|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 16:59:24 GMT -5
Apparently Kyle wrote in his memoir “I hate the damn savages,” “I couldn’t give a flying f*** about the Iraqis.”" I wonder if that made the movie or if they sanitized the character. When he was asked how he felt about Bradley Cooper portraying him the movie, Chris Kyle replied "I'm going to have to tie him to my truck and drag him down the street to knock some of the pretty off him." I think that might help put any quotes of his, particularly any taken out of context, into some sort of perspective. I can't speak to the movie in any intelligent way. I've read the plot summary and various reactions on wiki because I probably won't ever see the movie. It seems the reactions to the movie are as varied as the responses to the Iraq situation itself. If so, that probably makes it a pretty realistic movie. Clint Eastwood has called it an anti-war movie.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 29, 2015 17:02:36 GMT -5
There wasn't faulty intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD'S, AND BUSH KNEW THE TRUTH OF THE REPORT.
He just plain lied.
Prove it! Bush knew very well that the information he was getting was not adequate before that speech where he insisted that there were WMB's
George Tenet's "white paper" on Iraqi WMD -presented a significantly stronger characterization of the threat represented by Iraqi WMD than did the NIE, and that that stronger characterization was not supported by the underlying intelligence.
The October 2002 white paper
"President George Bush, surrounded by leaders of the House and Senate, announces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002.
Lawmakers debated and passed the resolution during the following two weeks, basing their votes in part on the information in the classified National Intelligence Estimate and the unclassified white paper on Iraqi WMD -
- documents that the Senate report on pre-war intelligence found to have been deeply flawed.
A white paper titled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction" was released by CIA Director George Tenet on October 4, 2002, three days after the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqi WMD was released.
In part, the white paper was a response to Congressional requests for an unclassified version of the information in the NIE, since that document was available only to a small group of lawmakers due to its classified nature.
The white paper, although shorter and less-detailed than the NIE, was very similar to it in format and major conclusions. The Committee found that the white paper presented a significantly stronger characterization of the threat represented by Iraqi WMD than did the NIE, and that that stronger characterization was not supported by the underlying intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 17:02:40 GMT -5
I just want to take a really quick cut at this before turning in. . . . . . . . Thanks What Hat. I suggest that adequate justifications have been exchanged for the time being. I have palpable fear that PETA will be after me for continuing to beat a very dead horse . . . . . I do regret my choice of words, because I was grappling with what I see as underlying mindset, and there was some pejorative phrasing that could have been avoided. So I apologize for that aspect of it, and hopefully we've gained some mutual understanding through the process.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 29, 2015 17:17:44 GMT -5
I agree, this is a good editorial. I think it treats the "freedom of speech" side of the ledger well. The sentence "Nothing can be done with a pencil or a keyboard that warrants a reprisal with a Kalashnikov." is powerful. The "vilifying all Islam" side of the ledger is less convincing to me and I would like to explain why. First I completely agree that "vilifying all Islam is the wrong way to counter" anything. What I find disquieting is the (forgive me) shallowness of the discussion about responding to, first, the symptoms (e.g. the Charlie Hebdo incident) and then the causes of the strife attending the clash of two very different cultures. I fear that old prescriptions will no longer prove useful (except perhaps to stem the tide briefly as we can kick the can down the road). Increasingly, I become convinced that we need to dig much deeper, we need to dig much faster and we need a very new and very different paradigm for viewing and ultimately working toward resolution of the challenges at hand. (This is the reason I was interested in the earlier conversation about social evolution). Here is a paragraph that suggests the emergence of