Turtle (way of warrior) - who speaks for wolf? Long reply

[J. Paul Everett]

Dear Peggy, et. al.;

I guess I'll take on your inquiry, who speaks for wolf.  I think on this list
I'm likely of the wolf breed.  In a private interchange with Michael Hermann,
re: Mr. Krauthammer's column that I posted earlier, in which he wanted to
clarify my views, I responded with the following to the question "Where do
you stand?"  I have added one sentence that I didn't think of before
regarding the papal encyclical and a clarification on the reading comment.

Dear Michael,

Where do I stand?  Open and free inquiry.  Listening to many sides, and all
sides.  Voltaire had it right---"I do not believe in what you say but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."  Asking all the possible questions
as a means for discovery.  Openly questioning the Convention Wisdom of this
listserv that is heavily weighted to those who expect a loving response to
sway Mr. bin Laden and his murdering followers.  Good luck.

Mr. Krauthammer asks some very important questions. We also need to ask some
hard questions.  Prudens questio dimidium scientiae---to ask the proper
question is half of knowing.  Why are not the Imam's of Islam the world over
vigorously condemning the concept of suicide bombers as being something out
of Islam, as claimed by the fundamentalists?  Why are they so relatively
quiet?  Where are the equivalent of the Papal Encyclical or the Ex Cathedra
pronouncement condemning, unequivocally, with no obfuscation, the actions of
ALL suicide bombers as being nowhere in the teachings of Islam.  Where is the
fatwa against suicide bombing of every kind?

Are they going to be like the Christians and liberals in Germany and the
West, especially Britain, and including the USA, who stood silently by while
the Jews and Gypsies went to the gas chambers by the millions?  Or, like the
gullible "liberals" who praised Stalin ("I have seen the future, and it
works") while he murdered millions of his own people?  If we remain silent,
the very rocks will cry out, I think.

Might it be that there is some truth to the general population's belief that
Islam isn't necessarily a peaceful religion, not really benign, with respect
for those who do not belong to their religion?  Certainly not benign, or
good, for women, even in the "liberal" Islamic countries.  That maybe the
fundamentalists of Islam have it right, that violence is tolerated by their
religion?  Or, advocated if it is against the Infidels?  Infidel, that's me,
for sure, don't know about you or your religious leanings.  None of my
business.

You might think that I'm a radical rightist.  Far, far from it.  I see myself
as a fairly steely-eyed realist with a soft heart for the downtrodden of
humanity.  I believe the people of the US are sick, ill at heart, from their
wealth.  Their materialism (may) be their downfall, imho.  There is the iron
law of responsibility---to those who have been given much, of them will much
be required.  We don't understand that yet, except for a very few.  Maybe
Sept. 11th is the needed wake-up call?

We build billion dollar stadiums with public tax money to watch over-paid
children play sports while our streets teem with the desperately poor,
without hope or real help.  We pay our teachers, the shapers of the future,
niggardly salaries and don't demand enough of them or our children (I'm not a
teacher, I'm a business consultant).  We produce 25% illiterates or
functional illiterates (that's for reading---the numbers are far worse for
math, not to mention critical thinking) from our school system and don't look
to see that there are much better ways to educate children (I use a system of
teaching reading for my clients who have many illiterates in their employ
that is 99.5% successful in teaching anyone to read as fluently as they
talk---and I mean anyone, no matter what they have been "diagnosed" as
having---dyslexia, adhd, mental slowness, etc., at the rate of 1 grade level
gained per 10 hours of tutoring, which is 10x faster than the usual program).
 We can't seem to figure out how people can get a modicum of medical care
while our governments and insurance companies are busy destroying the best
medical care in the world.  (The stories my brother, an MD, can tell you
would make you weep.)  Very disheartening.

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument with you, or a jeremiad.  I
posted that column because I thought it had some points of view we'd better
pay attention to if we are to figure this whole thing out and move
accordingly.  We need to know the real position of the Islamic clerics and
leaders of the world.  The real position of Islam for we non-believers.  I
think they'd better start speaking up.  Freedom, in all it's ramifications,
is far, far too precious to be lost or cloaked under the blanket of PC.

Sincerely,

Paul Everett

Today, I would add that we need to do both, stop the terrorists by force AND
to begin an even greater effort to win over the minds and hearts of the
people of the nations that are currently harboring terrorists bent on our
destruction.  Make no mistake, that is their goal, the downfall of the West,
because they despise our values, including those of freedom of religion,
assembly, press, speaking out, petition, etc., contained in the Bill of
Rights.  It makes for an immoral society, in their view, one that must be
destroyed.  Especially it makes for an immoral society for women.  (Are you
women on this listserv listening and observing what is really going on?)  For
those of you doubting their intention, you haven't been listening or
watching, as we didn't listen to Hitler in Mein Kampf or Lenin in his
writings, to our great sorrow.  We'd better listen and act now.

Below is another too-strong piece that has a substantial element of truth in
it.  He, unfortunately, does not bring up the way of inclusion for those not
bent on our destruction, but that is not his mission in this piece.  He is
speaking only of the terrorists and the pacifists.  Many of you won't like
his writing but I can assure you, being out in the work world with folks who
get things done, build things, dig trenches, haul garbage, clean sewers and
make things, they are on his side and not the side of those on this listserv,
in general.  That's what the Gallup poll numbers mean.  I doubt we will allow
another WTO- or Mardi Gras-like riot in Seattle.  They will be crushed.

I also can't any longer carry my nail clipper or pocket knife I've carried
for 30 years when flying.  My freedom is being further compromised but I'll
deal with it rather than allow terrorists to kill at will.  What we must
resist is turning the US into a police state.  We must also resist and
destroy terrorists and those governments and leaders harboring them,
physically, where they live.  To fail to do that is to fail our future.  That
is my position.

Paul Everett


 Wednesday, September 26, 2001 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Michael Kelly / Syndicated columnist
In the face of such evil, pacifism is immoral

Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are,
and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet, it
is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their
appeal.

It is worth it, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently
attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea
becomes.

It is worth it, secondly, because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in
America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What
happened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance
and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an
argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and
imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be
made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered
recede.

It is worth it, thirdly, because the American foreign policy establishment
has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver
titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be
heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression
really the right thing? Mightn't it just make matters ever so much worse?

Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality,
and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss
pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument is rooted entirely
in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence only begets more
violence.

There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground,
notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes.
So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi
cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as
occupying the moral position.

But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked - a situation
such as we are now in - pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral.
Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of
the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.

In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's
pacifists:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If
you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of
the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as
the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "

England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis
wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis
would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to
not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi
victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups
have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The
American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do
not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such
attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists,
therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are
objectively pro-terrorist.

There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that
the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor
can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably
likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight
in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again;
to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support
this outcome.

As President Bush said of nations: a war has been declared; you are either
on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to
capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or
you are for not doing this.

If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to
continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that
it is better to allow more Americans - perhaps a great many more - to be
murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.

That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.

Michael Kelly's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times.
The Washington Post Writers Group can be contacted via e-mail at
writersgrp at washpost.com.

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html