![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Adam on September 27, 2001, at 14:39:13
While eating lunch at a local deli, I caught a snippet of a speech being given by Pres. Bush. I don't know if this was live or a re-run (I don't watch TV very much). During the speech he reiterated the fact that we were "at war." Encouragingly, he defined that war as "not against Muslims or Islamic states," doling out all the requisite praise due to those practicing main-stream Islam. This is always good to hear, especially given the inevitable rash of hate-crimes against people who look like AY-rabs and so on since the attack on the 11th.
What I found disconcerting is who/what he said we were at war with: Evil.
Evil? Isn't that a bit, you know, cosmic? I can never understand why pols have to resort to using this kind of rhetoric to "rally the troops" and garner support from the general poplulace. I mean, isn't it enough to say we want to protect ourselves and others against terrorists and punish those responsible for the hijackings?
Of course, this got me thinking: What the heck is "evil", anyway? I have a hard time coming up with any adequate definition. This made the "war against Evil" concept even more disturbing, primarily because lack of definition implies deviously creative and selective uses of the word can be devised ad hoc by those who coopt words to weild as weapons.
I certainly think the recent attacks warrant some sort of response, but I find the careless use of such loaded terms as "evil" and "crusade", especially in the current context, deeply troubling, and probably self-destructive. For those who want to cast the world in a profoundly dualistic light for their own rhetorical purposes, terrorists could use and twist our history and value-laden presidential utterances to terrible effect. What better propaganda do you need than to say, rather accurately, that "the American Crusaders claim we are evil."
I guess if pressed, I might equate "evil" with "ignorance". That's hardly an original interpretation, though I don't know where I heard it first. It seems profound and twisted ignorance is what drives much of the world's problems, and what gives some people the ability to gain support when they say Americans are satanic, or when others say Americans are in a war against Satan. I guess such propaganda only works if people believe it, and, in my mind, only ignorant people would be that credulous. I hasten to qualify: the ignorant are not evil, but their state is, and should be changed.
But then again, I might be in a tiny minority in my view of what "evil" is. Some may really see it as a malevolent cosmic force that drives people to do dastardly deeds. It may be remotely possible that the President actually sees things that way. Who knows? Those holding such a view might say I was ignorant, and I can't think of a good way to refute that view, since it is argued on metaphysical grounds.
I hold out some hope that I am NOT in such a tiny minority though. I am interested in what people think evil is. So, what do you think it is?
Posted by paxvox on September 27, 2001, at 19:49:22
In reply to Evil?, posted by Adam on September 27, 2001, at 14:39:13
Relativism rears its ugly head. Today's friends are tomorrow's enemies (we funded Bin Laden in the 80's). Do a little research and study Teutonic Germany AKA the Teutonic Knights CA 1190. Now THEY had a way about them! Kill them all, and let God sort them out.
PAX and history
Posted by susan C on September 27, 2001, at 20:46:31
In reply to Evil?, posted by Adam on September 27, 2001, at 14:39:13
I am not keeping close track of all this, emotional state and all that...but I did just chance to hear that same snippet and was caught by the same odd choice of word...at war with..
evil? Perhaps instead it could have been:
ignorance
confusion
bullies
misdirected
narrow mindedness
minority of small mindedness
?
Where are his speech writers and the teleprompters when you need them?But then the conflict in Vietnam was to fight the spread of communism...when it was about mineral reserves...And when the word got out that our boys weren't dieing to make the world safe for Democracy, many of us demonstrated to bring our boys home...What is there now to fight...? Is the battle cry, "onward Christian soldiers" ? Is it really over oil? Some people seem to think America was started and is based on Christian religious values. Again, there is argument, but the Constitution and the rights provided there in provide for people of all faiths... Where else in there in the world is there a place for religious freedom like there is here, in the United States Of America?
Sorry if I offended anyone. At times, I am not a particularly accurate person in my thinking, I just know simple words can often be the most confusing and misleading. Like the use of 'War with Evil' by the President of the USANow, you got me, talking about religion and politics in one place...
mouse, poor as a church mouse in America
susan c
> While eating lunch at a local deli, I caught a snippet of a speech being given by Pres. Bush. I don't know if this was live or a re-run (I don't watch TV very much). During the speech he reiterated the fact that we were "at war." Encouragingly, he defined that war as "not against Muslims or Islamic states," doling out all the requisite praise due to those practicing main-stream Islam. This is always good to hear, especially given the inevitable rash of hate-crimes against people who look like AY-rabs and so on since the attack on the 11th.
