. And certainly not Daesh. They can not decide who the apostates are. But we can. The rest of the world can. The Christians and the atheists, the Humanists and the Buddists. The Shinto and the South American Native can still know absolutely the difference between good and evil. Life and creating things is still better than death and destruction. Freedom and love is still better than oppression.and hate. Regards, TAR I made a big mistake. I said the non coveting of others wifes and goods. Wifes are not chattle. This mistake I just made is evidence that we each need to look closely and deeply at our own values. Just to see where we got them, and what we mean by them, and to understand that sometimes when we find fault with others we should remember the biblically based admonishion that people that live in glass houses should not throw stones. P.S. In looking back in on this post I saw the "and how it relates to science" part of the Politics subforum discription, and I realized I had started to tie it back but did not complete the thought. Science and the scientific method provides a way for man to understand the world, the life and the cosmos in common terms. Terms not constrained by language or race or religion or nationality. 2 and 2 is still 4. The circumference of a circle is still pi D and people that don't eat or drink will die, and bombs that blow up, will not discriminate between good and bad intentions. Here the Atheist part of KenBrace's proscription becomes valid. What is the right thing to do, considering it is us who in all objective senses ARE the ones doing the judging. In the battle of ideas that has been and still is going on it the world...communism, capitalism, and what God or rationality should govern the institutions, laws and behavior of men(women), Daesh's ideas have reached the tipping point and their lies about the Jordanian pilot being alive, and the barbaric manner in which they killed him, have tipped the world's judgement against them. They now have solidified their idea, in the minds and judgements of the world, as a BAD idea. Lady Justice, with the scales in her hand, and the blindfold on, has felt the balance tip. Here is a quote from Kayla Jean Mueller a humanitarian aide worker recently held hostage by Daesh and announced by Daesh to have been killed in a Jordanian airstrike, while home in Arizona, at a Kiwana's club telling of her work with Syrian refugees. "This story is not rare in Syria," Mueller told the crowd. "This is the reality for Syrians two and a half years on. When Syrians hear I'm an American, they ask, 'Where is the world?' All I can do is cry with them, because I don't know." Where is the world? (with tears in my eyes) Now that Jordan is "all in", I hope the rest of the world shows up. Daesh can not stand against the will of the world. We have too many good hearts, too many expert project planners, too many manufacturing facilities, too many planes and bombs and bullets, too many soldiers and MVs and tanks, too much grain and cloth to let this crap go on any longer.