Gadafi the Blogging Dictator
November 11, 2005 2:22 PM Subscribe
Muammar Qadhafi's Official website (in Arabic, English and French) is a collection of rantsthoughts by the Libyan Numero Uno about politics, including terrorism (Talibans: guilty of "tergiversation libertinism"), Turkey's EU membership (Turk Islamists "believe in polygamy, maids and what the right hand possessed, i.e. European Christian women") and AIDS (a CIA creation). A companion website gives you Qadhafi the Humanitarian, Qadhafi the World Thinker and Qadhafi the Inventor of the Safest Vehicle On Earth ("the leader spent so many hours of his valuable time thinking of an effective solution").
Of course, there are many reasons for not being amused at all by Qadhafi, but these folks know why he's such a despicable character: "This man is actually a Jew". And to teach him a lesson they stole the Qadhafi thumbnails of his official site.
(Slighly related news: Mustapha Akkad, producer of the Halloween horror movie franchise, but also the director of the Qadhafi-sponsored propaganda/epic The Lion of the Desert, was killed (with his daughter) in yesterday's hotel bombings in Amman.)
Of course, there are many reasons for not being amused at all by Qadhafi, but these folks know why he's such a despicable character: "This man is actually a Jew". And to teach him a lesson they stole the Qadhafi thumbnails of his official site.
(Slighly related news: Mustapha Akkad, producer of the Halloween horror movie franchise, but also the director of the Qadhafi-sponsored propaganda/epic The Lion of the Desert, was killed (with his daughter) in yesterday's hotel bombings in Amman.)
It's easy to dismiss Qadaffi as a nut. He's certainly done lots of unpleasant things in his time. He's an eccentric pseudo-socialist dictator. But on the other hand, he's no Islamic fundamentalist, he's done a lot to help unify Africa, and worker's rights in Libya are much better than they used to be before he came to power...
When you compare Qadaffi to the US-supported absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia, or Turkmenbashi, he doesn't look so bad at all. As nutty dictators go.
posted by cleardawn at 2:43 PM on November 11, 2005
When you compare Qadaffi to the US-supported absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia, or Turkmenbashi, he doesn't look so bad at all. As nutty dictators go.
posted by cleardawn at 2:43 PM on November 11, 2005
He is definitely a fascinating guy. I believe to this day he's still the youngest (when he took power) dictator in history, who wasn't born into his position.
A real biography of Qaddafi would be a fascinating read.
posted by cell divide at 2:55 PM on November 11, 2005
A real biography of Qaddafi would be a fascinating read.
posted by cell divide at 2:55 PM on November 11, 2005
Didn't he write a handbook on overthrowing governments that was popular in the 60's? He is something of a utopianist, really. Fascinating fellow indeed.
I'd go on a picnic with him, particulary if beer was involved, maybe some croquet.
posted by undule at 2:58 PM on November 11, 2005
I'd go on a picnic with him, particulary if beer was involved, maybe some croquet.
posted by undule at 2:58 PM on November 11, 2005
Fascinating fellow indeed.
So's Manson or Dahmer if you look at them right. Dosen't mean I like the bastards.
posted by jonmc at 3:01 PM on November 11, 2005
So's Manson or Dahmer if you look at them right. Dosen't mean I like the bastards.
posted by jonmc at 3:01 PM on November 11, 2005
I liked him until he snuggled up to Farrakhan.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:06 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:06 PM on November 11, 2005
Can we have a Godwin's law for Dahmer? Just seems people use him as the Hitler substitute to avoid Godwin's law.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:07 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 3:07 PM on November 11, 2005
Qaddafi is a badass car designer. And yeah, on preview, Turkmenbashi makes him look completely reasonable by comparison.
posted by mullingitover at 3:07 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by mullingitover at 3:07 PM on November 11, 2005
Jonmc or Colonel Qadaffi, who would YOU rather picnic with?
Jonmc is relatively inoffensive, but his ideas are predictable, derivative and trivial. Almost anyone could probably drink beer and play pool with him without problems, but don't expect to learn much.
On the other hand, the man who wrote the Third Universal Theory would certainly have something interesting to say:
For the essence of the Third Universal Theory's approach to the problem of creating a truly democratic political structure is the belief that people cannot be "represented", they must represent themselves in decision-making forums like Libya's Basic People's Conferences.