>
> What I found disconcerting is who/what he said we were at war with: Evil.
>
> Evil? Isn't that a bit, you know, cosmic? I can never understand why pols have to resort to using this kind of rhetoric to "rally the troops" and garner support from the general poplulace. I mean, isn't it enough to say we want to protect ourselves and others against terrorists and punish those responsible for the hijackings?
>
> Of course, this got me thinking: What the heck is "evil", anyway? I have a hard time coming up with any adequate definition. This made the "war against Evil" concept even more disturbing, primarily because lack of definition implies deviously creative and selective uses of the word can be devised ad hoc by those who coopt words to weild as weapons.
>
> I certainly think the recent attacks warrant some sort of response, but I find the careless use of such loaded terms as "evil" and "crusade", especially in the current context, deeply troubling, and probably self-destructive. For those who want to cast the world in a profoundly dualistic light for their own rhetorical purposes, terrorists could use and twist our history and value-laden presidential utterances to terrible effect. What better propaganda do you need than to say, rather accurately, that "the American Crusaders claim we are evil."
>
> I guess if pressed, I might equate "evil" with "ignorance". That's hardly an original interpretation, though I don't know where I heard it first. It seems profound and twisted ignorance is what drives much of the world's problems, and what gives some people the ability to gain support when they say Americans are satanic, or when others say Americans are in a war against Satan. I guess such propaganda only works if people believe it, and, in my mind, only ignorant people would be that credulous. I hasten to qualify: the ignorant are not evil, but their state is, and should be changed.
>
> But then again, I might be in a tiny minority in my view of what "evil" is. Some may really see it as a malevolent cosmic force that drives people to do dastardly deeds. It may be remotely possible that the President actually sees things that way. Who knows? Those holding such a view might say I was ignorant, and I can't think of a good way to refute that view, since it is argued on metaphysical grounds.
>
> I hold out some hope that I am NOT in such a tiny minority though. I am interested in what people think evil is. So, what do you think it is?
Posted by Mitchell on September 27, 2001, at 22:27:03
In reply to Re: Evil?, posted by susan C on September 27, 2001, at 20:46:31
A better reason for a military action would be to prevent people from attacking our homeland, and to enforce internationally accepted rules of war that prohibit attacks on civilian targets. This talk about the the U.S. in a war of good vs. evil is inflammatory, and will almost certainly be viewed by much of the world as a new pinnacle in hypocrisy.
"When objects are used concurrently for civilian and military purposes, they are liable to attack if there is a military advantage to be gained from their attack," US Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, Final Report to Congress, USGPO 1992 pg. 613
Not that the Christian Bible is the final word on anything, but Mr. Bush seems to use it as the source for his knowledge of good and evil, so it is instructive to review the Bible's chapter 1 lesson on good and evil:
"The Lord God planted a Garden eastward in Eden … And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree to grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
"And the Lord God said, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat it, you shall surely die.' And the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be open and you will be like God knowing good and evil.'"
Posted by kazoo on September 28, 2001, at 1:36:17
In reply to Re: Evil? » Adam, posted by paxvox on September 27, 2001, at 19:49:22
> ...we funded Bin Laden in the 80's.
This is news to me.
Can you provide evidence for this statement?
A link to a site or printed matter reference?
I'm interested.
kazoo
Posted by kazoo on September 28, 2001, at 1:45:32
In reply to Evil?, posted by Adam on September 27, 2001, at 14:39:13
One man's "evil" is another man's "good." And, of course, vice versa, and vice versa to that, too ... ad infinitum, blah, blah, blah ...
Don't take Georgie Bush's statement to heart. Nobody else does.
Formal rhetoric isn't one of his finer points. (If only he would stop snorting that accursed coke!)
kazoo
Posted by paxvox on September 28, 2001, at 6:47:03
In reply to Re: Evil? » paxvox, posted by kazoo on September 28, 2001, at 1:36:17
> > ...we funded Bin Laden in the 80's.
>
> This is news to me.
> Can you provide evidence for this statement?
> A link to a site or printed matter reference?
> I'm interested.
> kazooI'm sure the hard data exists, though I have not directly researched it. I was refering to a CBS News story Dan Rather had, I think either late last week, or early this week. Basically, when the Soviets were over-taking Afghanistan in the late 1980's Bin Laden was one of the backers of the Afghan resistance force. We supplied money and weapons to them. Kinda like the Iran-Contra deal at about the same time.
