Empathy Supersedes Patriotism

This is the one universal truth in World affairs. Empathy binds individuals. Patrriotism shatters nations. Which is stronger? Consider the lessons of Munich; look how Isreal deals with terror and how their policies have evolved. Look how Spain; the nuclues of religious strife for centuries is dealing with it.

Now America is down to the red and the blue. Can anyone be found worthy to carry the torch further?

Look past the emotions to the basic tenets of Christianity; Islam and Judaism. Would any sincere jew contemplate killing a Christian because he is one? Have any ever? When you consider the scientific fact that the planet itself is transient; it is an utter abomination for anyone who professes the soul to be immortal to advocate the killing of other humans to protect a nation, property and ESPECIALLY a religion. Such a person is at best misled and at worse a hypocrite.

Our foreign policy has benn needing a "good neighbor" readjustment for years.

We, the richest nation; cannot guarantee the safety of our citizens in a time of regional disaster. If you can find it; read James Calvert's "Surface at the pole". In the 50s many scientists believed a gradual warming of the poles; then an ice age was inevitable. Now supposedly man is causing it and even more preposterously; can stop it.

Forget Bird Influenza; AFFLUENZA is gripping the world. And there are many who would rather be the King of a pile of rubble than a cog in a cooperative society.

The FUNDEMENTAL flaw in Marx's thinking was that those who sieze the power and should distribute the wealth get sticky fingers and should distribute the wealth tend to like the power and get sticky fingers. It is highly ironic Communism is regarded as so ungodly; the earliest references to it I have found are in the Book of Acts- "And they were all together; and no one said any of the things he had were his own; but they had all things in common." The last; best hope for a truly democratic communist society happened when the settlers arrived on the shores of America and it failed miserably. The settlers were starving till they peaceably agreed to switch to a system where results and quality mattered more. Communism and democracy are economic models and forms of government. The Soviet Union was never 100% communist, nor have we ever been 100% capitalistic. We adopted Communism during WWII then spent the next decades fighting it.

Can't we all just get along???

Merry Christmas and a survivable "New Year"

Western European society -- from whom we take the majority of our traditions -- is an extremely individualistic society. That individualism is a legacy of the Enlightenment, for better or worse. At its best, individualism can spur innovative thinking and spread ideas far and wide. At its worse, it can turn into a base consumerism where people's main concern is acquiring possessions to display status.

I have become convinced that the legacy of the Enlightenment is rapidly reaching an inglorious end. Individualism has taken us down a path that sees us mindlessly gobbling up the remaining resources on the planet for some of the stupidest reasons that can be thought of. The only thing that will save us is some form of collectivism. Not in the old "Soviet collective farm" sense, but rather a sea-change in values systems in which we weigh our decisions not against short-term pursuit of happiness, but rather in overall effect to our communities, our planet, our children, and our future generations.

As an example, take the approach to environmentalism in the western world. People claim to care about the environment -- so long as it does not affect their ability to consume. But tell people that they can no longer buy a hair dryer for $3.99 or drive an SUV, and they will howl in protest about how you are taking away their "freedom". George Will was actually correct, in a way of speaking, when he recently tarred environmentalism with the term "collectivism". In order for environmentalism to be truly effective, it HAS to be collectivist, because it is dealing with collective resources that we must share as a society. Will's argument would be that environmentalism inhibits the extreme individualism he holds so dear -- an individualism that celebrates the right of a singular person to spoil the earth in his or her personal "pursuit of happiness".

What the OP is talking about is the struggle between collectivism and individualism. I think that is a struggle that is at the center of just about every major problem we are facing today -- environmental devastation, poverty, global warming, uncertain energy futures, etc. I also think that the only way we ever will solve these problems is with a major shift toward collectivism and away from individualism.

For a little more on this dynamic, you can read any of the writings of the Frankfurt school -- Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas. Or, you could check out Carol Gilligan's work on childhood development between boys and girls, and the notion of "individual rights" versus "collective responsibilities".

Look at things through different colored glasses. Everybody has a bias, right or wrong.

But if you really do believe in Christian (and every other major religions) premise that -"What-so-ever-you-do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." it sure sheds a very different light on things. A different starting point for filtering the BS life sticks you with.

Sometimes it is just the way you view things that makes the difference.

And Merry Christmas

I respect the first poster; and agree with the next two.


I do not see "Global Warming" as a manmade problem however; James Celvert; captain of the USS Skate, did extensive research on the North Pole region in preparation for his voyage there and came across a Russian theory which expored what would happen if the Polar Ice melted. At first, this seemed highly desirable; an opening of their wintertime ports which could have shifted the superpower balance.

What did they think would happen? The theory was that the ice greatly reduced H2O evaporation. If it melted; there would be massive cloud cover and precipitation over the Northern latitudes. Increasingly the ice on land would not melt in summer. In short; an ice age. Eventually so much moisture would be trapped in the ice that humidity and cloud cover would decrease; lesding to warming and the retreat of the ice to the poles. James Calvert advanced the question- Is this where we are; a slowly melting Polar region in advance of another ice age?

We must prepare for this natural process. We must get over the fallacy that the rich have to give up to help the poor. I believe; as one of the men in the lowest socioeconomic bracket in the U.S., the same thing the richest man Bill Gates does; that the rise of the third world nations will benefit all. Our very survival may one day depend on large groups of people being able to safely migrate to another part of the world; and be welcomed as members of the collective "we".

Something to think about as WE move into another Holiday Season.