Re: thanks Greg!

[Guest guest]

September 11, 2006 -- or (and?) as my History News Network e-mail

titled today's message: Five Years Later.

First, to all Jung-Fire-ers, lurkers or otherwise, hello hello " and

again I say " (*) hello. Thank you (from this " Minority of One " ) for

your contributions here explicit and lurker.

-/-/-

I was greatly dreading today.

That's a big long (partly -- for a word I tend to fall back on when

my overly- " quik " and overly-word afflicted/addicted/or enamoured ?

me? is too overwhelmed to manage to find a simpler one) " inchoate "

reasons, as to my personal (so far) story.

Apart from all that, and to be (I hope) simpler: " scarcely a man is

now alive " (to quote from -- was it Longfellow's? poem on 'The

Midnight Ride of Revere'? -- who WAS in fact " alive " on this

continental land mass called [in earlier simpler times -- or, hey,

Dan, are you listening? -- am I, in that remark, being a bit too (a)

Senex & /or b, c, d: crone, wizzen'd [as in 'prune'] or just

plain " fergeddabout it " ?] the USA (*)] would NOT remember this date.

And so in my simple, non-virtual- " reality " time/space going to bed

last night and waking up this morning, I went through a ritual I

can't possibly define.

Thanks to all on this " list " and " all lists " (yes, Dan, I may not be

Senex yet -- and I shur appreciate your having said that to me in one

of my 'down moments', but I equally ?shur?-ly ain't so young 'n

sprightly as wunce wuz, and I some times get cross at the good

healthy-energy outputs/products of the good young healthy energies I

ain't no longer got -- which includes the (gasp!) _entirety_ of the

world and concept and use of " cyberspace " & etc.) ...

for " being here " .

More ( & /or, I hope, in many senses, _less_) some other time than just

this right this minute still quite early here on this Five Years

Later " from 9/11/01 morning.

" G-d bless us Every One " (to paraphrase Tiny Tim)

marte

>

> World Tibet Network News

> Published by the Canada Tibet Committee

> Wednesday, September 12, 2001

>

>

>

>

> 1. The Dalai Lama's letter to the President of the United States of

America

>

>

> Your Excellency,

>

> I am deeply shocked by the terrorist attacks that took place

involving four

> apparently hijacked aircrafts and the immense devastation these

caused. It is

> a

> terrible tragedy that so many innocent lives have been lost and it

seems

> unbelievable that anyone would choose to target the World Trade

Center in New

> York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. We are deeply

saddened. On

> behalf

> of the Tibetan people I would like to convey our deepest condolence

and

> solidarity with the American people during this painful time. Our

prayers go

> out

> to the many who have lost their lives, those who have been injured

and the

> many

> more who have been traumatized by this senseless act of violence. I

am

> attending

> a special prayer for the United States and it's people at our main

temple

> today.

>

> I am confident that the United States as a great and powerful

nation will be

> able to overcome this present tragedy. The American people have

shown their

> resilience, courage and determination when faced with such

difficult and sad

> situation.

>

> It may seem presumptuous on my part, but I personally believe we

need to think

> seriously whether a violent action is the right thing to do and in

the greater

> interest of the nation and people in the long run. I believe

violence will

> only

> increase the cycle of violence. But how do we deal with hatred and

anger,

> which

> are often the root causes of such senseless violence? This is a

very difficult

> question, especially when it concerns a nation and we have certain

fixed

> conceptions of how to deal with such attacks. I am sure that you

will make the

> right decision.