PAX
Posted by Mickey on September 28, 2001, at 7:51:45
In reply to Re: Evil? :: 'Llewd did I live, evil I did dwel' » Adam, posted by kazoo on September 28, 2001, at 1:45:32
The word evil sounds very diabolical, as though there is such a thing as an evil force or spirit. Being the Atheist that I am I see it more as cruelty based on our deep animal instincts and our need for survival. The USA may be considered one of the cruelest nations of all, with a few exceptions, by most of the world. Though I am not religious, (perhaps more of a gnostic) I think the roots of most cruelty can be found in the seven deadly sins, again purely from a biologocal, anthropological viewpoint. With this in mind we are are guilty to some degree.
Posted by tina on September 28, 2001, at 8:03:55
In reply to Re: Evil? :: 'Llewd did I live, evil I did dwel', posted by Mickey on September 28, 2001, at 7:51:45
I'm just finding Bush's speeches to be the same words and phrases over and over again. He says nothing new. Someone above said something about it being just to rally the troops and I think that's right. Bush says evil in a cavalier way. Some say a man who beats his dog is evil. SOme say a parent who abuses a child is evil. Serial killers are evil. I think this word is bandied about far too commonly and it was a poor choice on Bush's part. I don't believe evil has a set definition, just a personal interpretation. I'm sure Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the US and it's allies to be the evil ones.
The word was a poor choice, plain and simple and I think Bush should fire his speech writer.> The word evil sounds very diabolical, as though there is such a thing as an evil force or spirit. Being the Atheist that I am I see it more as cruelty based on our deep animal instincts and our need for survival. The USA may be considered one of the cruelest nations of all, with a few exceptions, by most of the world. Though I am not religious, (perhaps more of a gnostic) I think the roots of most cruelty can be found in the seven deadly sins, again purely from a biologocal, anthropological viewpoint. With this in mind we are are guilty to some degree.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 28, 2001, at 10:29:36
In reply to Re: Evil?, posted by susan C on September 27, 2001, at 20:46:31
You did (talk about it in one place) - and you said it very well. :)
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 28, 2001, at 10:46:28
In reply to Re: Evil? , posted by tina on September 28, 2001, at 8:03:55
> First of all, Kazoo, I must reprimand you, based on my former thread - it's President Bush to you and me - weren't you taught any manners in school? ;)
Very right to point out the word "speech writer," Tina.
To be the devil's advocate, perhaps it was chosen because it is ambiguous. Folks can insert their interpretation of what this retaliation will mean. It's not as if we will have control over the decisions made. And yet, we'll have to come to terms with it somehow.
Also, the President and his men and women are trying to set a tone. "Going to War"; "Fighting Evil". Need we recall one of the reasons WWII was so successful was the proganda campaign that helped keep our country together?
And what's wrong with saying we are a great country? And Afghanistan sucks? Should it be the "War against sucky countries who treat their women like sh*t and launch terrorist attacks against America and possibly our allies?"
It's just too long...
Posted by Mickey on September 28, 2001, at 13:03:07
In reply to Re: Evil?, posted by Mitchell on September 27, 2001, at 22:27:03
>"And the Lord God said, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat it, you shall surely die.' And the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be open and you will be like God knowing good and evil.'" <
I have wondered about the meaning of this for many years and one day it occurred to me that perhaps what it meant was the beginnings of consciousness of the self. Since animals do not have the capacity to be cruel, though it may seem so in their struggles to survive and pass on their genes, they are not conscious of the self.
When humans became conscious (of good and evil) they where able to project their thoughts onto others - thoughts of fear, anger, grief, happiness etc.This may have resulted in an empathetic concern for other humans or it could also play into their more devious plots. For instance, greed, one of the seven deadly sins, has nothing to do with survival or passing on genes, but creates a good deal of cruel (evil) behavior.
Posted by Mitchell on September 28, 2001, at 19:43:16
In reply to tree of knowledge of...., posted by Mickey on September 28, 2001, at 13:03:07
>Should it be the "War against sucky countries who treat their women like sh*t and launch terrorist attacks against America and possibly our allies?"