complacency: I will parse the paragraph in an attempt to illustrate my concern: "Many observers", "all can seem", "those who see things that way", "only solution", "fight back" and "engage enemy abroad". The paragraph suggests a monolithic (uninformed and dangerous) portion of society that resorts immediately to "brawn". If this narrative can take root it provides a convenient barrier to isolate purveyors of ideas that run counter to the interests and palliatives of multiculturalism. I, for one, would like to explore both the credence and consequences of this narrative. The editorial offers established criminal procedures as one pathway toward resolution. Certainly, security systems already in place are, and will be, essential to curbing the progression of terror, I suggest relying too heavily on this approach, however, will have troubling and perhaps irreversible unintended consequences (consider complex privacy concerns). It is unfortunate that the editorial does not continue with more, varied and creative considerations for addressing the problem. The final concern that the forces of "intellectual containment" may already be gathering is the opening sentence of the final paragraph . . . . "For all that, thinking of Islamist terrorism as a single, coherent adversary is misleading and dangerous." The sentence is one of those insidious "straw men" that dissuades and distracts and seems to have found such a welcoming home in modern discourse. I suspect that the fraction of society that is actually thinking about Islamist terrorism as "a singe, coherent adversary is relatively small". It would be my hope that honest brokers of our intellectual capital will choose to fully value all interested perspective, even those of "brawn" and misinformation. Misinformation should not be managed by exclusion but rather by thoughtful enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 29, 2015 17:37:20 GMT -5
Apparently the US kicked all Sunni's out of government, even Sunni schoolteachers and ordinary government employees. Sure, it made sense to lock out the top Sunni guys within Hussein's command structure, but the approach taken, which some of the US military was against, created an entire block of the population that turned against the US. I don't believe your allegation in the underlined above. We're agreed that it was unwise to remove all Baath Party members. Here's the problem in a nutshell: Sunnis resented losing the power they had under Saddam, and Shia had a score to settle. Sunni were 17% of the population ruling over Shia which were 65%, so for representative democracy to have any chance of succeeding a lot of Sunnis had to lose the power they had. Perhaps I should add the remainder of the wiki section on Iraq:
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 29, 2015 19:05:24 GMT -5
Who said women are safer in Muslim countries than western? Come on what Hat, own up. www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/01/infographic-violence-women-egypt-150126150958383.htmlWe know that women under report in those countries and there is no protection for women. (NOt saying they don't udner reports in our country too). A man can divorce his wife when he wants, for no cause and the man gets the children in a divorce. She is left with nothing if she complains, especially if she complains to the police. there is no escape for her.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 29, 2015 19:40:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 29, 2015 22:46:22 GMT -5
'Some', non-Christians hate America for the same reason 'some', "Christians" want to blame everything on the devil. If you can suppose evil is only on the outside its possible to convince yourself you're all neat and tidy on the inside. If doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 29, 2015 22:51:27 GMT -5
Non-Christians hate America for the same reason some "Christians" want to blame everything on the "devil". Baloney, that just a copy of a W. Bush statement.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 29, 2015 22:53:07 GMT -5
Non-Christians hate America for the same reason some "Christians" want to blame everything on the "devil". Baloney, that just a copy of a W. Bush statement.
So W. Bush is the devil?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 29, 2015 23:08:05 GMT -5
Baloney, that just a copy of a W. Bush statement.
So W. Bush is the devil? Probably is, -but what I meant Bush makes the kind of statement.
W. said, "Why do they hate us?'' They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
Of course, he didn't even really believe that we had a right to disagree with HIM!