>

> With my prayers and good wishes

> The Dalai Lama

> September 12, 2001

> Dharamsala, India

>

[Guest guest]

The Dalai Lama says: >>It may seem presumptuous on my part, but I personally believe we need to thinkseriously whether a violent action is the right thing to do and in the greater interest of the nation and people in the long run. I believe violence will only increase the cycle of violence. But how do we deal with hatred and anger, which are often the root causes of such senseless violence?<< --I love the way he gets to the point without being accusatory or passing blame. America has collectively silenced the Arab and Islamic world in its consciousness. We're being attacked because we weren't willing to hear the voices of people affected by our way of life, our government's policies and our cultural exports. Until we learn to listen, we'll be under attack. That's the nature of human systems. War breaks out where there is a wall of silence, misunderstanding or demonization. According to Harper's Index, 19 out of

20 movies made prior to 911 with Arab or Muslim characters portrayed them as "greedy, violent or corrupt". If Hollywood were putting out a lot of movies with "greedy Jews" as stereotypes, I imagine Jews would be a little angry. If gays and lesbians were portrayed so negatively, there'd be some backlash. The difference is that Jews and homosexuals have a voice in our culture. Muslims and Arabs do not. People who are silenced are far more likely to use violence to break down walls. There have been nonviolent campaigns by Palestinians to resist land confiscation, curfews and other trials imposed by the occupation. Without media support and the willingness of Israelis and Americans to listen, more violent responses were pretty much inevitable. The solution is for us to make space in our consciousness for Arabs and Muslims, and to differentiate between violent extremists ("Islamo-fascists" as Bush calls them), moderates who fear or resent us for

various reasons, and progressives who need our support. For all the condemnation of the Bush approach to terrorism, there hasn't been much of an effort by the Left to reach out to moderate, feminist or gay Muslims. I believe that was a mistake. Just when Iran's culture was prepared to overthrow fundamentalism, just when Iranians had a favorable view of Americans, we launched the Iraq war, making it easier for extremists to gain support and harder for progressives to introduce democracy and openness. If we had removed the Taliban from power and stopped there, putting all our energy into rebuilding Afghanistan, we'd be viewed favorably by the world, we'd have sent the message that terrorism doesn't work, and we'd have had the leverage to marginalize Islamic extremism. Instead, we sparked a movement of cellular, decentralized terrorism that is effectively a learning machine far more adaptable and clever than the US military. We may

eventually experience an act of nuclear terrorism, as that learning machine grows and adapts, gaining access to funding and technology. The military side of the solution would involve decentralized, cellular intelligence networks (including civilian open-source networks and civilian outreach to Arab and Muslim informants) and very precise targeting of cells by specialized military teams. The current approach may or may not work in Iraq, and it is almost guaranteed to fail in the larger picture. It's possible for any American to go online and talk to Muslims, or to reach out to Muslims in the community. It is not necessary to view them through the lens of media, politics and stereotypes. American Muslims may be able to persuade Arab Muslims that terrorism is misguided and wrong. We cannot make that case if we are seen as an empire greedy for oil and hateful toward Islamic culture. And if we were truly concerned about fundamentalism, we'd

be reaching out to feminist, gay and progressive Muslims, not abandoning them as fundamentalism clamps down on their freedoms. Bush is right to fear nuclear terrorism. With nuclear weapons proliferating and hostility growing, it's a very real possibility. But his approach won't work in the long term, even if it works in Iraq. Fears of civil war and terrorists gaining power in Iraq is reasonable too, with or without US withdrawal. Rather than condemning Bush for hubris or having a crusader mentality, we need a plan that will work, and we need to engage civilians in bridging the gap between Western and Islamic culture. The solutions to massive problems are found in ordinary people, organizing on the grassroots level, on all sides. If we do not end the escalating cycles that produce war, we will repeat history on an exponential scale. Wherever large groups of people feel shut out and resentful, we need to bridge the silence. There is no

other way. Hitler hijacked German resentment against France for its domination of the coal industry and other humiliations after WWI. Real grievances that go unaddressed eventually produce hellish consequences, and all our money and power will not make those consequences less painful.