The Third Universal Theory contends that representative politics is a form of dictatorship, for such political procedures actually separate the people from the decision-making process. The only popular involvement in that process consists of the right to mark a cross on a ballot paper once every few years. In between such elections, the people have no direct control over government and, if a voter opted for a party that lost an election, that voter's preferences are simply ignored.
Incredible Distortions
Although the peoples of the Western countries are aware of the failing of their own political systems, most feel there is little they can do to alter those systems. The idea of revolutionary change is strange and even frightening to them. But were they to read and understand the Green Book and appreciate the meaning of the Third Universal Theory, then such drastic change would not seem so very strange after all.
Fear of the message of the Third Universal Theory spreading is also the real underlying reason behind the hate campaign directed against Muammar Qadhafi and against all things Libyan. By projecting an image of the Leader of the Revolution that is untrue and by casting aspersions against the political processes that govern the Libyan Jamahiriya, Western leaders hope to thwart the political challenge of the Third Universal Theory.
posted by cleardawn at 3:09 PM on November 11, 2005
Jonmc is relatively inoffensive, but his ideas are predictable, derivative and trivial. Almost anyone could probably drink beer and play pool with him without problems, but don't expect to learn much.
On the other hand, the man who wrote the Third Universal Theory would certainly have something interesting to say:
For the essence of the Third Universal Theory's approach to the problem of creating a truly democratic political structure is the belief that people cannot be "represented", they must represent themselves in decision-making forums like Libya's Basic People's Conferences.
The Third Universal Theory contends that representative politics is a form of dictatorship, for such political procedures actually separate the people from the decision-making process. The only popular involvement in that process consists of the right to mark a cross on a ballot paper once every few years. In between such elections, the people have no direct control over government and, if a voter opted for a party that lost an election, that voter's preferences are simply ignored.
Incredible Distortions
Although the peoples of the Western countries are aware of the failing of their own political systems, most feel there is little they can do to alter those systems. The idea of revolutionary change is strange and even frightening to them. But were they to read and understand the Green Book and appreciate the meaning of the Third Universal Theory, then such drastic change would not seem so very strange after all.
Fear of the message of the Third Universal Theory spreading is also the real underlying reason behind the hate campaign directed against Muammar Qadhafi and against all things Libyan. By projecting an image of the Leader of the Revolution that is untrue and by casting aspersions against the political processes that govern the Libyan Jamahiriya, Western leaders hope to thwart the political challenge of the Third Universal Theory.
posted by cleardawn at 3:09 PM on November 11, 2005
Cleardawn:he's done a lot to help unify Africa
As one of the links points out, he's been accused of financing and providing training grounds for various "liberation" in sub-saharian Africa, and is allegedly co-responsible for some of the worst conflicts there (from the Liberian one to the current crisis in Ivory Coast). It's hard to find non-partisan documents on this, however, and he has denied any involvement (De Villepin confronted him about this in 2003 IIRC).
posted by elgilito at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2005
As one of the links points out, he's been accused of financing and providing training grounds for various "liberation" in sub-saharian Africa, and is allegedly co-responsible for some of the worst conflicts there (from the Liberian one to the current crisis in Ivory Coast). It's hard to find non-partisan documents on this, however, and he has denied any involvement (De Villepin confronted him about this in 2003 IIRC).
posted by elgilito at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2005
Cleardawn, why don't you just admit that the reason you find Qaadafi so all-fired fascinating is that he dosen't much like America and America dosen't much like him?
Well, that and you like hearing yourself talk.
posted by jonmc at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2005
Well, that and you like hearing yourself talk.
posted by jonmc at 3:13 PM on November 11, 2005
Okay, Jon! The reason I find Qaadafi so all-fired fascinating is that he doesn't much like [the current economic system of] America and [the current leaders of] America don't much like him.
Well, that and I like hearing myself talk. :-))
posted by cleardawn at 3:19 PM on November 11, 2005
Well, that and I like hearing myself talk. :-))
posted by cleardawn at 3:19 PM on November 11, 2005
George Bush, Tony Blair, Muammar Qadhafi, and Saddam Hussein walk into a bar...
And who's bartending? Osama bin Laden...
posted by Balisong at 3:20 PM on November 11, 2005
And who's bartending? Osama bin Laden...
posted by Balisong at 3:20 PM on November 11, 2005
Well, you don't like the status quo much. neither do I, but you seem to be naive enough to think that whatever rails against it going to be any better.
