--============_-1211292697==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Larry
>Thanks for your thoughtful response to my comments. There is not
>much I would be
>especially inclined to take issue with. I am certainly not of the view that
>American foreign policy is above criticism. What we have done by
>sustaining the
>embargo against Iraq, for instance, is grossly immoral. I agree too
>that the great
>power of the country should make its leaders more reflective about
>the effects US
>power.
US support for Israel which takes a notoriously intractable line is
certainly not helping either. Without US funding maybe Israel would
be forced to tone down its incredibly aggressive stance in the region.
>
>Morally and strategically, however, it makes no sense to leave even
>the hint of a
>suggestion that the US brought this atrocity on itself or that force should=
be
>ruled out as a response to it. That line of criticism would be quite
>counterproductive for anyone wishing to see changes in US policy.
Actually I totally agree with you on this. And reflecting on my
response perhaps I didn't say enough to express how totally I am
opposed to the political practices and beliefs which engendered this
violent terrorist act. One could never argue that anyone deserves to
be the victim of terrorism for any reason. What exactly should be
done in response is the tricky question -one can't take such events
lying down but at the same time one doesn't want to make things even
worse. It would be encouraging to see practical global and
cooperative efforts to prevent any future instances of this kind of
terrorism. One must also put pressure on those dictatorial States and
forms of ideology which condone this kind of activity. What kind of
pressure that should be is also a tricky question.
>
>I am not sanguine at all that US policy would be improved by more
>populism. The
>last time there was a great influx of new voters in American
>elections was 1968.
>The newly registered voters largely supported George Wallace --
>hardly the kind of
>candidate I would like to see influencing American politics today.
>The data I have
>seen on non-voters is hardly encouraging. Non-voters tend to be less
>informed than
>voters and (worse) they are more susceptible to jingoistic and right
>wing appeals
>than voters. You are more likely to find people like Timothy McVeigh
>than Albert
>Schweitzer among American non-voters.
I am taking the rather optimistic view that if voting is made
compulsory there is more likelihood that people will take the
trouble to better educate and inform themselves about the political
choices available and the consequences of those choices. It seems to
operate that way in Australia where voting is compulsory -but
Australia and the US are rather dissimilar societies and Australia
only has a population of 18 million.
Some more useful quotes from Foucault in relation to boat people and
refugees from Vietnam which I think could very well apply:
'The State must not exercise the unconditional right of life and
death either over its own people or those of another country...
In the twentieth century there have often been genocides and ethnic
persecutions. I think that in the near future these problems and
these phenomena will show themselves again in different forms.
Because first of all, in the last few years he number of dictatorial
states has been increasing rather than decreasing. Because political
expression is impossible in their country and they don't have the
necessary force for resistance, people repressed by the dictatorship
will choose to escape from hell.
Secondly in the former colonies, States have been created respecting
the borders of the colonial era, in such a a way that ethnicities,
languages and religions are mixed. This phenomenon creates grave
tensions. In these countries, antagonisms risk exploding and leading
to the massive displacement of the population and the collapse of the
State apparatus.' (1979iii) 'Le probl=E8me des r=E9fugi=E9s est un pr=E9sage=
de la grande migration du XXIe si=E8cle', in DE III. pp. 798-800.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/
************************************************
--============_-1211292697==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: recent events</title></head><body>
<div>Dear Larry</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite>Thanks for your thoughtful response to my
comments. There is not much I would be<br>
especially inclined to take issue with. I am certainly not of the view
that<br>
American foreign policy is above criticism. What we have done by
sustaining the<br>
embargo against Iraq, for instance, is grossly immoral. I agree too
that the great<br>
power of the country should make its leaders more reflective about the
effects US</blockquote>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite>power.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>US support for Israel which takes a notoriously intractable line
is certainly not helping either. Without US funding maybe Israel would
be forced to tone down its incredibly aggressive stance in the
region.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite><br>
Morally and strategically, however, it makes no sense to leave even
the hint of a<br>
suggestion that the US brought this atrocity on itself or that force
should be<br>
ruled out as a response to it. That line of criticism would be
quite<br>
counterproductive for anyone wishing to see changes in US
policy.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Actually I totally agree with you on this. And reflecting on my
response perhaps I didn't say enough to express how totally I am
opposed to the political practices and beliefs which engendered this
violent terrorist act. One could never argue that anyone deserves to
be the victim of terrorism for any reason. What exactly should be done
in response is the tricky question -one can't take such events lying
down but at the same time one doesn't want to make things even worse.