He also said, "If they aren't with us they are against us."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 23:17:02 GMT -5
I agree, this is a good editorial. I think it treats the "freedom of speech" side of the ledger well. The sentence "Nothing can be done with a pencil or a keyboard that warrants a reprisal with a Kalashnikov." is powerful. The "vilifying all Islam" side of the ledger is less convincing to me and I would like to explain why. First I completely agree that "vilifying all Islam is the wrong way to counter" anything. What I find disquieting is the (forgive me) shallowness of the discussion about responding to, first, the symptoms (e.g. the Charlie Hebdo incident) and then the causes of the strife attending the clash of two very different cultures. I fear that old prescriptions will no longer prove useful (except perhaps to stem the tide briefly as we can kick the can down the road). Increasingly, I become convinced that we need to dig much deeper, we need to dig much faster and we need a very new and very different paradigm for viewing and ultimately working toward resolution of the challenges at hand. (This is the reason I was interested in the earlier conversation about social evolution). Here is a paragraph that suggests the emergence of complacency: I will parse the paragraph in an attempt to illustrate my concern: "Many observers", "all can seem", "those who see things that way", "only solution", "fight back" and "engage enemy abroad". The paragraph suggests a monolithic (uninformed and dangerous) portion of society that resorts immediately to "brawn". If this narrative can take root it provides a convenient barrier to isolate purveyors of ideas that run counter to the interests and palliatives of multiculturalism. I, for one, would like to explore both the credence and consequences of this narrative. The editorial offers established criminal procedures as one pathway toward resolution. Certainly, security systems already in place are, and will be, essential to curbing the progression of terror, I suggest relying too heavily on this approach, however, will have troubling and perhaps irreversible unintended consequences (consider complex privacy concerns). It is unfortunate that the editorial does not continue with more, varied and creative considerations for addressing the problem. The final concern that the forces of "intellectual containment" may already be gathering is the opening sentence of the final paragraph . . . . "For all that, thinking of Islamist terrorism as a single, coherent adversary is misleading and dangerous." The sentence is one of those insidious "straw men" that dissuades and distracts and seems to have found such a welcoming home in modern discourse. I suspect that the fraction of society that is actually thinking about Islamist terrorism as "a singe, coherent adversary is relatively small". It would be my hope that honest brokers of our intellectual capital will choose to fully value all interested perspective, even those of "brawn" and misinformation. Misinformation should not be managed by exclusion but rather by thoughtful enlightenment. I do not think that the editorial at all rules out serious inquiry into linkages between the Muslim religion and its most extreme effects. I think the editorial writers are concerned with jumping to conclusions without establishing those linkages. In the various attacks upon Islam as a whole I have not detected the kind of inquiry you are suggesting; only a jumping to conclusions based on simple notions, demonizing "the other" or outright religous bigotry. If there is serious inquiry concerning the linkages then where is it? Perhaps you have some. It's a much more complex business than linking a few violent passages in the Koran with violent behaviour. I'm still learning and reading along this line, but I have found Michel Foucault rewarding and I will read the Jonathan Haidt book next. In reading about the realities of conflict in Iraq and northern Nigeria, I believe one axiom always holds. Violence begets violence. Each injury provides justification for retaliation, and there is an escalating series of attacks and counter-attacks. Enmities go back centuries and never heal. In terms of the problems in Islam, I believe that what holds within Islam, holds within religion broadly speaking. Christianity and Hindu have experienced similar violent contortions in their history and also in the present day. Religions are only peaceful when people move beyond fundamentalism to embrace rationalism, which can be accomplished within a religious context, but it requires that people learn to think instead of accepting "given" knowledge. Foucault quotes Kant. "Enlightenment is the human being's emancipation from its self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to make use of one's intellect without the direction of another. This immaturity is self-incurred when its cause does not lie in a lack of intellect, but rather in a lack of resolve and courage to make use of one's intellect without the direction of another". Consider this quote in the context of an angry disillusioned but talented and intelligent young Muslim man, with few prospects, encountering the looming and seductive power/knowledge ideology of a radical Muslim Imam. (I actually went through a similar process when I first encountered the friends and workers as a young man, but with a much more beneficial result. I did resist on occasions when ideology left common sense behind.) I was intrigued by your inquiry into northern Ireland. My own take after a bit of reading is that the solutions lay in a form of affirmative action - redressing the wrongs to the Catholic minority in Ulster through changes in hiring practices, balancing up jobs and balancing out the police force, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 23:31:03 GMT -5