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

,

Not surprisingly, I agree with you have written here. And I trust you recognized

that the message from the Dalai Lama was dated Sept 12, 2001. Someone had shared

this here at JungFire the day after that fateful day we now remember on its

fifth year anniversary. He had written it with the great hope that Bush would

rise to the occasion. Obviously that was a naive hope indeed. We now know how

to declare and wage war....and we are learning, yet again, its consequences and

costs. We do not yet know (ala Viet Nam) how to extricate ourselves from war,

once the martial drums have started beating and the deaths mount on both sides,

reinforcing the inevitable stiff-backed resolve of the combatants and the

nations involved. Our national pride goeth before the fall. And now we are told

to " stay the course " , even when the course is of our own choice and its wisdom

far from certain.

We do know how to wage high-tech, de-personalized war. We are not so good at

quelling insurgency that chafes under our occupation. What we don't know how to

do is to wage PEACE - aggressively. We know how to do it piecemeal, dolling out

miniscule amounts of foreign aid (relative to our GNP, at least when compared by

our " defense " budget) all the while constantly complaining and grumbling about

UN mismanagement, some of which is justified, to be sure. But the UN was

established for just this purpose during what I consider the biggest pivotol

event in modern history, the summer of 1945. In the midst of the last

international catastophe, the nations of the world finally decided that it made

sense to try to aggresively wage peace....for a change. Israel was created,

following what could not be denied was the worst case of national genocide in

human history. FDR had just died, Truman had dropped the bomb on Japan, Hitler

had committed suicide, along with several of his

henchmen; the rest were tried at Nuremburg. Later the same year, an Egyptian

peasant discovered the lost gospels at Nag Hammadi, bringing to the light of day

after sixteen centuries the lost books of the ancient gnostics, Christian and

otherwise. What a year!!!

Perhaps we are on the verge of another. Why not 2006? Seems like a good enough

year, now that we are taking stock today of the tragedy that started our country

down this sad road we are now on. But it will take resolve of another kind. It

is becoming clear to many of us that Bush and his minions are not up to the job

of waging war and certainly not peace. His idea of waging peace was putting an

old croney from Texas in charge of Voice of America, propaganda agency. Talk

only goes so far in the modern world.

The country, and certainly the rest of the world, have clearly had enough

incompetence for one lifetime. And with our national reputation internationally

in tatters, the post 9-11-01 goodwill having been largely wasted on idiotic

foreign policy that has us nowhere, and a half trillion dollars worse off

finacially, we clearly need another plan for our future. To continue the

present " stay the course " foolishness is akin to insanity (expecting different

results while taking no new action). Almost as many American lives have been

wasted pursuing a misguided war as were lost in the 9-11 attacks. And up to

100,000 Iraqis have been killed or wounded in our visceral response to the

madness of bin Laden, who had no connection with Iraq whatsoever. This is the

official story line of our own government, despite the Bush/Cheney lies that

connected the wrong dots to get us in the mess we are now in in the first place

- all based upon WMDs, NOT bringing democracy to Iraq. That was the

fall back plan, that still hasn't worked out yet, and IMO likely won't. They

need to permanently retire to Texas for the good of the world it seems to me.

I have met some wonderful and love-inspired Muslims, quite unexpectedly, this

year. They hosted me, at no cost to me, to visit Turkey for 10 days. During

that time I experienced their hospitality and their love and care, without

having any quid pro quo in return. No strings! That impressed me. Never did I

feel unsafe, unappreciated or ill-treated. And partially because of the care

and love-inspired generosity, I have been working - as a responsive act of

goodwill on my part - with them to help them establish some non-religious

schools in my city, similar to those they have successfully started in Texas.

During the past four years they have grown to three out of the top five schools

in the entire state of Texas! And I visited some of the same type schools in

Turkey, full of energized teachers and pupils. While religion is not mentioned

or part of the curriculum, moral and character development are intergral to

their success. It is a working partnership between

teacher, student and home. All religious and ethical points of view are honored

and recognized as valid. They call them " peace schools. " What a thought! It

helps the kids, the community, inter-religious relationships, and creates hope

and educated people in our inner cities. AND - it is inspired by Muslims who

care enough to do the good work here, despite our present national bellicosity

and (in many ways) hypocracy.

