Open Thread #108

“NetizenKim’s OK in my book.”

”

Except when he goes over the line of overtly racist comments that insult peoples’ spouses and families. I think he gets carried away and doesn’t realize what he is saying at times.

To a certain point his theorizing can be tolerated, for example, when he faults Hollywood for not portraying Asians in a more positive light. But when he impugns peoples’ relationships and families based solely on their race, he steps over the line and should understand that this is unacceptable. He must hold himself accountable to the same standards of hjman decency that he upholds.

If you do so, a little banter will be harmless fun.

(that is when the stuffed shirt is not off buggering Greek boys up the ass – otherwise, the Republican party would have to be banned)

@ Charles Tilly, post #45

I see why you chose the name Tilly. It rhymes with silly. As in silly rhetoric. As was post #45.

Suffice it to say that each of your numbered contributions can be systematically refuted with only a modicum of effort, and that, taken together. they constitute an ideological house of cards. But should I bother, or just let the wind of maturity level them all? I should choose the later. But I’ll point you in the right direction before entrusting you to the qualities of your intellect and the human capacity for reason.

I am not an apologist for every action undertaken by every US administration. Some have clearly flown in the face of US policy and some in the face of the US constitution. For instance, torture – clearly a violation of the constitution, and the Geneva convention. Therefore, it does not fall within US policy, and I believe Cheney and Bush should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for having violated a very basic principal of US policy.

You ask if the US shown “favoritism” to Israel. One might argue that an ally, by definition, is a nation that receives favorable consideration in comparison to a non-ally in general, and a beligerent nation in particular. There is nothing hypocritical in treating countries differently to the extent that our level of commitment to them differs.

Does the US trust Israel with nuclear weapons more than it does Iran? Who wouldn’t? So long as the policy remains that the US continutes to persue nonproliferation, engaging all nations in the discussion. And what is nonproliferation? It means that nations that have not developed nuclear weapons should be discouraged from doing so, which includes nations like Iran and NK; while nations that have should be encouraged to reduce their arsenals, which includes nations like Russia, China, Israel and Pakastan.

Again, policy is clear. It is no violation to treat individual nations differently, as long as the principals and goals of US foreign policy are adhered to as consistently as the political realities allow.

Doe the US occupy Iraq? No it doesn’t. They have a soverign government, which the US played a part in helping to establish. Did I agree with the Iraq War? No, I did not. But it is not the policy of the US to occupy other nations, and in keeping with this policy, it does not.

As for “puppet regimes,” no credible scholar suggests that the Saudi monarchs, Mubarak in Egypt, Zadari in Pakistan, Karzai in Afghanistan are puppets of the U.S. govt. That is just silly. If you’d like to make a credible argument to the contrary, then, get to work. But it does not change the fact that these are sovereign governments that are not controlled by Washington. I am trying to fathem why you would even put forth such silly argument, attempting to pass off what is in fact ideological rhetoric as dispassionate analysis? As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “highly illogical.”

You say, “there is no need to take an interstellar trip to get a clearer and more balanced understanding of the US role in this region.” I respectfully disagree. Your ideology is showing, and it would be most productive to get some emotional distance from the subject and reestablish prospective.

Speaking of wet dogs, I think I smell an ideologue. Who was it that said that attempting to argue with an ideologue is like wrestling a pig? (idiomatic; to engage in a pointless task that leaves one worse off for having made an honest attempt.)

So I’ll do the generous thing and allow Mr. “Tilly” to redefine basic terminologies and frame the debate in self-serving ways. It’s got to be lonely and thankless to uphold solipsistic views.

As I reflect on the “discussion” with “Mr. Tilly,” it is interesting to note that our positions are not very disparate; ie. we uphold the same standards, and agree in principle on the proper courses of action. However, ideological rigidity appears to prevent the “Mr. Tillies” from acknowledging commonalities.

This is what we Mizarians find amusing about the tendency of human beings to engage in mental proliferation. When one has a particular ideological bias, it is more important to prove one’s worldview correct at any expense than to forge a viable solution.

One analogy that comes to mind is that of the man who burns down his house to catch a fly. The other is the Lilliputian war sparked by the debate over which end of the egg to break. Both sides agree that the egg should be broken. Why not just break it down the middle? I’m certainly willing to do so. I’ll admit that US actions have not always lived up to US ideals (in fact I already have), if “Mr. Tilly” does not attempt a complete denial of that certain ideals constitute the basis of the U.S. constitution and foreign policy.

I believe his argument rests on the claim that the U.S. constitution is simply “lip service.” But the fallacy of that argument is that it is based upon the philosophical extreme of nihilism, to “crib” from the human practice of Buddhism. Diplomacy requires that people proceed from the principle of good will and optimism rather than pessimism and mutual demonization. Otherwise, we only perpetrate that which separates us rather than emphasize that which keeps us from obliterating one another.

GWB hubris + Cheney influence.

You think better half crocked than a sober Charles Tilly.

shakuhachi:”Charles Tilly also brought up the hypocrisy of US foreign policy in the ME that has no gone unnoticed by the people there.”

Yes, no one is denying hypocricy, but one can do that without reverting to an insult bot that spouts allusions to so-called “facts” that have not been established in defence of conclusions that are fallacious.

“”They would almost certainly be overthrown if not for active US support, which means they toe the US line, which means they are in essence puppet governments”

”

Conjectural. How so?

“Call a spade a spade and an occupation an occupation. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan know their country is being occupied. Don’t insult them by saying it ain’t so.”