Apparently the US kicked all Sunni's out of government, even Sunni schoolteachers and ordinary government employees. Sure, it made sense to lock out the top Sunni guys within Hussein's command structure, but the approach taken, which some of the US military was against, created an entire block of the population that turned against the US. I don't believe your allegation in the underlined above. We're agreed that it was unwise to remove all Baath Party members. Here's the problem in a nutshell: Sunnis resented losing the power they had under Saddam, and Shia had a score to settle. Sunni were 17% of the population ruling over Shia which were 65%, so for representative democracy to have any chance of succeeding a lot of Sunnis had to lose the power they had. Perhaps I should add the remainder of the wiki section on Iraq: Ba'ath party members or Sunni's; it's the same thing. Ba'ath party members were all Sunni's, as you know, and although your version is more precise it boils down to the same thing. The man who made the decision was the head of state of post-invasion Iraq, Paul Bremer, and he was under orders from Donald Rumsfeld. Bremer ruled Iraq for 13 months, essentially by decree. Bremer was once again warned of the harm his actions would have. According to Woodward, when Garner asserted that none of the ministries would be able to function after this order, Bremer asked the Bahgdad station chief for his thoughts. "If you put this out...you will put 50,000 people on the street, underground, and mad at Americans", he replied. Woodward: "And these 50,000 were the most powerful, well-connected elites from all walks of life".[49] from Bob Woodward's book on GWB at war. Also, representative democracy does not work in a country with strong, opposed ethnicities. Proportional democracy can be made to work. Just think it through. The Sunni minority would have no representation, zero, as a result of the first post-invasion election, and given the ride they'd had so far, they boycotted the election in protest.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 23:53:59 GMT -5
Who said women are safer in Muslim countries than western? Come on what Hat, own up. www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/01/infographic-violence-women-egypt-150126150958383.htmlWe know that women under report in those countries and there is no protection for women. (NOt saying they don't udner reports in our country too). A man can divorce his wife when he wants, for no cause and the man gets the children in a divorce. She is left with nothing if she complains, especially if she complains to the police. there is no escape for her. I think we don't know. Here is what we do know. The statistics show a factor of 10x higher rape in the USA than countries like India or Syria. Women are treated terribly and oppressed in some Muslim countries like Egypt and Turkey. Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia seem only a little better. In spite of that, single women appear to be able to travel safely in Muslim countries, however, they are subject to sexist, derogatory behaviour, and moreso if they don't dress according to local custom. But none of that means that they are raped with the frequency that they are raped in Western countries. And we're not above sexism and harassment in our countries. In the most recent episode of 'This American Life' , which I just heard a few days ago, journalist Lindy West provided a sample of comments from one of her recent columns. Here's just a sample of the responses I got on social media. A quick warning, these are internet comments about rape, so it's going to suck.
"I love how the doll complaining about rape is the exact kind of doll that would never be raped." "Holes like this make me want to commit rape out of anger." "I just want to rape her with a traffic cone." "No one would want to rape that fat disgusting mess." "Kill yourself." "I want to put an apple into that mouth of yours and take a huge stick and slide it through your body and roast you." "That big doll is bitter that no one wants to rape her." If you're a fan of 'This American Life' the last episode provides some good insight into the psyche of Internet trolls, an area that is getting completely out of hand. I did spend some time Googling the phrase "safe for women to travel alone in X" where X would be a country name. Turkey and Egypt did not fare well, although the issue was harassment, not rape. Malaysia and Indonesia fared better. India, very well. I found one survey article from USA Today. usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/deals/inside/2006-07-26-safe-womens-travel_x.htmSo the answer is that I don't know whether women are safer travelling in Muslim countries than in the USA. I did think they were safer based on the statistics and speaking with women and men who had travelled in Muslim countries. I know my daughter was perfectly safe and well treated living in a Muslim neighbourhood in Amsterdam. I was there myself and all seemed tranquil. Her experience in other "white" parts of Amsterdam was not so good; young toughs and hooligans were a problem. No one stole her bicycle in the Muslim area.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 29, 2015 23:58:35 GMT -5
You're probably best to stick to speaking for yourself. I also would appreciate more direct quotes rather than your version of what you think you heard in your critiques. It's a fair bit of work to correct what you think I said, and it doesn't move the conversation forward.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 29, 2015 23:59:42 GMT -5
Probably is, -but what I meant Bush makes the kind of statement.
W. said, "Why do they hate us?'' They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
Of course, he didn't even really believe that we had a right to disagree with HIM!
He also said, "If they aren't with us they are against us."
