Discussion: Is fascism replacing democracy?

[DEFCON]

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses. IMO we should take the combined western democratic experience and create a new model based on the 20/20 hindsight principal. First and foremost would be returning the power to the "people"!

[Mitch Cronin]

Good point. And they are all variously victims of cops, lawyers, or other people that made serious mistakes, sometimes even knowingly... The system does attempt to find the correct result. It's the people involved that sometimes screw it up.

Cheers,

[BoomerPete]

Noble sentiment, but are you really sure the present system is too flawed in how the people exercise power?

California is a good example of how too much direct power can be a bad thing. The various propositions passed over the years have rendered the state almost ungovernable. So much of what should be adjustable policy is now cast in stone that the state government will soon be incapable of operating because of competing mandated priorities such as balance the budget, spend X% on schools, don't raise taxes and send more folks to jail via the 3 strikes rule.

The system we presently use is hardly perfect, but is the result of almost a thousand years of practice and refinement. If we go about tweaking it, I'd do it with tweezers not shears.

[DEFCON]

For the moment I will make a couple of comments re the cdn experience.

The Party appoints the PM. The PM appoints members of the Senate and the Judges of the SCC.

These three groups of appointee's are effectively beyond the true reach of the electorate. IMO this structure has allowed for the development of a government style that has over time eroded the value of the people's collective input.

A simplistic answer for sure however, I'm short on time and wished I could debate this topic at length. I do agree with your take on the dangers of direct power as may be evidenced in the California situation.

[BoomerPete]

>>> I simply have a problem with "silly" appeals such as ones like the convict appealing that he didn't have a fair trial because the entire town saw him kill someone. Know what I mean. On the other hand, appeals are a great thing for wrongfully accused people. And yes there have been many cases around the world as such. <<<

Sorry to beat the dead horse, but how does one know that that the wrongfully accused is wrongfully accused until the appeal is adjudicated? We set up a system of appeals, including those "silly" technical appeals for the sole purpose of of doing our level best to ensure that at no stage has the course of justice been perverted. On occasion the technical or "silly" issue is the only visible evidence of a greater travesty hidden beneath. How do we know if we don't test the claim thoroughly and how can we proclaim guilt because "we know he done it" when the case fails one of those tests?

The whole town saw him do it you say, but perhaps they all saw the wrong guy. Consider Lenell Geter, convicted and sentenced to life in prison due to the eyewitness testimony of five restaurant employees. It's just that they all chose the wrong guy.

In Geter's case it wasn't the appeals process that got him out, it was a piece on 60 Minutes by Morley Safer (a Canadian btw) that did the trick. But that's Texas justice for you.

In fact, the list of those exonerated after wrongful convictions in Texas now numbers at least 50:

Randall Dale Adams, Gilbert Alejandro, Robert Angleton, Jason Barber, Clarence Brandley, Joyce Ann Brown, A. B. Butler, Kevin Byrd, Sonia Cacy,H. A. Clements, Kerry Max Cook, Roy Criner, Samuel Curbow, Richard Danzinger, Muneer Deeb, Steve Fossum, Ronnie Mark Gariepy, Lenell Geter, Ricardo Aldape Guerra, Cooper Johnson, Martin Kimsey, Carlos Lavernia, Federico M. Macias, Everett Baily Malloy, Federico Martinez-Macias, Ovid Mathis, Vernon McManus, Andrew Lee Mitchell, Gordon Morris, Howard Mosley, Susie Mowbray, Christopher Ochoa, Eugene Padgett, David Shawn Pope, Anthony Robinson, Stephen Lynn Russell, Ben Salazar, Earl Shannon, John C. Skelton, I. L. Southerland, J. C. Strickland, Victor Larue Thomas, Pedro Torres, Anastacio Vargas, Calvin Edward Washington, Mark Webb, Clarence Von Williams, Sidney Joe Williams, Jr., Michael Anthony Woten, Bennie Young

So, think about it, do you really want to be narrowing the grounds for appeal? Would you want the death of any of the folks above on your conscience? Looking at the above list, what do you think the odds are that there's another list no one will ever know of for those whose time ran out?