All revolutionaries eventually become heretics or opressors. Power corrupts. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
Cliches, yes, but true just the same.
posted by jonmc at 3:23 PM on November 11, 2005
All revolutionaries eventually become heretics or opressors. Power corrupts. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
Cliches, yes, but true just the same.
posted by jonmc at 3:23 PM on November 11, 2005
To support my earlier, rather sweeping, statement that he's done a lot to help unify Africa, here's some more about the history of the African Union.
Jonmc, you're right. I do like to keep a certain level of naiiveté, a certain level of hope, in the face of all the world's cynicism - though I do prefer, to provide another cliché, evolution over revolution. Looking at what you've just posted, and comparing it with the real progress that societies all over the world have made over the last five hundred years (say), can you see why I feel my view is a more accurate reflection of reality than yours?
posted by cleardawn at 3:38 PM on November 11, 2005
Jonmc, you're right. I do like to keep a certain level of naiiveté, a certain level of hope, in the face of all the world's cynicism - though I do prefer, to provide another cliché, evolution over revolution. Looking at what you've just posted, and comparing it with the real progress that societies all over the world have made over the last five hundred years (say), can you see why I feel my view is a more accurate reflection of reality than yours?
posted by cleardawn at 3:38 PM on November 11, 2005
All revolutionaries eventually become heretics or opressors
That's not true at all: there have been some really great ones - true to their ideals and uncorrupted - and it's just unfortunate coincidence that they were all assassinated or thrown from power before they could really finish up their projects.
posted by freebird at 3:39 PM on November 11, 2005
That's not true at all: there have been some really great ones - true to their ideals and uncorrupted - and it's just unfortunate coincidence that they were all assassinated or thrown from power before they could really finish up their projects.
posted by freebird at 3:39 PM on November 11, 2005
the real progress that societies all over the world have made over the last five hundred years
Perhaps you are unaware of this Cleardawn, but the situation in all but the wealthiest of countries has declined over the past few centuries. I know you're mostly concerned with the "nice countries" of the world, and all you social darwinists feel that it's other countries' own fault. But you really should consider the fact that not everyone lives in the first world.
posted by freebird at 3:44 PM on November 11, 2005
Perhaps you are unaware of this Cleardawn, but the situation in all but the wealthiest of countries has declined over the past few centuries. I know you're mostly concerned with the "nice countries" of the world, and all you social darwinists feel that it's other countries' own fault. But you really should consider the fact that not everyone lives in the first world.
posted by freebird at 3:44 PM on November 11, 2005
That CIA/AIDS thing is deeply offensive, although I could find you some black Americans who have some similar delusions.
posted by alumshubby at 3:49 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 3:49 PM on November 11, 2005
Um, "social darwinist" is a pretty low insult, freebird. It's the opposite of my actual beliefs. I'm not a fan of empires, obviously, and I'm not suggesting that there have been no victims of capitalist "progress" - plainly, there have. Eight million per year starving, and rising. Not good.
But are you seriously claiming that the social systems of 16th century India, or Africa, or South America, were any better than they are now? Please link to some evidence.
posted by cleardawn at 3:53 PM on November 11, 2005
But are you seriously claiming that the social systems of 16th century India, or Africa, or South America, were any better than they are now? Please link to some evidence.
posted by cleardawn at 3:53 PM on November 11, 2005
Perhaps you are unaware of this Cleardawn, but the situation in all but the wealthiest of countries has declined over the past few centuries.
I don't think that applies to places such as China, India and Indonesia. What of the situation in Africa? Worse than 500 years ago?
I suppose it would depend on a definition of "situation".
posted by stirfry at 3:56 PM on November 11, 2005
I don't think that applies to places such as China, India and Indonesia. What of the situation in Africa? Worse than 500 years ago?
I suppose it would depend on a definition of "situation".
posted by stirfry at 3:56 PM on November 11, 2005
can you see why I feel my view is a more accurate reflection of reality than yours?
Feelings aren't facts.
posted by jonmc at 4:01 PM on November 11, 2005
Feelings aren't facts.
posted by jonmc at 4:01 PM on November 11, 2005
I've heard that Libya is a pretty cool vacation spot these days. Seriously.
posted by bardic at 4:04 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by bardic at 4:04 PM on November 11, 2005
I'm not claiming the social systems 500 years ago in non-first-world countries were *better*, just that they arguably weren't much worse. So the claim that "things have improved" is only true if you restrict your attention to the first world and betrays a culturally insensitive view of history.