And they are. But who was Bush speaking for? Did Bush even know or consider who he was speaking for? Just like the world in total, America's not a simple cultural composition. As a Christian, I could never be a president. I just couldn't represent the world. I mean what's there to represent? Is anyone a winner?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 30, 2015 0:18:38 GMT -5
Is that a picture of you, Lee?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 30, 2015 3:47:02 GMT -5
The rape rate for the US in 2010 was 27.3. The rape rate for Syria in 2008 was 0.8. I will let you draw your own conclusions or provide some data to refute these statistics. (BTW - the rates are the number of rapes per 100,000 citizens.)
Obviously it's ridiculous to compare the rape statistics of a modern enlightened country with a Muslim country that requires four male witnesses to prove a charge of rape. What is the woman meant to do.... ask the perpetrator to wait while she gathers four men she can trust to witness the act?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 30, 2015 3:57:56 GMT -5
You're probably best to stick to speaking for yourself. I also would appreciate more direct quotes rather than your version of what you think you heard in your critiques. It's a fair bit of work to correct what you think I said, and it doesn't move the conversation forward. What Hat, you chose to ignore the appalling record of women's rights in Syria. You wrote there is no question a woman is more likely to be raped or murdered in the US than in Syria. No, I'm not in favour of indiscriminate bombing. Where did you get that from? BTW, I'm in favour of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects men and children as well as women. Your rape statistics are skewed towards the countries who have the most accurate reporting in place. Are you suggesting that a woman is more likely to be raped or murdered in the US than in Syria? No question.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 30, 2015 4:12:03 GMT -5
When I originally brought the treatment of women into the discussion I had the current Syrian situation in mind.
Assad's people were pretty strict on law and order in the streets but crime against women was still there. Here's a report from 2010:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 4:18:32 GMT -5
100,000 people get shot each year in the USA. That's more than Syria.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 30, 2015 6:47:10 GMT -5
You're probably best to stick to speaking for yourself. I also would appreciate more direct quotes rather than your version of what you think you heard in your critiques. It's a fair bit of work to correct what you think I said, and it doesn't move the conversation forward. What Hat, you chose to ignore the appalling record of women's rights in Syria. You wrote there is no question a woman is more likely to be raped or murdered in the US than in Syria. That was what, 100 posts ago. See my latest response to Mary above. I continue to review the information available.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 30, 2015 6:52:04 GMT -5
When I originally brought the treatment of women into the discussion I had the current Syrian situation in mind. Assad's people were pretty strict on law and order in the streets but crime against women was still there. Here's a report from 2010: I don't mean to diminish the plight of what happened to these women in Damascus in one year, but in the USA over 300 women are raped every day... that's just the reported ones.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 30, 2015 8:56:26 GMT -5
Bush knew very well that the information he was getting was not adequate before that speech where he insisted that there were WMB's
George Tenet's "white paper" on Iraqi WMD -presented a significantly stronger characterization of the threat represented by Iraqi WMD than did the NIE, and that that stronger characterization was not supported by the underlying intelligence.
The October 2002 white paper
"President George Bush, surrounded by leaders of the House and Senate, announces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002.
Lawmakers debated and passed the resolution during the following two weeks, basing their votes in part on the information in the classified National Intelligence Estimate and the unclassified white paper on Iraqi WMD -
- documents that the Senate report on pre-war intelligence found to have been deeply flawed.
A white paper titled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction" was released by CIA Director George Tenet on October 4, 2002, three days after the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqi WMD was released.
In part, the white paper was a response to Congressional requests for an unclassified version of the information in the NIE, since that document was available only to a small group of lawmakers due to its classified nature.