Pete

[BoomerPete]

>>> I simply have a problem with "silly" appeals such as ones like the convict appealing that he didn't have a fair trial because the entire town saw him kill someone. Know what I mean. On the other hand, appeals are a great thing for wrongfully accused people. And yes there have been many cases around the world as such. <<<

Sorry to beat the dead horse, but how does one know that the wrongfully accused is wrongfully accused until the appeal is adjudicated? We set up a system of appeals, including those "silly" technical appeals for the sole purpose of of doing our level best to ensure that at no stage has the course of justice been perverted. On occasion the technical or "silly" issue is the only visible evidence of a greater travesty hidden beneath. How do we know if we don't test the claim thoroughly and how can we proclaim guilt because "we know he done it" when the case fails one of those tests?

The whole town saw him do it you say, but perhaps they all saw the wrong guy. Consider Lenell Geter, convicted and sentenced to life in prison due to the eyewitness testimony of five restaurant employees. It's just that they all chose the wrong guy.

In Geter's case it wasn't the appeals process that got him out, it was a piece on 60 Minutes by Morley Safer (a Canadian btw) that did the trick. But that's Texas justice for you.

In fact, the list of those exonerated after wrongful convictions in Texas now numbers at least 50:

Randall Dale Adams, Gilbert Alejandro, Robert Angleton, Jason Barber, Clarence Brandley, Joyce Ann Brown, A. B. Butler, Kevin Byrd, Sonia Cacy,H. A. Clements, Kerry Max Cook, Roy Criner, Samuel Curbow, Richard Danzinger, Muneer Deeb, Steve Fossum, Ronnie Mark Gariepy, Lenell Geter, Ricardo Aldape Guerra, Cooper Johnson, Martin Kimsey, Carlos Lavernia, Federico M. Macias, Everett Baily Malloy, Federico Martinez-Macias, Ovid Mathis, Vernon McManus, Andrew Lee Mitchell, Gordon Morris, Howard Mosley, Susie Mowbray, Christopher Ochoa, Eugene Padgett, David Shawn Pope, Anthony Robinson, Stephen Lynn Russell, Ben Salazar, Earl Shannon, John C. Skelton, I. L. Southerland, J. C. Strickland, Victor Larue Thomas, Pedro Torres, Anastacio Vargas, Calvin Edward Washington, Mark Webb, Clarence Von Williams, Sidney Joe Williams, Jr., Michael Anthony Woten, Bennie Young

So, think about it, do you really want to be narrowing the grounds for appeal? Would you want the death of any of the folks above on your conscience? Looking at the above list, what do you think the odds are that there's another list no one will ever know of for those whose time ran out?

Pete

[Guest Peanuts]

You have an extremely good point and I read and learned. Yet, the point I was trying to make was basically about the murderers like Dalmer, Olsen, Holmolka, Dodd, etc., etc.

These induviduals should nver be granted an appeal (IMHO) Unfortunatly, many these types do get granted an appeal, and we the tax payers pay for it.

That is it, that is all I was trying to say

Thanx for your point of view though. I always try to keep an open mind to new views !

Take care,

Peanuts

[Guest GDR]

Hi Don

I know that we will never agree on this, and I will admit that in many ways my views are simplistic, but here they are in a nutshell.

First off, I believe that basic freedom is worth fighting for and dying for, even if you are talking about the freedoms of citizens of foreign countries. Canada has fought wars in the past over that principle. In this instance I believe that millions of Iraqis, have and will gain freedom.

I also believe that even though the war cost some innocent people their lives, it saved the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of others who would have died at the hands of Hussein and his henchman.

I also believe that because of that war, as well as the war in Afghanistan, there is a greatly reduced risk of terrorist attacks not only in the US, but in Canada and the rest of the western world.

I lost a father in the RCAF during the last World War. Canada fought that war so that the citizens of other countries might be free. There are many American kids who have lost their fathers in Iraq fighting for that same principle.

As I said at the outset freedom is worth fighting for and if necessary dying for.

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Hello Greg;

I think we will agree on much more than you may think, Greg, but in the end, agreement is not the goal; understanding is. And if my views fall short and are shown to be incorrect or wooly-headed, then I accept that. I am neither interested in a partisan dialogue, nor am I interested in an ideology for its own sake. I believe strongly enough in "knowing", that there are no "sacred cows" here.

I completely agree with your statement, "I believe that basic freedom is worth fighting for and dying for . . . " and believe that in both World Wars that is almost completely what our soldiers were doing. There is no question that the complexion and future of Europe would be substantially different if the US had not intervened late in the war. Nor are we served well by the Chamberlain's of this world, who would appease rather than confront. I am a fan of Churchill, of Roosevelt, Eisenhower, men such as Dag Hammarsjold and even of Lester Pearson, our last true statesman.