Well, there again, much of the world would see that as hypocrisy. Check out the Chinese embassy site on why the U.S. is among "sucky countries who treat their women like sh*t and launch terrorist attacks." Of course, we can find data to refute their position, and why they are more sucky than us. But the last time a nation tried to establish equal rights for women in Afghanistan, we paid Islamic fundamentalists to murder their representatives and we are now dealing with the blowback of our cavalier foreign policy. And many throughout the world would cite the United States' complicity in Chile's terroristic Pinoche regime, support for death squads in Guatamala and El Salvadore, targeting of civilian neighborhoods during the most recent Pamama invasion (1989) and destruction of civil infrastructure such as water treatment plants in Iraq as acts of U.S. state sponsored terrorism.
The essay from the Chinese embassy (http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/7073.html ) is posted below, since their press release section changes, a link could go stale, and if they don't have a freedom of information act about their government's publications, they should. I'm not endorsing their stance, or refuting it, I am just saying large numbers of people in the world see things differently than does the U.S. Department of State. And BTW, in statements on China's embassy-in-the-U.S. web site, China strongly condemns the Sept. 11 attacks, which also killed Chinese citizens.
On Bush's use of the word evil, reports say his habit is to hand his speech writers notes containing phrases he wants included in his speeches.
"Evil empire" has been a boilerplate insult for Republican administrations since Reagan, and Bush's dad embraced a moralistic tone against Sadam Hussein since shortly after the U.S. stopped providing satellite imagery to facilitate Iraq's war against Iran. But I suspect "evil" is as much a Bushism as it is a device his speech writer sold. Actually, belief in a divine endorsement runs deep in the Bush family. They are descendants of England's King Charles and of Alexander the (supposedly) Great, both of whom claimed a divine right to rule. Look up David Icke's work on Bush's lineage. Of course, Bush probably bases his claim to represent the forces of good on some other authority than his family tree, but it is interesting to note the family history of a person who advances such claims of moral superiority.
Did the US support Bin Laden in the fight against the USSR?
The U.S. denies directly supporting bin Laden in that war. The state department acknowledges only that he was once on the same side:
> > > >"Bin Ladin, the youngest son of a wealthy Saudi businessman, developed a worldwide organization in the 1970s to recruit Muslim terrorists for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan". http://www.state.gov/www/regions/africa/fs_bin_ladin.htmlBut according to ABC News interpretation of Jane's Book of Terrorists, the U.S. might not be coming clean on their one time support for bin Laden:
.
> > > >"This guy is trouble," observes Christ Kozlow, analyst and author of Jane's Book of Terrorists.
Bin Laden, 45, and his army of former Mujahadeen "freedom fighters" already know the taste of victory. They once, with U.S. assistance, helped doom the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
"If he defeated one superpower," says Kozlow, "then he figures he can do it again."
The Hunt for bin Laden: Parting the Veil on a Worldwide Network, By David Phinney ABC News National Correspondent
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/ladenprobe100798.htmlStill that does not claim direct U.S. payments to bin Laden's particular band of Mujahadeen - only that they were part of a U.S. backed irregular warfare network.
If Ussama bin Ladan is not among the direct recipients of CIA funding of the Mujahadeen, the most likely scenario could be similar to the way the Reagan administration illegally funded the contras in Nicaragua, by recruiting foreign sympathizers to fund insurgents Congress refused to support. Ussama bin Laden could be among the Arab sources of support for anti-Soviet insurgents that U.S. intelligence operations helped arrange. At the very least, the U.S. supported an environment of insurgency in which anyone who shared with us a common enemy was welcome on a very messy battlefield with little or no political control or oversight. When our dirty little war was over and the Soviet empire crumbled, we walked away and did nothing to help rebuild the ravaged nation we had used to weaken our former enemy, nor to contain the violence we had unleashed in the region.
Some reports say pro-Western regimes of Arab oil countries funded Islamic terrorist attacks against former Soviet states as recently as 1999, contributing along with bin Laden, or his family in Saudi Arabia, to fund an attack on Daghestan.
> > > >"The money appears to have come from the pro-Western regimes of the Arab oil countries. General Khatab originates from Jordan, where he organised King Hussain's Chechen body-guard. The invasion has allegedly been sponsored with US$20 million from Jordan. According to the Italian newspaper La Republica one of the financiers of Shamil Basaev's troops is the Saudi oil billionaire, Bin Laden."
-The Guardian
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve1/980chech.htmlAccording to the Guardian, if bin Laden leaves Afghanistan he might go to Chechnia, a state aligned with Russia which the U.S. dares not invade, but where he might continue to conduct guerilla operations against his other nemesis, the Russian government.
