Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (115060)	9/17/2003 3:46:47 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, there's a real non-discriminatory poison endemic around the world, which refuses to realize that not everything is the same as everything else. Some people are actually bad. Some are actually good. Sharon is not the equivalent of Arafat. Not everyone is capable of things. Racial discrimination is confused with racial generalisations, which are true. Americans overall are of a certain style, which is not to say that all Americans fit the mould. Kiwi Kulture is of a certain style, though not all Kiwis are like that. Maoris have a way about them, unless they don't. So do Jews. And Arabs. And poofters [though I hasten to add some of my best friends are poofters so I'm not homophobic, even if they are melanin-rich or religious]. It beats me why people want to pretend that "balance" means "check your brain at the door and treat both sides the same". If a woman is raped, "both sides" don't need equal treatment. She should be taught not to dress in a provocative manner. He can't help himself. Mqurice PS: I am kidding but in many "balance" situations where "both sides are treated equally" and "even-handedness is needed", that's what people are saying.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (115060)	9/17/2003 12:47:09 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Let's see if I can offer some "balance." First, the intent of the article was not to take a look at competing explanations for the present intifada. Rather to situate the three principle actors in their political space in such a way that they become intelligible to the rest of us. I'm not surprised that you think they did it badly because they failed to appreciate what you see as the moral distinctions between Sharon and Arafat. Which, of course, was not the point of the article. Second, we both know that the present, ah, I see you are going for the let's couple it with Bush agenda, "terror war" is the result of the continuing Israeli advance of the settlements after Oslo much more than the Palestinians sitting down one day and saying something like, things are going swimmingly, we can't stand that, so let's send some suicide bombers. Best just let it go by, Nadine. A different point of view from your own, extravagantly well done.