We cannot survey history in such a forum, but the changes in the approach to US foreign policy began to show in the Vietnam conflict for which the American people increasingly abandoned support. Democracy, or even the "containment of communism" were not the sole goals associated with this conflict. There was then as there is today, an enormous economic force behind this, and many other actions, the roots of which are not always what they may seem. It was not always this way.

It was a Republican President, Eisenhower, who first (and last) sounded a warning against what a powerful, military nation might become:

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry: American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been complled to create a permanent armanents industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and wormen are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political even spiritual - is felt in every city, every Statehouse, very office of the Federal Government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

It is my observation and opinion that the United States has moved a long way from President Eisenhower's vision of US military might and citizen involvement in their country's actions.

It is about these issues that I am writing. I am not interested in bashing the US and have consistently acknowledged that and the strong American propensity to "give the world the shirt of its collective back".

But there are disturbing issues that cannot be denied or ignored if the nation is to remain "healthy". History is not only exceedingly complex, but it is always, always seen through one set of eyes or another: there is no "The History of..."...there is always, "A" history of... One writes from one's politics and recorded "history" is no different. But the public record of events and the documentation of the times cannot be ignored.

Asking questions of one's government is not a signal of disloyalty. It is a sign of a healthy citizenry.

Shut of the questioning and you don't have democracy anymore. The questions thus asked will resolve themselves in time and reveal the questioner to be off the mark, or right on the mark...it is not for the questioner to claim he is right: it is for circumstance.

For example, in your post, you say,

"I also believe that because of that war, as well as the war in Afghanistan, there is a greatly reduced risk of terrorist attacks not only in the US, but in Canada and the rest of the western world."

Well, frankly, we can sure hope, but we don't know that. We must wait and see. In fact, statements made this week about further action carry much the same flavour as the statements made during the spring and summer of 2001: we may recall the stories. But that in itself cannot be taken as evidence.

As I read and watch, I remain unconvinced that the undeclared wars that the US has been involved in are truly about "freedom" and "democracy", although that is certainly the expressed reason. And so I think it is valid to ask questions. My own questions about US invasions of other countries revolve around, "freedom yes, but for who?".

Don

[Guest GDR]

Hi Don

I certainly agree that we should ask questions of both our own government and that of the USA as even though we don't vote in that country the American govt has an inordinate amount of influence on us.

I largely agree with you about some of the very bad decisions made during the Viet Nam era. I think that the Americans went into Viet Nam for the right reasons but got sucked into a situation where they let things get out of hand and stayed to long.

I agree with your quote by Eisenhower as well. I think though that you have to differentiate between the war machine and the government. The arms manufacturers have not been above selling those arms to the wrong people in many cases, mind you, this is certainly true of more than just the Americans. In my estimation both the French and the Russians have been worse.

As far as our own government's involvement is concerned I find it reprehensible. The Chretien gov't has abdicated the responsibility for the protection of our own sovereignty in our own country. We, whether we like it or not, depend on the Americans for both the protection of our way of life both militarily and economically. Our gov't disagreed with the US on the Iraq issue, although I believe that it was all about petty politics. If there was true disagreement with them on the issue, we should have argued with them behind closed doors, supported them publicly but not to the point of sending troops. Personally, as I agreed with the US position I believe that we should have sent our own troops, at least what there are of them, to help out.

As far as your last point questioned whose freedom they were fighting for. I believe that they were, and are, fighting for the freedom of the Iraqis specifically, and for the freedom from the fear of terrorism for the rest of us. I also believe that this conflict has the possibility to help bring about some form of peace in the Middle East.

We will never know however how effective any of this has been, because we will never know what would have happened if the Americans had just sat on their hands and done nothing.

Take care

Greg Robinson

[Guest neo]

"The arms manufacturers have not been above selling those arms to the wrong people in many cases, mind you, this is certainly true of more than just the Americans. In my estimation both the French and the Russians have been worse."

The American government is directly responsible for Iraq having both chemical and biological technology for weapons. Previous administrations, including Donald Rumsfield, provided both technology and chemical and biological precursors to the Iraqis back in the 80's. Source: The Washington Post, as provided here on AEF by George.