It would be encouraging to see practical global and cooperative
efforts to prevent any future instances of this kind of terrorism. One
must also put pressure on those dictatorial States and forms of
ideology which condone this kind of activity. What kind of pressure
that should be is also a tricky question.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite><br>
I am not sanguine at all that US policy would be improved by more
populism. The<br>
last time there was a great influx of new voters in American elections
was 1968.<br>
The newly registered voters largely supported George Wallace -- hardly
the kind of<br>
candidate I would like to see influencing American politics today. The
data I have<br>
seen on non-voters is hardly encouraging. Non-voters tend to be less
informed than<br>
voters and (worse) they are more susceptible to jingoistic and right
wing appeals<br>
than voters. You are more likely to find people like Timothy McVeigh
than Albert<br>
Schweitzer among American non-voters.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I am taking the rather optimistic view that if voting is made
compulsory there is more likelihood that people will take the
trouble to better educate and inform themselves about the political
choices available and the consequences of those choices. It
seems to operate that way in Australia where voting is compulsory -but
Australia and the US are rather dissimilar societies and Australia
only has a population of 18 million.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Some more useful quotes from Foucault in relation to boat people
and refugees from Vietnam which I think could very well apply:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>'The State must not exercise the unconditional right of life and
death either over its own people or those of another country...</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In the twentieth century there have often been genocides and
ethnic persecutions. I think that in the near future these problems
and these phenomena will show themselves again in different forms.
Because first of all, in the last few years he number of dictatorial
states has been increasing rather than decreasing. Because political
expression is impossible in their country and they don't have the
necessary force for resistance, people repressed by the dictatorship
will choose to escape from hell.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Secondly in the former colonies, States have been created
respecting the borders of the colonial era, in such a a way that
ethnicities, languages and religions are mixed. This phenomenon
creates grave tensions. In these countries, antagonisms risk exploding
and leading to the massive displacement of the population and the
collapse of the State apparatus.'<font face=3D"New York" size=3D"-1"
color=3D"#000000"> (1979iii) 'Le probl=E8me des r=E9fugi=E9s est un
pr=E9sage de la grande migration du XXIe si=E8cle', in DE III. pp.
798-800.</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>Clare<br>
************************************************<br>
Clare O'Farrell<br>
email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br>
website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/<br>
************************************************</div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1211292697==_ma============--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Larry
>Thanks for your thoughtful response to my comments. There is not
>much I would be
>especially inclined to take issue with. I am certainly not of the view that
>American foreign policy is above criticism. What we have done by
>sustaining the
>embargo against Iraq, for instance, is grossly immoral. I agree too
>that the great
>power of the country should make its leaders more reflective about
>the effects US
>power.
US support for Israel which takes a notoriously intractable line is
certainly not helping either. Without US funding maybe Israel would
be forced to tone down its incredibly aggressive stance in the region.
>
>Morally and strategically, however, it makes no sense to leave even
>the hint of a
>suggestion that the US brought this atrocity on itself or that force should=
be
>ruled out as a response to it. That line of criticism would be quite
>counterproductive for anyone wishing to see changes in US policy.
Actually I totally agree with you on this. And reflecting on my
response perhaps I didn't say enough to express how totally I am
opposed to the political practices and beliefs which engendered this
violent terrorist act. One could never argue that anyone deserves to
be the victim of terrorism for any reason. What exactly should be
done in response is the tricky question -one can't take such events
lying down but at the same time one doesn't want to make things even
worse. It would be encouraging to see practical global and
cooperative efforts to prevent any future instances of this kind of
terrorism. One must also put pressure on those dictatorial States and
forms of ideology which condone this kind of activity. What kind of
pressure that should be is also a tricky question.
>
>I am not sanguine at all that US policy would be improved by more
>populism. The
>last time there was a great influx of new voters in American
>elections was 1968.
>The newly registered voters largely supported George Wallace --
>hardly the kind of
>candidate I would like to see influencing American politics today.
>The data I have
>seen on non-voters is hardly encouraging. Non-voters tend to be less
>informed than
>voters and (worse) they are more susceptible to jingoistic and right
>wing appeals
>than voters. You are more likely to find people like Timothy McVeigh
>than Albert
>Schweitzer among American non-voters.
I am taking the rather optimistic view that if voting is made
compulsory there is more likelihood that people will take the
trouble to better educate and inform themselves about the political
choices available and the consequences of those choices. It seems to
operate that way in Australia where voting is compulsory -but
Australia and the US are rather dissimilar societies and Australia
only has a population of 18 million.