I also think that the form of Islam practiced in much of the world was less extreme and fundamentalist than a fair amount of what's extant now, so things were probably demonstrably better. There was a respect for plurality and a productive respect for learning and science that I think there's less of now.
And, quite, frankly, I thought it was pretty funny to catch cleardawn so clearly subscribing to the Myth of Western Progress, which I tend to think of as anathema to his ilk.
posted by freebird at 4:08 PM on November 11, 2005
I also think that the form of Islam practiced in much of the world was less extreme and fundamentalist than a fair amount of what's extant now, so things were probably demonstrably better. There was a respect for plurality and a productive respect for learning and science that I think there's less of now.
And, quite, frankly, I thought it was pretty funny to catch cleardawn so clearly subscribing to the Myth of Western Progress, which I tend to think of as anathema to his ilk.
posted by freebird at 4:08 PM on November 11, 2005
I have my own ilk now? Cool! When do I meet the others?
The myth I'm subscribing to is not the Myth of Western Progress, it's the Myth of Human Progress.
Left to their own devices, without interference from "benevolent" empires, human societies will tend (on the whole, and with frequent exceptions) to develop successively more complex technologies, and an increasingly refined understanding of psychology, spirituality, and other Good Things.
Of course a good war will knock anyone back a few centuries. And imperial occupations, genocides, sweatshop slavery, et cetera don't help either.
But on the whole, I do think the New Boss is likely (perhaps 51% of the time?) to be better than the Old Boss - because we're human. We learn from history. Not always - but sometimes. And that tips the balance, because every generation has a bit more history to learn from.
posted by cleardawn at 4:28 PM on November 11, 2005
The myth I'm subscribing to is not the Myth of Western Progress, it's the Myth of Human Progress.
Left to their own devices, without interference from "benevolent" empires, human societies will tend (on the whole, and with frequent exceptions) to develop successively more complex technologies, and an increasingly refined understanding of psychology, spirituality, and other Good Things.
Of course a good war will knock anyone back a few centuries. And imperial occupations, genocides, sweatshop slavery, et cetera don't help either.
But on the whole, I do think the New Boss is likely (perhaps 51% of the time?) to be better than the Old Boss - because we're human. We learn from history. Not always - but sometimes. And that tips the balance, because every generation has a bit more history to learn from.
posted by cleardawn at 4:28 PM on November 11, 2005
Wow. He's got a bigger ego than Steven Segal. I wouldn't have thought that possible. But his face....it's everywhere!
I bet he doesn't have his own 'juice' though.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:33 PM on November 11, 2005
I bet he doesn't have his own 'juice' though.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:33 PM on November 11, 2005
Would you drink Bush Juice?
Speaking of nutty dictators, Turkmenbashi bans recorded music
posted by cleardawn at 4:40 PM on November 11, 2005
Speaking of nutty dictators, Turkmenbashi bans recorded music
posted by cleardawn at 4:40 PM on November 11, 2005
The myth I'm subscribing to is not the Myth of Western Progress, it's the Myth of Human Progress.
But you're conflating the two, which is exactly my point. Non-westerners are human too!
Left to their own devices, without interference from "benevolent" empires, successively more complex technologies, and an increasingly refined understanding of psychology, spirituality, and other Good Things.
We make sharper knives now, yes. I seriously question the assertion that we understand more about spirituality and the Meaning of it All than we did 500 years ago. And how you seperate "empires" from humanity's "own devices" and the rest of history I completely do not understand, nor do I think "control data" to base that assertion on exists.
Finally, the concept of "progress" has no real role in evolution. In previous stages of earth's history, the extant creatures were well adapted to their environment; the same is true today. Species are not "better" or "more advanced" today than species were then. There is no progress, only change.
posted by freebird at 4:41 PM on November 11, 2005
But you're conflating the two, which is exactly my point. Non-westerners are human too!
Left to their own devices, without interference from "benevolent" empires, successively more complex technologies, and an increasingly refined understanding of psychology, spirituality, and other Good Things.
We make sharper knives now, yes. I seriously question the assertion that we understand more about spirituality and the Meaning of it All than we did 500 years ago. And how you seperate "empires" from humanity's "own devices" and the rest of history I completely do not understand, nor do I think "control data" to base that assertion on exists.