The American and British governments and corporations export more weaponry, by a vast margin, than any other nations on earth. If my memory serves me correctly, the combined output of all other nations does not even approach what the British and Americans sell. Source provided by Malcolm here on AEF; not sure where he got it from.

neo

[Jaydee]

Canada has cultivated an image of being the world¹s peacekeeper. However, it is also one of the largest international suppliers of arms and weapons in the world. Canada is the seventh largest exporter of arms and weapons to developing countries and the tenth largest overall arms exporter in the world.

And the premiere venue for viewing the military industry's products in this country is Airshow Canada, a biennial event which runs in conjunction with the Abbotsford International Airshow, an annual event widely advertised as family entertainment. So while families marvel at these technologies, Canada is hosting an international arms bazaar where representatives from over 70 countries come to buy and sell arms. Since its inception in 1961, the airshow had proved a popular family event. It is now the third largest airshow in North America and the largest in Canada, drawing an estimated 300,000 people in 1995.

Airshow Canada has also grown since its first joint venture in Abbotsford, from 37 military participants in 1989 to 104 military participants in 1995 with 15,000 delegates attending. Representatives from Canada's top military corporations ­ Bristol Aerospace, Bombardier, Canadian Marconi ­ display their products alongside representatives from international military corporations like British Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas, Aerospatiale, Mitsubishi and Boeing.

Delegates from around the world ­ including Russia, the United States, and Britain ­ come to buy, sell and trade arms and weapons. Representatives from China, Brazil, Indonesia and Chile ­ countries with histories of abusing human rights ­ are welcomed by the Canadian government to both the Airshow and the trade show. Ray Matty, president of Abbotsford Airshow, states the airshow's policy in deciding who to invite is linked to the federal government's foreign policy.

The Abbotsford International Airshow has always had a well advertised military presence, but the military presence at Airshow Canada goes virtually unnoticed and unreported ­ as does Canada's role in the international military defense business. Steve Staples, co-ordinator of End the Arms Race, states that, notwithstanding Canda's self-image as a promoter of international piece, Canada earns more exporting arms than it spends on peacekeeping.

[Don Hudson]

Greg;

Re "In my estimation both the French and the Russians have been worse."

Well, I think the record speaks for itself. Others on this thread have more clearly pointed the way in finding out more about who shipped "the most" arms. It certainly wasn't Russia or China although there are no innocents in such a trade.

The willingness to strip away one's illusions both about one's own government (not country) as well as one's "protector" to the south is at the heart of this conversation. I implore all to simply examine the record and drop the high school civics approach to the US' position in the world. The way killing is stopped is to shine a big light on those doing the killing. That's all this thread is about, beginning as it did with someone else's perception of the public dialogue and the freedom to ask tough questions without getting into "trouble". The Patriot Act and the scent of McCarthyism wafting over public dialogue today are sending a chill over such questions.

The history of US involvement is publicly available and is not a pretty sight. The US invaded South Vietnam...it wasn't defending it. The US secretly bombed Cambodia, setting the stage for the overthrow of Prince Sihanouk (a moderate, by comparison) and the implanting and support of the Khmer Rouge. You must know where that led, for the term "The Killing Fields" describes what happened to the previously uninvolved citizenry of Cambodia, with the support of the US.

It comes down to definitions of "worthy" and "unworthy" victims of war. I leave it to others to determine for themselves who is who, and why, but ask (rhetorically, of course) what the US reaction might be if it lost 3 million of its own citizens to another country's unprovoked aggression.

Re "As far as our own government's involvement is concerned I find it reprehensible."

I suppose. Politics is an ugly compromising game in which fair-weather friends are a dime-a-dozen. There is no expectation of honor or principle. At the same time, Canada actually, finally told the US "No, you do not have our support". There is likely convenience to that act, and some Quebec election involvement, but so be it. Its less ugly than having this nation support unilateral invasion of another country regardless of the justifications to do so.

For this act of defiance, Canada, in my estimation, has paid a heavy price. The WHO, a UN branch (an effectively US controlled one), first issued a SARS travel warning shutting down Toronto. If that weren't enough, based upon one singular and traceable-to-the-US case, an entirely unreasonable ruling on Canadian beef has been applied, (and which has been curiously followed by the Japanese), and is currently destroying Canada's beef industry. One case of Mad-cow, 36 (I think) SARS deaths. The US response is not about animal disease or flu, its about "discipline", and Canada has felt the lash, albeit exceedingly mild by comparison, of our "protector's" disapproval. One cannot say with certainty that this is how it happened, but the rule of parsimony (Occam's razor) which seeks the most likely explanation, points to this view rather than other, more complex or "difficult" explanations.