Some more useful quotes from Foucault in relation to boat people and
refugees from Vietnam which I think could very well apply:
'The State must not exercise the unconditional right of life and
death either over its own people or those of another country...
In the twentieth century there have often been genocides and ethnic
persecutions. I think that in the near future these problems and
these phenomena will show themselves again in different forms.
Because first of all, in the last few years he number of dictatorial
states has been increasing rather than decreasing. Because political
expression is impossible in their country and they don't have the
necessary force for resistance, people repressed by the dictatorship
will choose to escape from hell.
Secondly in the former colonies, States have been created respecting
the borders of the colonial era, in such a a way that ethnicities,
languages and religions are mixed. This phenomenon creates grave
tensions. In these countries, antagonisms risk exploding and leading
to the massive displacement of the population and the collapse of the
State apparatus.' (1979iii) 'Le probl=E8me des r=E9fugi=E9s est un pr=E9sage=
de la grande migration du XXIe si=E8cle', in DE III. pp. 798-800.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/
************************************************
--============_-1211292697==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: recent events</title></head><body>
<div>Dear Larry</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite>Thanks for your thoughtful response to my
comments. There is not much I would be<br>
especially inclined to take issue with. I am certainly not of the view
that<br>
American foreign policy is above criticism. What we have done by
sustaining the<br>
embargo against Iraq, for instance, is grossly immoral. I agree too
that the great<br>
power of the country should make its leaders more reflective about the
effects US</blockquote>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite>power.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>US support for Israel which takes a notoriously intractable line
is certainly not helping either. Without US funding maybe Israel would
be forced to tone down its incredibly aggressive stance in the
region.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite><br>
Morally and strategically, however, it makes no sense to leave even
the hint of a<br>
suggestion that the US brought this atrocity on itself or that force
should be<br>
ruled out as a response to it. That line of criticism would be
quite<br>
counterproductive for anyone wishing to see changes in US
policy.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Actually I totally agree with you on this. And reflecting on my
response perhaps I didn't say enough to express how totally I am
opposed to the political practices and beliefs which engendered this
violent terrorist act. One could never argue that anyone deserves to
be the victim of terrorism for any reason. What exactly should be done
in response is the tricky question -one can't take such events lying
down but at the same time one doesn't want to make things even worse.
It would be encouraging to see practical global and cooperative
efforts to prevent any future instances of this kind of terrorism. One
must also put pressure on those dictatorial States and forms of
ideology which condone this kind of activity. What kind of pressure
that should be is also a tricky question.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite><br>
I am not sanguine at all that US policy would be improved by more
populism. The<br>
last time there was a great influx of new voters in American elections
was 1968.<br>
The newly registered voters largely supported George Wallace -- hardly
the kind of<br>
candidate I would like to see influencing American politics today. The
data I have<br>
seen on non-voters is hardly encouraging. Non-voters tend to be less
informed than<br>
voters and (worse) they are more susceptible to jingoistic and right
wing appeals<br>
than voters. You are more likely to find people like Timothy McVeigh
than Albert<br>
Schweitzer among American non-voters.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I am taking the rather optimistic view that if voting is made
compulsory there is more likelihood that people will take the
trouble to better educate and inform themselves about the political
choices available and the consequences of those choices. It
seems to operate that way in Australia where voting is compulsory -but
Australia and the US are rather dissimilar societies and Australia
only has a population of 18 million.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Some more useful quotes from Foucault in relation to boat people
and refugees from Vietnam which I think could very well apply:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>'The State must not exercise the unconditional right of life and
death either over its own people or those of another country...</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In the twentieth century there have often been genocides and
ethnic persecutions. I think that in the near future these problems
and these phenomena will show themselves again in different forms.
Because first of all, in the last few years he number of dictatorial
states has been increasing rather than decreasing. Because political
expression is impossible in their country and they don't have the
necessary force for resistance, people repressed by the dictatorship
will choose to escape from hell.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Secondly in the former colonies, States have been created
respecting the borders of the colonial era, in such a a way that
ethnicities, languages and religions are mixed. This phenomenon
creates grave tensions. In these countries, antagonisms risk exploding
and leading to the massive displacement of the population and the
collapse of the State apparatus.'<font face=3D"New York" size=3D"-1"
color=3D"#000000"> (1979iii) 'Le probl=E8me des r=E9fugi=E9s est un
pr=E9sage de la grande migration du XXIe si=E8cle', in DE III. pp.
798-800.</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>Clare<br>
************************************************<br>
Clare O'Farrell<br>
email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br>
website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/<br>
************************************************</div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1211292697==_ma============--