Numerous sources identify veterans of the Afghan/Soviet war as the leaders of a more recent Islamic war against Westernization of the Islamic world. For example, the Federation of American Scientists offers this analysis:> > > >"Among the financiers is Ussama bin Laden and his brother Khaled, whose family made a vast fortune in Saudi Arabia in the construction industry over the last few decades. Bin Laden founded the Islamic Salvation Foundation in Saudi Arabia through which he financed initially the Afghani Mujahedin, later extending that to radical Islamic groups around the Arab world."
Arab Veterans of Afghanistan Lead New Islamic Holy War, October 28, 1994, (Compass)
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1994/afghan_war_vetrans.htmlNow, about good and evil,
> > >" I have wondered about the meaning of this for many years and one day it occurred to me that perhaps what it meant was the beginnings of consciousness of the self."
Could be, but the evolution of a neurological capacity for self-awareness probably predated the development of written language by several hundred-thousand years. Granted, the earliest folk tales incorporated in the Jewish texts that are the first chapters of the Bible could predate written language, but there are other possible interpretations of the simple warning to not "taste of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." For Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve the forbidden fruit did not nourish an awareness of self, but rather fed an awareness of their nakedness, and a sense of shame toward their selves. If Christian doctrine is compared with neurological functions, tasting of the fruit seems to coincide with a move toward cerebral definition of values. In a way, this could be a step toward idolatry, or an iconic rather than an instinctive system of values. What comes to mind are the neurological traces of obsessive compulsive disorder - a short circuit deep in the frontal lobes that causes one to chronically try to cleanse ones' self.
According to Christian teachings, as I understand them, when *we* tasted the fruit, we became subject to "the Law". Early on it was the ten "thou shalt and shalt not" statements, then an endless list of amendments and clarifications. But according to New Testament theology, an infinite justice condemns us all to death because even the most petty infraction deserves the death penalty, when measured against God's infinite perfection. To redeem us from this death sentence, we needed grace, which at least conservative Christians say Jesus purchased by voluntarily dying even though he was some direct descendant of God himself and no less than God incarnate. They say God died so we might live.
Sorry, if I recount laborious theology that seems absurd to some, but it is worth thinking through, to understand the condition of grace we supposedly enjoyed before the fall, *if* the "fall" was our ancestors' act of knowing good and evil. Maybe once we objectified "good" and "evil" we moved away from a deeper set of values imprinted in more ancient parts of our limbic system.
A Biblical Psalmist wrote "Thy word have I hid in my *heart.*" But recent western dogma, of a scientific variety, has at times presumed that the parts of our limbic system that govern autonomic responses are "primitive" and only by cerebral control of these "lower" urges can we realize our evolutionary potential. That might be a modern version of the serpent's tempting promise to Eve. A more sophisticated science might recognize that our cerebral functions serve our limbic urges, and the limbic system is programmed by conditioning - by things that are "pleasant to behold and good for food" … all those other trees in the garden. The way we program our limbic system in turn directs how we will program our cerebral networks that control our limbic system from moment to moment.
Consider our mammalian tendency to nurture - it is a drive of our limbic systems, not a learned activity. We don't suckle human babies because we "know it is good" we do it because instinct tells us too. (Although when instinct is overwhelmed by our constructed culture, books can remind us in scientific terms that mammary glands provide the best nourishment for human babies.)
Well, this theory does not say that our cerebral capacity is useless, or that we should abandon science. It just says we can't trust science or our cerebral constructs to tell us what is good. Ultimately, the precise definition of good and evil is as infinite as the value of pi, or the square root of two … it is something we can never really know and we will die trying to figure it out. What we can really know - with our finite and imprecise cerebral and limbic capacities for learning - is what is pleasant to behold and what is good for food. We know that in the extreme, violence and bloodshed are not pleasant to behold. Sure, we can condition our reward system to enjoy otherwise untoward experiences, but as a species, we apparently inherit some familiar desires, of which kindness and compassion are among the most attractive.
But how can we live without some law to tell us which desires are safe and which will destroy our species? We evolved into the human genotype, and survived for hundreds of thousands of years without laws to tell us who we should be. There is a more perfect law, the letter of which we will never perfect in our imprecise mortal organisms. We would do better to use our complex cerebral machinery for naming the animals, and trust that the laws of nature will reward the good and mete out punishment to the evil. And Bush would do well not to condemn evil nations lest he pray doom upon his own house. All have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of their maker, George.
"'Twas grace that brought me safe thus far and grace will lead me home."