I agree with you on not knowing what would have happened had the US not invaded Iraq, but we may reasonably surmise that not much would have changed. As to the "war on terrorism", that is an entirely different matter, not even touched upon in this thread.

Take care as well,

Cheers,

Don

[Guest JakeYYZ]

Here’s some more interesting reading for you, Don.

Perpetual Peace for Perpetual War: How We Got To Be So Hated and Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta (Nation Books, 2002). They are collections of Gore Vidal’s Vanity Fair and Nation columns with added introductions and commentary. The books reprise writings on what he sees as the Bush family usurpation of the 2000 presidential election, Bush family business connections to the bin Laden family, the Texas oil patch's pipeline dealings with the Taliban in Afghanistan and the subsequent war there, why bin Laden was not pursued, and how the focus shifted to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

From the Introduction to Perpetual War:

"In the last six years two dates are to be remembered for longer than usual in the United States of Amnesia: April 19, 1995, when a much-decorated infantry soldier called Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 innocent men, women and children. Why? McVeigh [who may have committed mass murder to avenge the government slaughter of the religious cult at Waco] told us at eloquent length, but our rulers and their media preferred to depict him as a sadistic, crazed monster. On Sept. 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his Islamic terrorist organization struck at Manhattan and the Pentagon.

"The Pentagon Junta in charge of our affairs programmed their president to tell us that bin Laden was an 'evildoer' who envied us our goodness and wealth and freedom.

"None of these explanations made much sense, but our rulers for more than half a century have made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that our government has done to other people, not to mention, in McVeigh's case, our own.

"All we are left with are blurred covers of Time and Newsweek where monstrous figures from Hieronymous Bosch stare out of us, hellfire in their eyes, while The New York Times and its chorus of imitators spin complicated stories about mad Osama and cowardly McVeigh, thus convincing most Americans that only a couple of freaks would ever dare strike at a nation as close to perfection as any human society can come."

That U.S. government policies and actions "might have seriously provoked McVeigh and bin Laden was never dealt with. Things just happen out there in the American media and we consumers don't need to be told the why of anything."

For the ‘pilot’ types out there…here is a link to some interesting journalism……

Maybe some of the more skeptical can explain how this could be?

Link: http://www.nzaif.com/pentagon/pentagon911.html

[Guest neo]

I'm not familiar with Canada's rank in that regard, but I have no reason to doubt you. Nevertheless, from the list I saw, once you have eliminated Britain and the U.S.A's contribution to world-wide arms shipments, you have effectively eliminated a huge percent of the trade. Eliminate the next three or four countries who ship arms and you've put a stop to, I'd say, about 95% of the shipments. Canada may be tenth in line, but the rank vs. shipping amounts is not a straight line. Our tenth-rank position must account for a miniscule percentage of the world wide shipment of arms.

And any shipment of arms must be looked at in light of who's receiving them. Does Canada sell arms to Tamil rebels, mercenaries in the Congo, insurgents in Central America, or despotic and unsavory regimes? If we do, we should stop. But if the bulk of our arms trade is with our allies, or to countries trying to protect themselves from the sort of threats I mentioned above, then you can make a pretty good argument for the legitimacy of what we do.

There are several nations in the world who profit out of all proportion to the rest of the countries who trade in arms. While Canada (and many other nations) do sell weapons technology and equipment, that contribution is practically dwarfed by the amounts contributed by others. And of the weaponry and related technology we provide, a crucial point is where it goes and what it does.

Canada and its people have a reputation as 'peace-keepers' not because we don't have a military tradition, and not because we don't have an arms industry, but because we don't use them to invade other countries, and because we frequently do use them to help other countries that ARE being invaded, or are under a similar threat.

Canadians are tough and brave, but we're not bullies. Nor have we made a significant contribution to arming the developing nations of the world to the teeth. I'd certainly prefer it if NO arms were shipped anywhere by anyone, but on balance I see Canada's contribution in this area as being very modest and not incompatible with defensive endevours, not aggressive ones.

Best wishes,

neo

[Steam Driven]

Unless one's understanding of "democracy" does not include citizen participation and ultimate control, the US versions of democracy means something quite different and certainly involves big business, a rabbit trail which I will leave for now.

You are an expert on the US “version” of democracy? You’ve read select authors and you are now an expert? Your modus operendi is to list an impressive array of books by obscure authors and take their writing’s as verbatim.

