This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.


Is it really just right and wrong?


On the same day that the mayor of New York addressed the UN, <a href="">Stuart Diamond writes</a> in the <a href="">Newsday</a>: <bq>Here is how much of the world sees us: We consume 35 percent of the world's resources with 5 percent of the people. Our AIDS victims get excellent medicines; theirs don't. "Globalization" means our multinationals crowd out their local firms, creating jobless hardship. Health care, sanitation, education, transportation, heat and food are poor or nonexistent while we clean the plate. ... We feel attacked militarily; they feel attacked economically and culturally. ...</bq> If you don't try to understand how this viewpoint came about and whether it is justified, then your only solution is to wipe out anyone who believes it, but as Diamond says "Each innocent person we kill just adds more supporters. " He goes on to suggest ways to address the views others have of America, in effect, to "[p]rovide a meaningful choice" as an alternative to supporting terrorism. That's the only way to make terrorism go away. Figure out why the terrorists are doing it. Figure out what you can do to stop it. Implement the solution. I think the solution does not involve waging more war. That will make more terrorists. The solution involves taking a hard, objective look at the way America acts and treats the world and start changing the offensive foreign policies that get us attacked. Meanwhile, at the UN, Rudy Guiliani, <a href="">gave a speech</a> on 10/1/2001: <bq>On one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life; on the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions and mass murder. ... We're right and they're wrong. It's as simple as that ... Let those who say that we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we are having in New York City and explain those insane, maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all.</bq> It must be nice to have a worldview that's so simple. Whomever disagress is wrong. We were just attacked in a most heinous act, so that means we're right. Whatever solution we propose is going to be justified. If you disagree, you're wrong and must be on the side of the bad guys. I agree with his 'one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life...', but I don't think our government is on that side either. How many "children ripped from them" has the US created in this century alone? That's the age-old argument though...'if you're not with me, you're against me'. From Terry Pratchett's <i>Guards! Guards!</i>, the Patrician says: <bq>I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, <i>but some of them are on opposite sides</i>. ... [People are a] great rolling sea of evil, shallower in some places, but deeper, oh, so much <i>deeper</i> in others. ... They accept evil not because they say <i>yes</i>, but because they don't say <i>no</i>.</bq> Given <a href="">recent statements</a> by Ari Fleischer, White House spokesperson, in which he: <bq>...told Americans they "need to watch what they say." </bq> I would start saying <i>no</i> before things get really out of hand.