___________________________________________________________________Human Rights Records in the United States
by Ren Yanshi March 1, 1999
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/7073.html
From the Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China in the United States of AmericaOn February 26, 1999, the United States issued its "1998 Human Rights Report." Posing as a "human rights judge" once again, it attacked the human rights records of more than 190 countries and regions.
Ignoring the actual situation, the report blamed China for committing "widespread and well documented human rights abuses," but did not say a single word about the human rights problems in the United States.
In fact, the U.S., which often grades human rights records of other countries, won low marks from its own people and the international community.
A U.S. human rights organization called "Peter D. Hart Research Associates" indicated in its survey released on December 10, 1997 that 63 percent of those surveyed believe that poor people in the U.S. are usually discriminated against.
The report added that over half of the surveyed in the U.S. believe that the disabled, the elderly, and the native Americans are routinely discriminated against; 41 percent believe that black Americans are often discriminated against, while 70 percent of the blacks themselves believe that they felt discriminated against.
A director of the organization Human Rights U.S.A. said at a press conference that "the survey shows we have human rights problems right here in the United States."
In October 1998, Amnesty International issued a 150-page human rights report on the U.S.. It cited a host of facts revealing that the U.S. has a "persistent and widespread pattern of human rights violations," while considering itself in the position of being in the "international leadership in the field of human rights."
Directed against the U.S., Amnesty International launched a campaign saying that human rights are not just the affairs of foreign countries, and urged the U.S. to "mind its own business."
I .The Threat to Life, Freedom, and Personal Safety
The United States is a country where violent crimes are most serious in the world. On average, 65 people die and more than 6,000 people become disabled by violent crimes every day.
According to information released in November 1997 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice, in 1996, 12.4 cases of violent crimes were reported among every 1,000 people at and above the age of 12.
Statistics indicate that between 1991 and June 1996, 9,859 people in New York City fell victims to murder attempts. During the same period, one out of every 10 people in the U.S. working in the catering trade was murdered every week.
The juvenile crime rate has risen 600 percent since the 1960s, and murder cases involving juveniles under 17 years old tripled between 1984 and 1994.
According to a survey on juvenile violent criminal cases in the 26 most developed countries, released in February 1997 by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the juvenile crime rate in the U.S. is much higher than in the other developed countries.
The number of murder cases by juveniles in the U.S. almost accounted for three-fourths of all juvenile murder cases in those 26 most developed countries.
The U.S. also witnesses several thousand cases of criminal explosions every year. Between 1991 and 1995, 14,200 such cases of explosions were reported, claiming the lives of 456 people, injuring 3,839, and resulting in property losses of 1.l61 billion U.S. dollars.
The United States has more firearms in the hands of individuals than any other country in the world. A report released by the U.S. Department of Justice on May 5,1997 indicates that the country has nearly 200 million private firearms, and two thirds of all U.S. households have guns.
Though it is legal to bear arms in the United States, private firearms now seriously endanger the lives and personal safety of Americans.
Statistics indicate that the U.S. has on average one million criminal shooting incidents and more than 20,000 shooting deaths a year, with a similar number of people committing suicide with guns.
An international survey released by the U.S. Administration departments in April 1998 indicates that the death toll from shootings in murders, suicides and accidents in the U.S. ranks number one among the world's 36 richest countries.
Between 1985 and 1995, the U.S. juvenile crime rate tripled and the number of murders involving guns quadrupled.
With the widespread use of private firearms, gun-related incidents are now endangering security in the schools.
On March 24, 1998, two middle-school students in the state of Arkansas, one 11 and the other 13, took 10 rifles and pistols and killed four girl students and a female teacher and wounded another 11 students and teachers within 30 seconds in a schoolyard.
On May 21, a high school student aged at 15 in the state of Oregon shot his parents to death before rushing to his school and madly shooting at more than 400 fellow students, killing two and wounding 19 others.
Since the second half of 1997, U.S. school campuses have experienced over a dozen such incidents, shocking people all over the country.
Though the U.S. administration claims that the number of violent crimes has been reduced in recent years, an investigation indicates that 61 percent of Americans believe that the crime problem has become more and more serious, and 68 percent expected a higher crime rate in the year of 2000, according to an article in Time magazine's January 20, 1997 issue.
A recent poll conducted jointly by the Washington Post and the American Broadcasting Corporation shows that many of those surveyed expressed concern over crime and did not believe the latest government figures claiming that crime rates have declined.
The United States calls itself the "Free World". The proportion of prisoners in the United States, however, tops the world.