I too read, however I tend to gravitate towards authors and editorials that agree with my view point. A trait in human nature of which I’m sure we are all susceptible.

I think Greg Robinson replied to you best and I will leave my reply for you in his post in which I am in agreement.

We shall forever disagree on this point and I think we shall leave it at that.

One thing we do agree on is the poor state of the press and the laziness of reporting in the media. Print, Radio and Television are all guilty of sensationalizing the trivial and paying lip service to issues of import.

It takes a terrible amount of work to speak knowledgably about subjects such as these and it should not.

Take care Don.

[Harvey Bergen]

Don and Steam Driven:

I have read (followed) with great interest your dialogue over the past three days and one fact emerges loud and clear. This dialogue regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees has been tremendously educational and that is probably the greatest benefit of the internet and a forum such as this. Up until a few years ago, this dialogue could have been carried out by writing letters and mailing them but the spontaneity and immediate response would not have been there - as well as the ability to maintain continuity as the two of you have. Also, the audience would have had to wait until one or both of you published your memoirs to share in your thoughts.

Thank you, both for the effort taken to maintain this dialogue.

Regards,

Harvey

[Guest M. McRae]

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/08/08/156453-cp.html

[Mitch Cronin]

"The Canadians have already taken steps to distinguish themselves from other international forces, including opting for green combat fatigues rather than the desert browns so popular among Germans, Australians, Britons and Americans."

Ahh! So that's the reason... And here I thought it might be because we couldn't afford to equip them properly.

[Don Hudson]

SteamDriven;

A very classy reply and one which causes me pause to ponder...thank you.

I'm no expert on anything. But at my age, I'm not sure what an "expert" is anymore.

Obscure authors? Not to me. I don't quote them to impress, I quote them to inform, so that others can take a look. I happen to think they're right, but am never ideologically driven to the point of ignoring alternate points of view. Enthusiasm is no substitute for accuracy; I treat my writings with that credo in mind.

As said before, agreement is not ever the goal...it is the dialogue. I don't intend to persuade, although I'm human and naturally feel good when others agree. I intend that the dialogue be respected as paramount. Everyone walks away with different notions of what happened. It can't get better than that, unless one is a politician...In which case, dialogue is to be feared and avoided.

Greg and I disagree on practically everything. But he's a fine man in discourse and a gentleman.

Again, agreeing is not the goal. I view this exercise this way: Each of us views the world using a tiny flashlight to illuminate a great and complex hall filled with ideas (things!) which are Vast in number. Our flashlight has a dim and narrow beam as we each try to discern what we are viewing. There is not just one hallway either. We each may occupy our own! And each may have slightly different "things"... And further, each room is shuttered with "venetian blinds" sometimes open, sometimes partly shut and sometimes blocking our little flashlights altogether. It does no good to exhort that we "see", nor does it do good to feel failure in vision.

But talking about and comparing what we see is the thing.

Its crude, but I don't think its romantic or idealistic. It helps form an approach which leads to further exploration and learning. Suspending judgement in favour of curiosity is to be preferred to coming to conclusions and "answering" the questions. Once a question is "answered", enquiry stops in much the same way as when we learn the name of something, (a bird or animal)...once named, enquiry stops because we "know" what it is. (Well, of course, IT doesn't know its a bird etc...!).

Home from LHR and off to rest.

Don

[Steam Driven]

Don, it does one's mind good to flex the muscle that tends to atrophy with age and comfort.

I hope I am viewed as comforatable and not an intemperate curmudgeon!

I tend to view the world through the same flashlight that you describe. My view is limited to the visceral feelings of fairplay and right Vs. wrong. Not always inappropriate, but at times narrow in their scope.

Take care, I hope that you and I meet one day to discuss less lofty ideals such as the virtues of a single malt Vs. a highland blend... (d)

Good day and have fun on the coast!

S.D.

[Don Hudson]

[Don Hudson]

Hi Harvey;

As always, great to hear from you!

Re "Up until a few years ago, this dialogue could have been carried out by writing letters and mailing them but the spontaneity and immediate response would not have been there ..."

I agree...the dialogue's the thing, and I know with you it always has been...I can recall some good ones we've had!

Agreement is a funny kind of social activity. Most of the time, we're out of sorts when its not there and we always seek "stasis" rather than tension. Maybe its got to do with the conflict-avoiding "dance". But dwelling in "the interface" of disagreement is the most exciting place to be.