There is enormous potential to do good right now, if we just seek it out and

help nurture it in our own little corners of life. The world is hungry for

common sense approaches to our way out of hatred, distrust and religious

extremism - whatever the religion. And once the Bush admin is finally held

accountable for the policies and governance of our nation at the ballot box and

by the Senate Intelligence (also called the Senate Cover Up) Committee, I feel

that real change may even commence with the November elections. Nobody deserves

lame duck status more than our commander in chief, IMO. And gradually, the worm

will turn. We have had to endure far too much foolishness and waste in our

disgraceful national response to these horrible terrorist attacks against our

nation. But many lessons are still left to be learned.

Greg

_______________________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!

[Guest guest]

Greg says: >>Not surprisingly, I agree with you have written here. And I trust you recognized that the message from the Dalai Lama was dated Sept 12, 2001. Someone had shared this here at JungFire the day after that fateful day we now remember on its fifth year anniversary. He had written it with the great hope that Bush would rise to the occasion. Obviously that was a naive hope indeed.<< --I'm going to disagree with that last statement... I don't believe "naive hope" was involved, but rather an ongoing commitment without attachment to results that motivated the Lama. Nonviolent resistance to bad leadership takes a while, especially if others are using violence, including violent speech (or if you're Buddhist or Christian, violent thought or spiritual violence). The more people call Bush a Nazi, the more Bush has to convince himself he's not a Nazi, that his motives are pure, and that "staying the

course" will transform Iraq, while "cutting and running" will lead to civil war and an entrenched terrorist network in Iraq. It's not that the Dalai Lama is naive to think Bush will suddenly say, "Oh, well the Dalai Lama thinks I'm doing the wrong thing, and he's so polite about it, I just have to take him seriously". The Dalai Lama is doing the work that needs to be done, and done by more people. When anyone is accused, blamed or demonized, however much they may have messed things up in the past, they go into defensive mode. That's a universal, biological and culturally ingrained response to being accused of anything, with or without justification. However, if you love your enemy, as several wise people have recommended, you create entrainment and a connection that makes it more likely your message will sink in. It's also good to have humility about right and wrong, we really don't know if Iraq will heal or fall apart, no matter what

decision we make about staying or leaving. The Left can be as arrogant as the Right in deciding that reality is a certain way and that those who believe differently are evil or WRONG in capital latters. It's just that it feels so RIGHT when you know you're on the right side of an issue, to portray those who are wrong as bad people with bad motives. That takes care of our shadow problem temporarily, but it leads to more chaos. The Dalai Lama is acting without shadow, as someone not plagued by shadow would act. He's not naive. He just knows that the language he uses will be more effective over time than the anger and resentment expressed by so many, which is just as impotent in the short term, but less powerful over time. Loving your enemy is powerful. Nobody wants to do it, including a great many Christians. Quakers seem to do it as part of their culture, and I've met Buddhists who have no problem with love and seeing past the blindness

imposed by notions of good and evil, right and wrong. They're a minority, but a powerful minority in terms of preparing the changes that will make humanity's shadow problem and any potential fallout (literal or psychological) that will manifest from it. >>We now know how to declare and wage war....and we are learning, yet again, its consequences and costs. We do not yet know (ala Viet Nam) how to extricate ourselves from war, once the martial drums have started beating and the deaths mount on both sides, reinforcing the inevitable stiff-backed resolve of the combatants and the nations involved.<< --Very good point. Some lessons have to be repeated, or they fall into the background. It's not that we didn't learn anything from history, but that in the moment when we have to act, we become very narrow about which lessons we were supposed to learn, and what we're supposed to do about it. Republicans are

fighting WWII, using the language of Churchill. Democrats are fighting Vietnam, using mostly blame against Republicans rather than a more 60's visionary paradigm. If we're going to treat the Iraq war as Vietnam, we're going to have to relearn the language of the spiritual Left, when it was represented by an odd combination of Jesus Freaks, hippies, veterans and civil rights activists. Bush has been set up for a fall, so it's not necessarily a requirement that the Left have visionary leadership, but if Iraq isn't more stable by the time Bush leaves office, Democrats will still have to figure out what to do about terrorism. "Islamo-fascism" is real, although I'm not sure the phrase is testing well with the public. The Left needs to emphasize that while Americans and Israelis are right to fear terrorists, the only good way to end terrorism is to create conditions under which a majority (or a well-publicized 30% or so) of