Then you are equating the presence of troops with occupation? Is that how Germany sees it?

Until a new govt was established, perhaps. This is what is known as apples to oranges.

alexwon:”Yes, I do think Germans think that the Allied forces occupied Germany. As Iraqis and Afghanis think the Coalition Forces are occupying their countries.”

Apologies. I committed a “Charles Tilly” here in reacting without properly parsing your comment. It is so important to distinguish between rhetoric (which is perception) vs. reality. I can agree that Iraqis and Afghans may think Coalition Forces are occupying their countries. However, they here are the facts (I will confine my remarks in this instance to Iraq.

On June 8, 2004, the United Nations Security Council resolution 1546 was adopted unanimously, calling for “the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by June 30 2004.” The transfer of sovereignty actually took place a day or two ahead of schedule. The US administration committed to leave the country if asked to do so by the Iraqi leadership.

On January 30, 2005, Iraq’s first post-war democratic elections were held, without much violence. These elections created the Iraqi National Assembly, which in April 2005 appointed a new administration, including President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

Following the ratification of the Constitution of Iraq on October 15, 2005, general legislative elections election were held on December 15 to elect a permanent 275-member Iraqi Council of Representatives. There was an impressive 79.6% turnout, after which the Shiite-led Islamist United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish-led secular Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan won most of the seats and formed a coalition government headed by Nouri al-Maliki. The Iraqi government is considered by 44 international governments to be a legitimate government.

:”Don’t be so harsh on yourself Mizar”

Lol, OK, I’ll try to be…kinder and gentler… to myself. Oh pardon that unfortunate phraseology. What I meant to say was: yes, we can…

NK: “I’d go even one further. Any culture that uses 도장, or a registered personal seal, as opposed to the practice of scribbling something highly illegible on paper, is a culture that understands the concept of binding written agreements.”

So you are seriously arguing that a stamp that can be stollen, reproduced or used by any individual other than the authentic owner is more reliable and enforceable than a highly individual handwritten signature, which may be analyzed for forgery?

Waeguks are generally naive and poor at negotiating in general. Haggling is common in Korea but Waeguks are very bad at haggling. It’s even more problematic if you can’t speak Korean.

Have you ever done it? Here’s how it works: “Can you give me a better price? I’ll buy it if you give me a better price.” There, that’s how it’s done. Now how hard was that?

By contrast, I’ve heard tales of bargaining in the middle east where people would fein shock, beat their breasts and fall to the ground in tears.

alexwon:”Personally I think he is doing fine, but you probably already know that.”

I agree. He has done all my work for me. You are not so accomodating.

JW:”So in terms of (shocking breach + loopholes = total contractual infidelity), which comes out better? Is one set of components leading to same value of contractual infidelity better or worse than another set?”

Where did you ever get such a ridiculous argument?

Loopholes can be useful, or they can be maddening, but they are legal. Therefore, it is incorrect to characterize them as “contractual infidelity.”

NK:”Wells Fargo bank sues ITSELF. That’s the kind of absurdity that occurs when you blindly follow the law to the letter.”

I’ll readily admit that the subject of interpreting law is beyond my current realm of expertise. Originalism, textualism, facial contextualism, historical contextualism, developmentalism, doctrinalism, structuralism, strict constructionalism. This is why we need to hire attornies.

I’d sooner depend on the advice of a competent attorney charged with strict adherence to the letter of the law than the word of someone with little regard for contracts; presumably you would too, wouldn’t you?

Another analogy that may or may not prove productive is that of Western vs. Eastern medicine. OK, analogies do not strictly apply and may not be apropos. And of course, I may be cherrypicking my analogy here.

Be that as it may, consider the difference between medicine based on adherence to empirical evidence vs. medicine based on tradition and heresay. There may well be instances in which Eastern medicine works and Western medicine does not. There are limitations to every system.

Even so, there is a fundamental difference in validity between astrology and astronomy; feng shui (pung su chiri) and geography. One system is based on sound inference while the other is founded upon belief. It may sound triumpalist, but logic and precision are in fact superior to vague, fuzzy thinking. Western medicine with all its limitiations is fundamentally superior to Eastern medicine.

Let’s apply this to contracts.

There may be various criticisms of the legal profession as it has been developed in Western nations, some of which have great merit, but to make a broad condemnation of the whole based on a single example of one of its limitations is erroneous. JW’s syllogism does this. It is as follows:

1. The modern legal profession was developed in the West, and Westerners have a disposition for observing legal documents;

2. The creation of legal documents can result in loopholes, which some people may exploit;

3. Some people exploit loopholes to the fullest extent possible;

4. Therefore, Westerners have a disposition for exploiting loopholes to the fullest extent possible.

Absurd, isn’t it? The Western approach to contracts is fundamentally more sound than the Korean approach.

When you consider all the arguments that JK might have made in defence of Korea with regard to contracts, it is a damn shame that he instead chose to commit himself to that singularly weak argument about loopholes and the spirit of the law.

I might have stated that Koreans traditionally consider responsibility toward others in a relational context. I could have made the case for this by citing Confucism, which defines responsibility toward others in terms of relationships. I might have stated that Korea is less litigious than the West, and, while faulting the West for that, provided some examples of how the human touch in conflict resolution often proves more effective.

Only having fun with you JW. I thought I’d switch over to your side of the fence now for the heck of it.

Deep Thoughts…

by wjk

Arghaeri, get off my tail!

Blast! Penfold, shush!