Finally, the concept of "progress" has no real role in evolution. In previous stages of earth's history, the extant creatures were well adapted to their environment; the same is true today. Species are not "better" or "more advanced" today than species were then. There is no progress, only change.
posted by freebird at 4:41 PM on November 11, 2005
Back into the cave with you, freebird. You'll like it since change is good, eh?
posted by stirfry at 5:00 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by stirfry at 5:00 PM on November 11, 2005
*growls from under bridge*
When did I say change was good?
And what makes you think I'm not in a cave now, silly pants?
posted by freebird at 5:03 PM on November 11, 2005
When did I say change was good?
And what makes you think I'm not in a cave now, silly pants?
posted by freebird at 5:03 PM on November 11, 2005
I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for cleardawn to salute someone's indefatigability ;-)
Not that I would compare Qadhafi with Hussein, but that phrase did pop into my head.
Can we have a Godwin's law for Dahmer?
I've noticed that too. dances_with_sneetches' Law sounds kind of silly, though.
posted by jack_mo at 5:16 PM on November 11, 2005
Not that I would compare Qadhafi with Hussein, but that phrase did pop into my head.
Can we have a Godwin's law for Dahmer?
I've noticed that too. dances_with_sneetches' Law sounds kind of silly, though.
posted by jack_mo at 5:16 PM on November 11, 2005
"When you compare Qadaffi to the US-supported absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia, or Turkmenbashi, he doesn't look so bad at all. As nutty dictators go."
What's the statute of limitations on stupid foreign policy? Just because some idiot administration in Washington in the '20s or 40's or 50's saw to or acquiesed to the rise of dictator X or the Saudi family doesn't paint George Bush as evil in 2005.
Thank you.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:25 PM on November 11, 2005
What's the statute of limitations on stupid foreign policy? Just because some idiot administration in Washington in the '20s or 40's or 50's saw to or acquiesed to the rise of dictator X or the Saudi family doesn't paint George Bush as evil in 2005.
Thank you.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:25 PM on November 11, 2005
PP - OK, but what about the ones shaking Cheney's hand, getting royal visits from presidents, or recieving massive shipments of arms and weapons from the CIA? Surely your statute of limitations shouldn't apply if our own people are still getting blown up by the results?
posted by freebird at 5:31 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by freebird at 5:31 PM on November 11, 2005
Reading freebird and cleardawn arguing is the oddest thing I've seen all day.
the situation in all but the wealthiest of countries has declined over the past few centuries
...
I'm not claiming the social systems 500 years ago in non-first-world countries were *better*, just that they arguably weren't much worse. So the claim that "things have improved" is only true if you restrict your attention to the first world and betrays a culturally insensitive view of history.
These two statements seem to be contradictory. Either the situation has declined, or it has improved slightly.
Left to their own devices, without interference from "benevolent" empires, human societies will tend (on the whole, and with frequent exceptions) to develop successively more complex technologies, and an increasingly refined understanding of psychology, spirituality, and other Good Things.
Maybe so - I can't think of any actual examples that would demonstrate this, though. But a reading of history suggests interference from "benevolent empires" is likely to significantly speed up the process.
Finally, the concept of "progress" has no real role in evolution.
Who here is talking about evolution, other than you?
posted by me & my monkey at 5:38 PM on November 11, 2005
the situation in all but the wealthiest of countries has declined over the past few centuries
...
I'm not claiming the social systems 500 years ago in non-first-world countries were *better*, just that they arguably weren't much worse. So the claim that "things have improved" is only true if you restrict your attention to the first world and betrays a culturally insensitive view of history.
These two statements seem to be contradictory. Either the situation has declined, or it has improved slightly.
Left to their own devices, without interference from "benevolent" empires, human societies will tend (on the whole, and with frequent exceptions) to develop successively more complex technologies, and an increasingly refined understanding of psychology, spirituality, and other Good Things.
Maybe so - I can't think of any actual examples that would demonstrate this, though. But a reading of history suggests interference from "benevolent empires" is likely to significantly speed up the process.
Finally, the concept of "progress" has no real role in evolution.
Who here is talking about evolution, other than you?
posted by me & my monkey at 5:38 PM on November 11, 2005
I seriously question the assertion that we understand more about spirituality and the Meaning of it All than we did 500 years ago.
Good idea. Keep questioning! A good place to start might be your use of "we" there. Who are you talking about?
Non-westerners are human too!
Umm.... yes.... not much dispute there...
Finally, the concept of "progress" has no real role in evolution.