After all, what has one accomplished by getting someone else to agree? That now two people are right?...

Moving this kind of discourse away from the metaphor of a battlefield where questioning is risky and winning and conclusiveness are goals, towards an exploration of the richness of language and thought for its own sake certainly yields finer results. That's done every day here by so many contributors.

Re memoirs..your comment reminds me of why I archive many of the threads. There's some great contributions that are worth re-reading.

Now if we're talking about the cockpit, (where it is not a democracy!), clarity, agreement, conclusion and action are the definite goals!

I will say publicly that you've taught me a lot about both venues.

kind regards,

Don

[Harvey Bergen]

Hello Don;

How is this for a sentence - I agree, disagreement is oftentimes the result of reasoning people exercising the art of reason. I don't think I could have come up with that except at 3 in the morning (when I an writing this).

Your reference to the actions in the cockpit (or flight deck as I have taken to calling it for no good reason except that hoary old supposed-joke referring to the cockpit that I found distasteful) defines what has happen there very well. I would possibly add that the sequence you describe define the steps required to arrive at a desired result should include information gathering. Also, I would split them into action steps (infomation gathering, conclusion and action) with clarity and agreement as a goal throughout. I found that seeking information from other members of the crew while information gathering not only gave me additional information but also allowed me time to think - which was oftentimes as valuable. After all, very few things in the flight deck had to be done 'right now' - with the exception of a reject or a fire (sometimes).

As an aside it is funny how lessons learned in one aspect of one's life splash over into other areas. As you are probably aware, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer just about 2 years ago. The three main steps of information gathering, conclusion and action while maintaining clarity and seeking agreement throughout were what allowed me to navigate through to a successful result with the cancer (and to keep a level head while doing so).

I find I have reached the stage in life where philosophy comes easy - there always seems to be something in the past that is brought to the fore by something seen in the present - with ancillary lesson learned attached. The hard part is to keep the mouth shut and the breathing done through the nose so as to not give lessons where lessons are not desired - the seed has to fall on fertile soil.

Don, I thank you for the last sentence. You often wonder what your legacy hs been and whether you have made a difference. However, in your case the soil was rich and well watered long before I got there - and the seed (if you will allow me to take this metaphor to ridiculous lengths) was literally snatched from my hand.

Cheers

Harvey

[Harvey Bergen]

Don, I went back and re-read your post and I find I only responded to about 1/3 of it. The other 2/3 should not be ignored.

If a person goes into a discussion seeking agreement, he/she is not looking for true discourse - rather he/she is seeking a result. That is not the basis for true free discussion. I remember flying with a gentleman (from your neck of the woods) who I have described as being somewhere to the left of Carl Marx while, as you know, I am somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan. While the conversation flow in the flight deck was sometimes very animated, funny that to me those flight were some of the most memorable. This gentleman and I were always able to keep the discussion off the personal and on to the free flow of ideas - naturally promoting our own world view.

Which brings me to one of the thoughts you were discussing with SD - is a person in this forum putting their thoughts forward to seek agreement or are they promulgating ideas to possibly broaden anothers outlook or are they participating just to have an outlet for their thoughts - or - an interesting technique sometimes - are they 'stirring the pot to see what will rise to the top'. I find after writing the previous, I cannot even answer that for myself. Agreement is satisfying,- absolutely - but not necessarily solution one. After agreement, dialogue stops - after all what is there left to talk about (except in a marriage). Unfortunately, there may be more facts, thoughts, ideas to discover. Without further probing, theses facts, etc will not be unearthed. And you are right, Don, the interface of disagreement is definitely exciting - and fun.

One of the many things I enjoyed about flying with you was the fact that you would look at a new opposing agrement with open eyes. I don't know if you went through it, but at 40, I had all the answers; if you doubted that, just ask me - I was poised to give them at the drop of the hat. However, while telling you the answers, I was shutting myself off from any input coming the other way. I didn't need it anyway - I had all the information I required. I find now, though at the other side of 60, that I am not even sure what the questions are. I am finding it amazing how many smart people there are out there - a lot of them on this forum. Some of them though, seem to have all the answers. They do not seem to realize that they have shut themselves off to the pleasure of a good dialogue with a reasoning individual who may.....just may have something worthwhile to contribute.

Enough blathering for one night - back to bed and continue the nights sleep.

Good night all

Harvey