Arabs and Muslims can denounce it as both counterproductive and immoral. Cracking down in ways that hurt large numbers of Arab civilians will not work. Targeting terrorist cells precisely with small teams, relying on detailed, accurate information gained from Arab informants, increasing the numver of CIA agents and building a large civilian network of Arabs, Israelis and Americans willing to agree on some core principles (marginalizing all forms of collective punishment or indiscriminate revenge, for example), would all go a long way to solving the problem. I don't hear many Democrats talking about it yet, but I hope they catch on in time for the '06 elections, if not '08. >>Our national pride goeth before the fall. And now we are told to "stay the course", even when the course is of our own choice and its wisdom far from certain.<< --Regardless of whose fault the current situation is, there is one

brilliant strategy we can use that will dramatically minimize the pain of the fall, or prevent it. We don't necessarily know what that strategy is, and we're more likely to do what we always do: denounce one side, do the opposite or more of the same, and deal with the same kinds of consequences. Transcending small paradigms cannot be done if we think in terms of "great, now we can kick those bastards out!" That's how we got here. How we'll get out of here is by thinking so differently from previous generations that the entire framework of conflict will unravel. It's only a matter of convincing large numbers of angry people that their anger is killing them, and that there are better ways to channel feelings of helplessness and crisis into massive, parallel creative action. The urge to punish is common and persuasive. The impulse for spiritual insight and mass intelligence is awakened only when the tunnel vision imposed by us/them thinking is dissolved by a higher context.

We will hit that higher context at some point, the question is how much pain will be involved, and how quickly we'll start acting on existing ideas that are likely to reduce suffering in the long term. >>We do know how to wage high-tech, de-personalized war. We are not so good at quelling insurgency that chafes under our occupation. What we don't know how to do is to wage PEACE - aggressively.<< --Exactly. We haven't been waging peace at all. Denouncing war, or denouncing Bush, isn't a way to wage peace. It may be a way to win elections, and that may be seen as a necessary step. Waging peace requires active engagement. We haven't actively engaged with Arab moderates as a culture, expecting business and political interests to take care of it rather than getting involved on the grassroots level. With such a wall of silence between cultures and so much poison in the air, we cannot expect withdrawal from Iraq by itself to

create enough momentum for change to prevent a worst case scenario. Dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian rift over the next few decades in a more intelligent and respectful way would help, and engaging Arab and Muslim civilians in reform would also help. It won't be enough to enlist Arab non-democracies in helping us in the war on terrorism. Their interests may converge with ours at various points, but working with Musharraf alone will not necessarily convince the Pakistanis that we want them to have freedom and democratic reform. Putting pressure on Iran will not necessarily convince Iranians (who were leaning favorably toward American culture prior to 911, and getting sick of extremist theocratic rule) that we will stand by them in the "march to freedom". History does want people to be free. It just won't let us get there by blowing things up. We need better tactics, better strategy and more involvement among civilians. Politicians and think tanks can produce the first

two. Only we can produce the latter. >>We know how to do it piecemeal, dolling out miniscule amounts of foreign aid (relative to our GNP, at least when compared by our "defense" budget) all the while constantly complaining and grumbling about UN mismanagement, some of which is justified, to be sure.<< --Another example of focusing on someone else being wrong, and missing key points of leverage that would make things right. We take away our energy from the UN, effectively pulling away the energy we could use for both reform in the UN and empowerment of its principles. It will be necessary for the world to stand united if Iran gains nuclear technology and makes impossible demands on Israel. It's impossible to say whether Iran's leaders will take a defensive posture with nuclear arms, or at some point decide to pull a Bush and rid the world of "evildoers" with the added leverage nuclear weapons