A report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice on August 17, 1997, says that the number of people who committed crimes and received sentences in the United States in 1996 hit a record 5.5 million.
According to a report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on January 22, 1998, the number of people serving prison terms in the United States increased to more than 1.7 million by June 30, 1997 from 740,000 in 1985. This figure more than doubled in 12 years, with an average annual increase of 8.1 percent.
The German magazine Der Spiegel pointed out in an article on December 14, 1998 that the number of prisoners in the United States had reached 1.8 million people, the highest number in history.
Jail is also used to confine those suffering mental disorders, and some 200,000 mental patients are now imprisoned in the United States.
To meet the demand of the increasing number of prisoners, the country has had to build many more jails.
According to a 1997 report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, the United States built 220 new jails between 1990 and 1996 to accommodate a 43 percent increase in the prisoner population.
The number of beds in the jails in 18 states increased dramatically to 74,000 at present from 2,620 in 1986.
In spite of this, the increased number of jails lags far behind that of the prisoners.
Jails in the United States are in poor condition and prisoners are ill-treated there.
Many juveniles are placed in the same jails as adult prisoners, but children seeking protection are sometimes put in jails different from their parents. By the end of June 1998, some 3,500 juvenile offenders were jailed together with adult prisoners.
Violence is very prevalent in U.S. jails. Prisoners are maltreated not only by fellow prisoners, but also by prison guards.
The United States ranks first in the use of high technology for the purpose of suppression. Stun guns and electro-shock stun belts are used against prisoners by the Bureau of Prisons and Marshals Service in more than 100 counties and at least 16 states.
Some 3,000 police offices use chemicals such as oleoresin capsicum spray , which has killed more than 60 people since 1996.
The United States started to use higher jails in 1994 and conducted extremely harsh control measures against prisoners, who were denied almost all personal contacts with others and were put under a solitary confinement around the clock
The Ellis No.1 Jail in Texas is a place for those who are sentenced to death and about to be executed. Prisoners are kept in separate rooms only three-square-meters large. Unbearable high temperatures in the jail can reach 40 degrees Celsius with humidity as high as 98 percent.
AIDS is rampant in U.S. jails. A report issued by the U.S. Federal Disease Control and Prevention Center indicates that 5.2 out of every 1,000 prisoners suffer from AIDS, a proportion six times greater than that of the rest of the population.
The United States also arbitrarily enforces the death penalty without justice, and jury verdicts are often affected by race and economic status.
The United States is one of only six remaining countries in the world that imposes the death penalty on juveniles, with 25 states violating the International Human Rights Convention and maintaining the death penalty for minors.
Four states prescribe 17 years old as the minimum age for the death penalty, while 21 other states define the age as 16 or have no lower limit.
The number of minors sentenced to death in the United States exceeds any other country. Since 1990, eight teenagers who committed crimes when they were under 18 years old have been executed, and 60 other juveniles are now awaiting execution.
In the past decade, the United States executed 30 people suffering mental disorders, including a murderer in Texas with the mental capacity of a seven-year old.
Moreover, the United States ignores its international obligations and denies the rights of arrested foreigners to obtain assistance from their embassies and consulates.
Some 60 foreign citizens have been sentenced to death in the United States, and most of them have not been informed of their rights under the Vienna Convention.
Police brutality is a serious problem in the United States. Human Rights Watch issued a 440-page investigative report on July 7, 1998, describing police behavior in 14 cities. The report cited brutality as one of the most serious, enduring and divisive human rights violations in the United States.
An investigative report released by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that a total of 125 civilians died of maltreatment at the hands of police officers between 1980 and 1995, with only one police officers punished for related crimes.
Some 500,000 people in the U.S suffered from abusive police treatment in various forms, including physical blows, assaults, or threats with police dogs and guns in 1996.
According to a report in the June 1997 issue of U.S.-based " Insight" weekly, compensation paid to victims subjected to illegal behavior on the part of New York police officers increased to 24 million U.S. dollars monthly in 1994.
The monthly compensation figure of seven million U.S. dollars in 1988 surged three-fold in only six years.
In addition, a large number of cases involving police brutality have by no means been dealt with .
II. Dollar Democracy
The U.S. boasts of being the world's model of democracy in spite of low voter turn-out for elections. According to a report in the August 26, 1997 issue of Singapore's Unite Morning News, a leading daily of the country, an increasing number of voters are losing their enthusiasm for participating in elections to fulfill their basic political obligation as U.S. citizens.
