I seem to see the same things a little differently
by Albert 1

# 1. 6/30/04 11:33 PM by stephen
Empire Building through military power????

Didn't we just give them back their sovernty?? A country that is empire building wouldn't do that.

I have no time to discuss the other points. Have a good night, Albert. I'll be at work.

Editor's Note: They only have technical sovereignty. I wonder if they could try a U.S. soldier in their new court. That would be sovereignty, do we want that possibility?

Even if total success is achieved of a free and democratic Iraq; why them rather than Iran or another country. If we don't like bad leaders there are plenty including North Korea's Kim Il Sung who is a real problem since he sells missiles to baud guys.''Iraq posed no immediate threat except for the fictional WMD's

Iran and NK have real ones. Pakistan is selling nuclear technology to Arabs.

The best reason for Bush's actions is to build an oil empire of democratic (puppet) arab states starting with a weak one whose government was not Islamic and not even friendly to Osama..

We weakened it making it a ripe target for Iran its former enemy. Remember we originally supported Saddam when he fought Iran.

# 2. 6/30/04 11:49 PM by erik
the real question is where do we go from here? the answer:1. jews and arabs try to make peace.if that doesn't work see number two. 2.the stronger of the two absolutely dominates and crushes the other into submission.3. peace........at this point history means nothing. to the victor goes the spoils. 4.the victor works with the defeated party to rebuild and reestablish a civilized society within the eyes of the victor.........albert i think you have made some valid points and i respect the fact you state your opinions even though they may be unpopular.i feel as though i have just offered forth the most important opinion....a solution

Editor's Note: Now that both sides have nukes a "crushing" without the weaker resorting to nuclear weapons is not probable.

A start of nuclear war wont mean it stops with just two countries. In numbers and money the Arabs are stronger but not well coordinated. Israel would most likely retaliate against multiple countries-good by oil supply.

A safer approach is the type peace precess which was started before as we restrain Israel from retaliating for suicide bombers as retaliation only incites the radicals.

Maybe we will have to help find a new home for the remaining Israelis some other place in the world but they are not welcome where they are now and they keep on trying to expand settlements on more Arab land..

# 3. 7/1/04 12:12 AM by erik
i read both of your columns and i posted my jewish-arab solution in the wrong column ;-(. you should post these columns as well on july 1 (as im sure you will) anyone who posts a column in a given afternoon or later should carry it over to the next day for maximum exposure.

Editor's Note: dont worry I am carrying both. Thanks for the reminder

# 4. 7/1/04 2:09 AM by stephen
. I have no issue with property rights unless they decide to confiscate without due process.


Here's something interesting and if it can happen in Washington State it can happen anywhere in the country.

Especially when a dumocratic president gives the united nations any kind of sovernty over American soil.

Editor's Note: The UN is the best hope we have for a lasting world peace.

I realize that you and Bush Junioors crowd don't like it . I wonder what you think about George Senior (the wise Bush) supporting it and using it well during the first Gulf War.

I think that your crowd dosen't like an even playing field in international diplomacy.

. As unfair as it might seem to you I think the world is a better place due to the U.N.'s presence.

# 5. 7/1/04 2:10 AM by stephen
Sorry Albert that last one was from me, I was in a hurry and forget to "sign" it.

Editor's Note: your name magically appeared anyways

# 6. 7/1/04 5:15 AM by Zjabs
Re: 9- You have as much right to drive an SUV or "gas-guzzler" as you wish, as long as you can afford to purchase the fuel. Am I being more envoronmentally sound by driving a hybrid car which gets 50 miles to the gallon? Yes, but couldn't I be more sound by NOT DRIVING AT ALL? Which is why I laugh at the environmental kooks- that idea seems to be completely lacking in their heads- nothing funnier than a Save the Earth bumper sticker ON THE BACK OF A CAR! Once they stop being so hypocritical, perhaps I will take them more seriously but to ask me to change my habits while they keep using foreign oil...well, I have a hard time with that. -Zjabs

Editor's Note: If public transit was more developed I would use it. Libertarians tend to selfishly want the right to do anything they dont see as an immediate cause for concern.

Long term, our oil supply will be exhausted. I would like to see it rationed like it was in WW II.

Rationing gasoline would cause many changes in lifestyles, few of which I would object to.

# 7. 7/1/04 6:59 AM by Tom Dey - Springwater, NY
thumbsup.gif Good points...and consistent with your bio. Thank God I don't agree with all of them - how boring life would otherwise be! I often see different things as fundamentally the same. Religion and atheism (both adamantly held beliefs short on evidence and long on faith). And in contrast, how traits can be painted + or -, depending on intent: Tolerant vs pushover. Sensitive vs wimp. Cautious vs cowardly. Go-getter vs reckless. Relaxed vs lazy... Nap time...Zzzzz... Tom

Editor's Note: If you read much of my back posings you will see me as neither atheist nor agnostic. I am however one who demands that I have total freedom from any religious influence which in this country happens to be Christian.