would give a Jihadist movement. The Jihadist movement is a fascist one (not necessarily economically, but tactically and psychologically) and we do need a good response to fascism if we want to prevent future Holocausts. Antisemitism exists, and it seems to have enough mythic resonance to produce Hitlers every so often. We don't really know what someone with Hitler's psychology would do, given access to nuclear weapons. We do know that power is irresistable to people who feel disempowered and unheard, and that access to nuclear weapons is the same kind of instant power felt by school shooters with access to guns and enough resentment to play the punishment game to its logical end. The Jihadists want two things: respect, and justice. Respect we can give them, if we're willing. But the justice they'll accept is God's justice, which to them is "an eye for an eye". If even Christians are reluctant to transcend that reptilian tit-for-tat programming, can we expect radical

Muslims, with an entrenched narrative of victimization and dreams of restoring empire, to forgive us once we start doing the right thing? We can enlist moderates, once we convince them we're willing to give them what they need to marginalize extremists, but that may not happen until Bush is no longer the focus of condemnation and Hezbollah and Hamas are no longer able to squeeze by with atrocities minimized. Until suicide bombings are marginalized both politically and religiously, we can't expect them to stop, and there's more than enough hatred toward the US to keep the ball rolling for another decade or so even if we get on our best behavior. A coherent strategy against Islamic extremism is necessary and urgent. The Right gets points for seeing it, and loses points for dealing with it in the most obvious and least effective way. The Left loses points for missing the threat, and gains points for advocating more intelligent strategy, even if it hasn't marketed better

strategies well to the public or Congress. >>But the UN was established for just this purpose during what I consider the biggest pivotol event in modern history, the summer of 1945. In the midst of the last international catastophe, the nations of the world finally decided that it made sense to try to aggresively wage peace....for a change.<< --The question is, what happens when the UN lacks the "teeth" to disarm toxic militias, to intervene in civil wars, or to persuade warring parties to take the necessary steps toward peace? Perhaps the US needs to be in a leadership role there, instead of only advocating reform and eliminating waste. It's easy to be a critic, harder to put pressure exactly where it needs to be put in order to change outcomes. >>Israel was created, following what could not be denied was the worst case of national genocide in human

history.<< --It's interesting the role the word "genocide" has on both sides of the conflict. Palestinian Christians send me material about Israel's "racist genocide against Arabs." Israelis invoke the Holocaust as justification for a military intervention that seems to have backfired. As long as the focus is on what one side has a right to do based on the other side's evilness, nothing changes much except the acceleration of technology. A better way would be to say "NEVER AGAIN", and mean it, and use intelligent forms of dialogue, with or without intelligent use of force, to end genocide. It can be done, it is only a question of whether there is enough commitment on the part of enough intelligent and compassionate human beings to make it work. As long as criticism, defensiveness, blame and demand are the dominant styles of communication, a good solution to impending atrocities will be less likely. >>Why not 2006? Seems like a good enough year, now that we are taking stock today of the tragedy that started our country down this sad road we are now on.<< --It's possible the balance will shift this year, and Republicans will be pushed into a moderate stance. If attack ads against Democrats backfire, it will be a good sign. The narratives now are "cutting and running will lead to a Holocaust" and "staying the course will lead to a Holocaust". Nobody really has the intellectual humility to admit that nobody knows for sure which way will lead to greater damage. But it is possible to advocate waging peace in ways that are likely to work, without limiting ourselves to the standard "push harder, or stop pushing" false binary choice. >>But it will take resolve of another kind. It is becoming clear to many of us that Bush and his minions are not up to the job of waging war