Depends how you define progress. A tendency to increasing complexity and diversity with time? I think that fits, and is broadly suggested by the evidence, so far. Of course Life on Earth might all evolve into gray goo, or cloned sheep, or something. In which case, all I'll have to say about it is "Baaa!"
But a reading of history suggests interference from "benevolent empires" is likely to significantly speed up the process.
That depends whose history books you're reading. The best case study I think is to compare Thailand with Burma. Two very similar nations, in terms of geography, culture, and resources, with one major difference: Burma was ruled by the "benevolent" British for two hundred years, whereas Thailand was left to develop by itself. Thailand is now much wealthier, more advanced on every indicator. Of course, that could be luck...
posted by cleardawn at 5:50 PM on November 11, 2005
Good idea. Keep questioning! A good place to start might be your use of "we" there. Who are you talking about?
Non-westerners are human too!
Umm.... yes.... not much dispute there...
Finally, the concept of "progress" has no real role in evolution.
Depends how you define progress. A tendency to increasing complexity and diversity with time? I think that fits, and is broadly suggested by the evidence, so far. Of course Life on Earth might all evolve into gray goo, or cloned sheep, or something. In which case, all I'll have to say about it is "Baaa!"
But a reading of history suggests interference from "benevolent empires" is likely to significantly speed up the process.
That depends whose history books you're reading. The best case study I think is to compare Thailand with Burma. Two very similar nations, in terms of geography, culture, and resources, with one major difference: Burma was ruled by the "benevolent" British for two hundred years, whereas Thailand was left to develop by itself. Thailand is now much wealthier, more advanced on every indicator. Of course, that could be luck...
posted by cleardawn at 5:50 PM on November 11, 2005
cleardawn described his view of historical progress in terms of "evolution, not revolution". And it's a standard model for such views.
Either the situation has declined, or it has improved slightly.
Eh? Or they could be pretty much the same. All I'm saying is that, in terms of what the majority of living humans experience, IE, those outside the first world, things are not much better than they were 500 years ago, and are probably worse.
And that I find the notion of "human history, but hold the empires" really cute but meaningless.
posted by freebird at 5:50 PM on November 11, 2005
Either the situation has declined, or it has improved slightly.
Eh? Or they could be pretty much the same. All I'm saying is that, in terms of what the majority of living humans experience, IE, those outside the first world, things are not much better than they were 500 years ago, and are probably worse.
And that I find the notion of "human history, but hold the empires" really cute but meaningless.
posted by freebird at 5:50 PM on November 11, 2005
In which case, all I'll have to say about it is "Baaa!"
Well, you already do your share of bleating, so it really won't be much of a change for you.
posted by jonmc at 5:53 PM on November 11, 2005
Well, you already do your share of bleating, so it really won't be much of a change for you.
posted by jonmc at 5:53 PM on November 11, 2005
Correction: Burma was ruled by the British 1886-1947.
posted by cleardawn at 5:55 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by cleardawn at 5:55 PM on November 11, 2005
I'm overstating my point a bit. I saw cleardawn espousing a model of historical progress which I think breaks down when you look outside the industrialized world, and could not resist trolling by playing the "eurocentric" card. To be fair, cleardawn has responded to my jibes with even handed rationality, and I regret nudging things in that direction.
I find cleardawn's view of both history and evolution a little naive: there have been periods of greater biological diversity than now, and the notion of "progress" really doesn't fit with most modern views of evolution; similarly, I think many people in the world would disagree that things have gotten better the past few centuries; and I don't know who cleardawn thinks has made the great leaps in philosophy and spirituality, but it looks to me like we're still asking the same old questions.
Nonetheless, other days I feel like humans are really getting somewhere, so I won't get into an argument over it.
posted by freebird at 6:08 PM on November 11, 2005
I find cleardawn's view of both history and evolution a little naive: there have been periods of greater biological diversity than now, and the notion of "progress" really doesn't fit with most modern views of evolution; similarly, I think many people in the world would disagree that things have gotten better the past few centuries; and I don't know who cleardawn thinks has made the great leaps in philosophy and spirituality, but it looks to me like we're still asking the same old questions.
Nonetheless, other days I feel like humans are really getting somewhere, so I won't get into an argument over it.
posted by freebird at 6:08 PM on November 11, 2005
I believe to this day he's still the youngest (when he took power) dictator in history, who wasn't born into his position.
Valentine Strasser has him beat by a year (assuming ages are accurate).