I may respect the teachings of Christ but few of Christianity's contemporary teachers and representatives.

I am one who uses logical interpolation rather than blind faith to support my spiritual paradigm. As mario Cuomo said "A reason to believe"

I often wonder during the American Revolution how many of the present neo-conservatives would have been labelled Torys and left for Canada after the war. aware of the lack of popularity of my philosophy on this site but do respect WOTL's presence as a forum fair to all.

I hope you keep on with your comments and the more specific the better as I use negative feedback as a learning tool.

# 8. 7/1/04 3:09 PM by Al
“The UN is the best hope we have for a lasting world peace.”

Then we have no hope. I found a list of wars awhile back and compared the 59 years since the founding of the UN to the previous 59 years and discovered that there have been more wars since the UN’s founding.

I guess we all see the same things differently.

# 9. 7/1/04 9:26 PM by erik
the Israeli-palestinian conflict has no need for nuclear weapons.the israelis can use air strikes on hostile combatants. the elimination of top hamas leadership was long overdue.the suicide bombing can be completely whipped out with this approach. Palestinians want better lives and are content to work in Israel. yasser arafat(sp?) knows he is next in line if the suicide bombing begins again. yasser is a shameful man. he hoards billions of dollars while his people suffer in poverty (i think his wife lives the high life in france) Israelis should not be made to leave their homeland. while land may have been seized improperly many generations of jews were born and raised in iseral.their has to be a statute of limitations on land rites certainly after generations born to that land (if not im proposing one its common sense)

Editor's Note: the muslim problem is not caused by just a few radicals

they have legitimate gripes so terrorists and suicide bombers will continue without leaders till no Muslims are left (not likely) Israel is destroyed (not impossible) or a real peace process yields results (needs U.S. involvement)the last wont happen overnite in the meantime, no easy solution

# 10. 5/13/05 6:08 PM by BF - Roch
I cannot disagree with any posit cited, so I'll just say "I'm happy to be reading your stuff again, Albert!"


Editor's Note: I am happy to make you happy.:=)

# 11. 5/14/05 6:53 AM by Zjabs
The only one on your list I disagree with is the SUV comment. I don't own one, but I feel anyone has the right to do so if they can afford the gas. It's called the free market, and if I want to open all my windows on a 90 degree day and then run my house's air conditioner full-tilt, as long as I can afford the electricity, it's my right. Ditto driving an SUV, or opening all the windows on a cold night and running the furnace full bore. If people don't like it, raise the price of the electricity, gas, etc to the point that I cannot afford to do it.

I of course do none of the above things as 1)they are stupid, 2)they are wasteful and 3)they are expensive but the beauty of America is that I COULD if I wanted to do so.


Editor's Note: I often think of the people who raise and cut trees for lumber.

They could make more money if they just harvested and did not re-plant slow growing trees. They seem to think of more than themselves as the trees they plant will not be harvested in their lifetime.

I know libertarians deny selfishness and short-sightedness but those characteristics seem common to their philosophy.

# 12. 5/14/05 10:37 AM by Clive - VA
Yes, Albert, you DO seem to see the same things a little differently.

You along with 25 percent of the US population are part of the GREEN MEME. This is a layer of the spectrum of consciousness. It is one of the so-called "first-tier" layers, and is marked by a concern for environmentalism and is sensitive to marginalization, and a distrust of hierarchies, social, political, and economic.

A meme is a value system, it is similar to cultural DNA, and contains codes and instructions for the survival of the meme. There are several memes, visible to the naked eye, so to speak, in our world, and they are constantly warring with each other, vying for supremacy.

Editor's Note: I dont distrust all hierachies-see my repost "on authority" but generally you have a good perspective on me.

# 13. 3/12/15 6:30 AM by little john - Mount Morris, NY
thumbsup.gif "The empire of the burning bush drones, on and on..."

Thanx for that strange thought, Albert...

Editor's Note: In the comment section I found out I Am a 'Green Meeme'

# 14. 3/12/15 2:15 PM by Jay - OR
Ah nuts! Aren't we tired of "memes" yet? I'm convinced that calling an idea a meme is only because it sounds so much more scientific and self-promulgating, co-opting value where there has been none proven; whereas it is merely an idea.

Editor's Note: Personally I never heard the term before and furthermore only would consider it partially accurate.

If I were to classify my self ecology would be high on the list but still not the very top.

I have not researched the word for a clear definition yet.

include comments