and certainly not peace.<< --That's a great point that Democrats should start using, if they aren't already. Bush sucks at waging intelligent war, and nobody claims he's great at diplomacy. I tend to think Bush would be pretty good at diplomacy, if he's able to come out from behind his firewall of groupthink and back-patting and engage foreign leaders from the heart. He's probably a feeling type, and his strong suit would be making people feel understood and inspired. If he used his strong suit rather than the insecure cowboy hat act, he might even be closer to the Churchill archetype he wants to embody. Whether he'd have the intellectual ability to translate between Arab and Western culture, I don't know, but I'd like to see him try. >>His idea of waging peace was putting an old croney from Texas in charge of Voice of America, propaganda agency. Talk only goes so far in the modern

world.<< --That's one place Democrats have the upper hand. They are in a great position to expose the marketing philosophy behind Bush's public rhetoric. It's inspired language, but it's not backed up by real engagement with the vision it invokes. He's like a "pseudo-Christ", knowing how to talk, not quite knowing how to save anybody.>>And with our national reputation internationally in tatters, the post 9-11-01 goodwill having been largely wasted on idiotic foreign policy that has us nowhere, and a half trillion dollars worse off finacially, we clearly need another plan for our future.<< --If we don't fall any farther, we've fallen far enough. It would have been far better to stop with Afghanistan, and put some of that money into creating stability there and encouraging local culture to throw off Taliban influence. Iranian moderates would then have been in position to portray hard-line

religious influences as "obsolete Taliban types", giving them leverage for reform. That was what we really wanted, and Bush never explained the theory in detail, assuming Saddam's evilness and fears of terrorism would be enough. He really had no way of knowing how hard it would be... he doesn't read much, and depends on the quality of advice he gets from people who are eager to impress him and keep him looking good. Not the best leadership style. Gore's charisma-less intelligence would have worked, but what works doesn't always sell. >>To continue the present "stay the course" foolishness is akin to insanity (expecting different results while taking no new action).<< --It is possible that staying the course will lead to stability in Iraq. Or not. There's no way to know. Intellectual humility is a good thing. But there does seem to be much less faith in staying the course, with so little good news to

outweigh the insane numbers of Iraqis dying in sectarian gang wars. I'm wondering if there are any new methods for dealing with gang violence that would be more useful. Maybe someone here has heard something from LA or other gang areas? >>This is the official story line of our own government, despite the Bush/Cheney lies that connected the wrong dots to get us in the mess we are now in in the first place - all based upon WMDs, NOT bringing democracy to Iraq.<< --There is no evidence Bush lied about WMDs. We had reason to believe Saddam had them -- we gave him some of them. Dissenting voices were not heard because opinions were so set. Accuse Bush of "cherry-picking" or marginalizing dissent, but I'd avoid the accusation that he lied about WMD. There's no evidence that he believed there were no WMD and said there were anyway. I'd go with "Bush doesn't hear anything he doesn't want to hear".

There's lots of evidence for that, while the accusation of lying falls flat except with people already in opposition to the Administration. >>They need to permanently retire to Texas for the good of the world it seems to me.<< --They will, when we convince the public there are better ideas available that don't equate to "cutting and running". People aren't convinced terrorism will dissipate if the US leaves Iraq. With so much violence there now, they're more likely to consider the possibility (real enough) of things getting even worse. Democrats could advocate bringing in Arab peacekeepers, allow a vote in Iraq to withdraw American soldiers, and help convince tribal leaders to form a viable coalition. Putting Bush in a bad light (as if that takes any creativity or insight) alone isn't as good. >>I have met some wonderful and love-inspired Muslims, quite

unexpectedly, this year. They hosted me, at no cost to me, to visit Turkey for 10 days. During that time I experienced their hospitality and their love and care, without having any quid pro quo in return. No strings! That impressed me.<< --That is something we can learn from Arab and Islamic culture. Showing appreciation for what works in other cultures is a great way to create grassroots connectivity, and that's what really prevents wars. >>Never did I feel unsafe, unappreciated or ill-treated.<< --It's easy enough to get just about anyone to make you feel safe and appreciated. Make them feel safe and appreciated. Harder to get people to change toxic beliefs (there is still a sickening level of support for suicide bombings, and a lot of excuse-making and justifying), but beginning with a human connection does work. seems pretty good at