Two very similar nations, in terms of geography, culture, and resources, with one major difference: Burma was ruled by the "benevolent" British for two hundred years, whereas Thailand was left to develop by itself.
Interesting example, but then you have India and Pakistan, nearly side-by-side case studies. India is a healthy multi-party democracy verging on first-world economic power, while Pakistan is a bitter parody of its neighbor run by a junta which barely rules its own territory.
Or compare South Africa and Zimbabwe. Just sayin'.
Qaddafi is definitely an interesting character, even if you don't like him much. He got interested in the Africa project when he got tired of competing with Mubarak in the Arab League, and despite some early qualms, the African Union looks more and more promising as an institution. He deserves credit for that.
At the same time, the AIDS epidemic in Benghazi is being scapegoated onto some hapless nurses from Bulgaria, and Qaddafi seems to be playing the situation both as justification for his theory of the disease as well as a way to shake down Bulgaria and the EU.
posted by dhartung at 6:11 PM on November 11, 2005
Valentine Strasser has him beat by a year (assuming ages are accurate).
Two very similar nations, in terms of geography, culture, and resources, with one major difference: Burma was ruled by the "benevolent" British for two hundred years, whereas Thailand was left to develop by itself.
Interesting example, but then you have India and Pakistan, nearly side-by-side case studies. India is a healthy multi-party democracy verging on first-world economic power, while Pakistan is a bitter parody of its neighbor run by a junta which barely rules its own territory.
Or compare South Africa and Zimbabwe. Just sayin'.
Qaddafi is definitely an interesting character, even if you don't like him much. He got interested in the Africa project when he got tired of competing with Mubarak in the Arab League, and despite some early qualms, the African Union looks more and more promising as an institution. He deserves credit for that.
At the same time, the AIDS epidemic in Benghazi is being scapegoated onto some hapless nurses from Bulgaria, and Qaddafi seems to be playing the situation both as justification for his theory of the disease as well as a way to shake down Bulgaria and the EU.
posted by dhartung at 6:11 PM on November 11, 2005
I don't know who cleardawn thinks has made the great leaps in philosophy and spirituality, but it looks to me like we're still asking the same old questions.
"We"? My point is that more people are asking those questions today, and in better-informed ways than in the past. If Jesus or Gautama Buddha or Adi Shankara were to timetravel to here, we'd find them laughably ill-read and naiive. On the other hand, I completely agree that in terms of spiritual insight, the best we can do is what they did. It's just that more of us can see what they were talking about (and the problems of integrating that spiritual insight with practical reality) now than ever in the past. At least that's the feeling I get. Of course there are also lots of people who remain utterly dog ignorant, both spiritually and practically, but that's beside the point...
Nonetheless, other days I feel like humans are really getting somewhere
That's about all I'm trying to say, too. It is a naiive position, as I already mentioned, but to hold the opposite view just seems depressing and pointless. Hell, I'd end up like Jonmc...
but then you have India and Pakistan
Different cultures (Muslim versus Hindu/Muslim/Secular), different sizes, and different resources. Pakistan has lots of poor land, and has always been bankrupted by the need to compete militarily with its much larger rival. So not a fair comparison.
South Africa and Zimbabwe - Different resources, size... Z is landlocked, hot climate, whereas SA has lots of coast and is temperate in the south...
Perhaps it's more convincing if I list some countries that haven't been conquered, occupied, or otherwise imperialised for more than, say, 5 years out of the last 100: US, UK, Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, Denmark, Russia, Thailand... all pretty rich....
And now some countries that have been occupied/conquered for more than, say, 20 years in the last 100: All of Africa, China, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, India, Ukraine, Moldova, Burma... all fairly poor...
... Eh, there's a PhD thesis in this. Maybe poor countries get invaded? Or maybe being invaded makes them poor? I'm pretty sure that being an imperial colony is detrimental to social and economic health (quite apart from the damage during the invasion). But I lack the time right now to develop this concept. Any history postgrads want to run with this, fine by me...:-))
posted by cleardawn at 6:45 PM on November 11, 2005
"We"? My point is that more people are asking those questions today, and in better-informed ways than in the past. If Jesus or Gautama Buddha or Adi Shankara were to timetravel to here, we'd find them laughably ill-read and naiive. On the other hand, I completely agree that in terms of spiritual insight, the best we can do is what they did. It's just that more of us can see what they were talking about (and the problems of integrating that spiritual insight with practical reality) now than ever in the past. At least that's the feeling I get. Of course there are also lots of people who remain utterly dog ignorant, both spiritually and practically, but that's beside the point...