The white paper, although shorter and less-detailed than the NIE, was very similar to it in format and major conclusions. The Committee found that the white paper presented a significantly stronger characterization of the threat represented by Iraqi WMD than did the NIE, and that that stronger characterization was not supported by the underlying intelligence. GWB was doing a sales job, basically. Isn't there evidence that he, Rumsfeld and Cheney had decided to go in long before any so-called intelligence report?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2015 9:04:19 GMT -5
I only just skim read the NY Times article, but based on that and your previous post, I believe now that the primary motivation for the Iraq invasion was a moral imperative on the part of George W. Bush. I have wondered and not really understood why the US wanted to invade so badly. The idea that the USA was in there just for the oil was not really satisfactory, although it is an element. Generally, if a country has a resource that the USA wants, then there are American business interests involved. But I'm going with the moral imperative idea. I think there might have been the fear of a power vacuum in the region at a time when a disruption of the oil supply would have been disastrous for the USA. That uncertainty coupled with the US business interests led government actions claiming to be seeking WMDs. It would be difficult to underestimate the influence of business interests on government actions. Remember United Fruit and the CIA actions in Guatemala and the other 'Banana Republics'! And Nixon and Chile. Between the Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies (they owned more than 3/ 4 of Chile's copper output), ITT that owned Chile's telephone system, and the investments of PepsiCO in Chile the CIA had the funds and the authorization to do whatever they could to prevent Allende from assuming the presidency, including a military coup. Nixon's well known quote, “We will make squeal the Chilean economy”. These and other actions indicates what the government will do to protect US business interests.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2015 9:43:51 GMT -5
I do not think that the editorial at all rules out serious inquiry into linkages between the Muslim religion and its most extreme effects. I think the editorial writers are concerned with jumping to conclusions without establishing those linkages. In the various attacks upon Islam as a whole I have not detected the kind of inquiry you are suggesting; only a jumping to conclusions based on simple notions, demonizing "the other" or outright religous bigotry. If there is serious inquiry concerning the linkages then where is it? Perhaps you have some. It's a much more complex business than linking a few violent passages in the Koran with violent behaviour. I'm still learning and reading along this line, but I have found Michel Foucault rewarding and I will read the Jonathan Haidt book next. In reading about the realities of conflict in Iraq and northern Nigeria, I believe one axiom always holds. Violence begets violence. Each injury provides justification for retaliation, and there is an escalating series of attacks and counter-attacks. Enmities go back centuries and never heal. In terms of the problems in Islam, I believe that what holds within Islam, holds within religion broadly speaking. Christianity and Hindu have experienced similar violent contortions in their history and also in the present day. Religions are only peaceful when people move beyond fundamentalism to embrace rationalism, which can be accomplished within a religious context, but it requires that people learn to think instead of accepting "given" knowledge. Foucault quotes Kant. "Enlightenment is the human being's emancipation from its self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to make use of one's intellect without the direction of another. This immaturity is self-incurred when its cause does not lie in a lack of intellect, but rather in a lack of resolve and courage to make use of one's intellect without the direction of another". Consider this quote in the context of an angry disillusioned but talented and intelligent young Muslim man, with few prospects, encountering the looming and seductive power/knowledge ideology of a radical Muslim Imam. (I actually went through a similar process when I first encountered the friends and workers as a young man, but with a much more beneficial result. I did resist on occasions when ideology left common sense behind.) I was intrigued by your inquiry into northern Ireland. My own take after a bit of reading is that the solutions lay in a form of affirmative action - redressing the wrongs to the Catholic minority in Ulster through changes in hiring practices, balancing up jobs and balancing out the police force, and so on. WOW! "Houston, we've had a problem here" (Apollo 13). What Hat, I really had not imagined that the trajectory of your intellectual pursuits had proceeded so far, so fast or necessarily in this direction! I suppose I should have been able to figure it out. Certainly helps me put your commentary on this thread into perspective. Guess I shouldn't be expecting an invitation from your "history group" any time soon. Don't suppose I would be a very welcome guest. Interesting, you are the second person I have met here on TMB experiencing the gravitational pull of Michel Foucault. Now I am curious if there is a connection between earlier religious experiences and the subsequent appeal of the Foucault philosophy, n=2 is too small a sample size but I will make a note. So . . . . . I don't normally just turn-tail and run from an interesting conversation but you have pulled our little conversational ship into water that is far too deep for me. I have neither the wit nor wisdom to engage an acolyte of Professor Michel Foucault. His philosophy and pronouncements are fascinating but I have never been able to achieve cognitive resonance beyond the superficial. . . . . my lack. I should also amend my reading recommendations. You will probably find Haidt to be far too bourgios for the effort of reading. Even though Steven Pinker has a cordial relationship with Noam Chompsky, I suspect he may be too independent minded to appeal.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2015 9:44:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2015 11:36:12 GMT -5
|
|