that. He's able to suspend judgment long enough to gain rapport and create a vision even extremists can support. It's one of the most valuable and least supported skills in our society. We tend to go with the eliminating evildoers thing instead. That may be another reason to bring in people who have experience working with gang leaders to reduce violence, rather than bombs. >>And partially because of the care and love-inspired generosity, I have been working - as a responsive act of goodwill on my part - with them to help them establish some non-religious schools in my city, similar to those they have successfully started in Texas. During the past four years they have grown to three out of the top five schools in the entire state of Texas!<< --I'd love to hear more about that. The experiences of people involved in projects like that would be very helpful in creating a grassroots, global

platform uniting Arabs, Muslims, Americans and Israelis in a call for sanity. It seems inevitable that such a thing will evolve, but the more people share small, personal stories that mean something on a large scale, the more the big picture will sort itself out with less damage. >>And I visited some of the same type schools in Turkey, full of energized teachers and pupils. While religion is not mentioned or part of the curriculum, moral and character development are intergral to their success.<< --A lot of people fall into the trap of thinking character is equivalent to hubris... "I am righteous because you are evil and I stand against you". It seems to be the way we develop instant character, and it's good to hear that people are looking into healthier ways to build a genuinely moral culture. >>All religious and ethical points of view are honored and recognized

as valid. They call them "peace schools." What a thought!<< --That sounds like an idea whose time has come. >>It helps the kids, the community, inter-religious relationships, and creates hope and educated people in our inner cities. AND - it is inspired by Muslims who care enough to do the good work here, despite our present national bellicosity and (in many ways) hypocracy.<< --Hypocrisy is a big problem on all sides, and it's hard to convince people to accept the hypocrisy of others long enough to form the kinds of relationships that make consistency more likely over time. Anything that works should get more attention. Conflict is more media-worthy than complex dialogue or community-building, but I think that will change as people get bored of the controversial talking points format.>>There is enormous potential to do good right

now, if we just seek it out and help nurture it in our own little corners of life. The world is hungry for common sense approaches to our way out of hatred, distrust and religious extremism - whatever the religion.<< --I agree. A lot of things are ripening now, and even conservative Christians and Neocons are starting to think more deeply about what works and what isn't working. >>And once the Bush admin is finally held accountable for the policies and governance of our nation at the ballot box and by the Senate Intelligence (also called the Senate Cover Up) Committee, I feel that real change may even commence with the November elections.<< --I'm hoping the "holding accountable" part doesn't turn into an orgy of self-righteous back-patting and dancing in the streets on the part of the Left. Watching Bush fall is sad to me, not something to feel good about. He's

just an ordinary guy, trapped in a sick culture and sick political system. If I could project shadow onto him and see him as an Evildoer, it would be easier to feel good about his downfall, if that has to happen for balance to return. >>Nobody deserves lame duck status more than our commander in chief, IMO.<< --All any human being deserves is accurate information, good role models, and the ability to make decisions that are good for the world. If Bush lacks any of those, focusing on what he "deserves" in the more punitive sense may not help our culture heal, but it may get some Republicans thrown out of Congress by association with the Bush Administration. >>And gradually, the worm will turn.<< --Always be careful when judging the worm in an opponent's eye. Any drop of shadow projected outward, whether onto Bush or onto Bin

Laden, will return to its owner. The Right and Left are marching toward a reversal of power roles, but the march toward wholeness and reconciliation may take longer. C. Lockharthttp://www.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -- AirdHaving power makes [totalitarian leadership] isolated; isolation breeds insecurity; insecurity breeds suspicion and fear; sucpicion and fear breed violence. - Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Permanent Purge, Politics in Soviet Totalitarianism

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.