Nonetheless, other days I feel like humans are really getting somewhere
That's about all I'm trying to say, too. It is a naiive position, as I already mentioned, but to hold the opposite view just seems depressing and pointless. Hell, I'd end up like Jonmc...
but then you have India and Pakistan
Different cultures (Muslim versus Hindu/Muslim/Secular), different sizes, and different resources. Pakistan has lots of poor land, and has always been bankrupted by the need to compete militarily with its much larger rival. So not a fair comparison.
South Africa and Zimbabwe - Different resources, size... Z is landlocked, hot climate, whereas SA has lots of coast and is temperate in the south...
Perhaps it's more convincing if I list some countries that haven't been conquered, occupied, or otherwise imperialised for more than, say, 5 years out of the last 100: US, UK, Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, Denmark, Russia, Thailand... all pretty rich....
And now some countries that have been occupied/conquered for more than, say, 20 years in the last 100: All of Africa, China, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, India, Ukraine, Moldova, Burma... all fairly poor...
... Eh, there's a PhD thesis in this. Maybe poor countries get invaded? Or maybe being invaded makes them poor? I'm pretty sure that being an imperial colony is detrimental to social and economic health (quite apart from the damage during the invasion). But I lack the time right now to develop this concept. Any history postgrads want to run with this, fine by me...:-))
posted by cleardawn at 6:45 PM on November 11, 2005
'By projecting an image of the Leader of the Revolution that is untrue and yada yada yada ya' ad nauseum
Qaddafi gave up his nuclear and biological weapons schemes and hopes when he saw the grief they brought your buddy Sodomite Hussein. Not because he's such a humanitarian, nor even just an al around nice guy.
Does he also get your vote for a new Nobel Peace Prize category? Fastest to withdraw from the Nuclear Weapons Aspirant Countries.
posted by garficher at 6:51 PM on November 11, 2005
Qaddafi gave up his nuclear and biological weapons schemes and hopes when he saw the grief they brought your buddy Sodomite Hussein. Not because he's such a humanitarian, nor even just an al around nice guy.
Does he also get your vote for a new Nobel Peace Prize category? Fastest to withdraw from the Nuclear Weapons Aspirant Countries.
posted by garficher at 6:51 PM on November 11, 2005
MetaFilter: your buddy Sodomite Hussein. yada yada yada ya' ad nauseum
posted by cleardawn at 7:33 PM on November 11, 2005
posted by cleardawn at 7:33 PM on November 11, 2005
Freebird, I don't disagree with you, except in a matter of degree. And for that matter, I only like George Bush, or really, any politician, when compared with the viable alternatives available.
But, of course, that position doesn't make for an Evil ParisParamus, so no one cares to notice....
posted by ParisParamus at 7:36 PM on November 11, 2005
But, of course, that position doesn't make for an Evil ParisParamus, so no one cares to notice....
posted by ParisParamus at 7:36 PM on November 11, 2005
...reduce fatalities during collisions through the creation of a "crumble zone;"
So some American technology has evaded the embargo then?
posted by Joeforking at 2:27 AM on November 12, 2005
So some American technology has evaded the embargo then?
posted by Joeforking at 2:27 AM on November 12, 2005
All revolutionaries eventually become heretics or opressors
Case in point: George Washington.
Er, anyway, from the article:
"The invention of the safest car in the world is proof that the Libyan revolution is built on the happiness of man."
Buh?
posted by darkstar at 4:17 AM on November 12, 2005
Case in point: George Washington.
Er, anyway, from the article:
"The invention of the safest car in the world is proof that the Libyan revolution is built on the happiness of man."
Buh?
posted by darkstar at 4:17 AM on November 12, 2005
Paris, I really rarely bother replying to you, but you ARE aware that no one seriously brought Bush into this conversation until you did?
Right?
Right?
I mean, really. Just assure us you have that much grasp of reality, OK?
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:54 AM on November 12, 2005
Right?
Right?
I mean, really. Just assure us you have that much grasp of reality, OK?
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:54 AM on November 12, 2005
« Older Significant numbers | Arrested Development Gets The Ax Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also... Quadhafi is quite the author. Check out: The Suicide of the Astronaut for a nice introduction.
posted by ph00dz at 2:41 PM on November 11, 2005