The 1996 voter turn-out in the U.S. was only 48 percent, with the figure dropping below 50 percent for the first time since 1924.When considering both the presidential and mid-term elections, the participation of eligible voters in the U.S. was the lowest among all the developed countries.
This continuing decline in turn-out, the longest and worst in the history of the United States, has influenced people of all classes, ages, income levels and races. The turn-out of voters between 18-24 years of age dropped from 42 percent in 1972 to less than 30 percent in the last presidential election, and only 16 percent in the 1994 election.
The turn-out for voters with annual incomes of less than 15,000 U.S. dollars dropped 20 percent between 1990 and 1994, with the participation for mid-term elections falling to less than 10 percent.
The disparity between black and white U.S. voters was five percent in 1984, and the figure rose even further to more than 10 percent in 1994.
Controlling state power has always been the privilege of a small number of wealthy U.S. citizens. Based on the annual personal asset reports of members of the current Clinton cabinet, approximately half of the cabinet members have personal assets of over one million U.S. dollars, with some reporting family assets of over 80 million dollars.
According to a 1997 report in USA Today, the average personal assets of 25 judicial candidates suggested by U.S. President Bill Clinton was 1.8 million U.S. dollars, with the list including 15 millionaires.
Statistics compiled by a Washington-based organization show that 34.1 percent of judges in the United States are millionaires .
Even in the Congress, the proportion of millionaires to the total number of legislators is dozens of times higher than the level for U.S. society as a whole.
The United States always glorifies its freedom of press. However, freedom of press in the U.S. is nothing more than a myth. A research report compiled by the Sociology Department at Sonoma State University, California, showed that the U.S. press is controlled by boards of directors for major multinational companies which are either owners or shareholders of the country's most powerful TV stations and newspapers.
The 11 most powerful print and electronic media giants in the U.S. all have connections with 144 of the 1,000 largest enterprises. In addition, each major enterprise maintains close relations with heads of at least two of most powerful media giants. Eighty-one managers of the six largest members of the electronic media hold important positions with 104 major enterprises, with 76 general managers of the five largest print media giants which publish 160 dailies maintaining close connections with 66 of the 1,000 largest enterprises.
U.S. enterprises and press media giants are controlled by wealthy individuals. Journalists often maintain their jobs, salaries and promotion opportunities by catering to the values and viewpoints their general managers and the wealthy hold concerning international political and economic affairs.
In their most recent research report, researchers from Sonoma State University point out that the U.S. government wants American citizens to believe that members of the press media are "independent organizations". However, according to report, they are in fact "hostages" of the values and economic benefits of their owners and sponsors .
Another survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1998 revealed that most Americans harbor suspicions concerning the so-called free press system. Seventy-eight percent of the public pointed to the overly biased viewpoints of the press, while 80 percent indicated that newspapers dramatize some news items for commercial purposes, with over 75 percent citing suspicions that some news lacks credible sources .
III. Troubled With Poverty
The U.S., the world's wealthiest country, has recorded steady economic growth for eight years running. Nonetheless, the country is still troubled by poverty, hunger and homelessness due to the serious polarization of wealth distribution.
The gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen as the bulk of the country's wealth flows into the wallets of the rich.
The Washington Post carried an article on March 1, 1998, saying that the richest one percent of the U.S. population possesses more wealth than the total wealth of 90 percent of the total population.
The bottom 25 percent of U.S. families witnessed a nine percent decline in income between 1979 and 1995, with the richest 25 percent of families enjoying a 26 percent increase during the period, according to a U.S.A. Today report in 1997.
The income for the richest five percent of families was 5.7 times that for bottom 20 percent of families in 1995.
A report released by the U.S. Census Bureau in October 1997 noted that the richest American families had enjoyed a 46 percent increase in income since 1967, with the level for the poorest rising by only 14 percent.
Official statistics released in 1997 show that the top 20 percent of U.S. families shared 49 percent of the country's total income in 1996, with the income level for the bottom 20 percent families falling by 1.8 percent.
Although the U.S. leads the world in terms of average family income, the income gap between the rich and poor has nonetheless reached the greatest point in the past two decades. Increased work hours have, in fact, been accompanied by falling incomes.
Various surveys show that the average work week for an American jumped from 40.6 hours in 1973 to 50.6 hours in 1995.
The current income level for the top 20 percent of the population is nine times more than the figure for the bottom 20 percent, up significantly from the 3.5 times figure in 1979. In addition, some 75 percent of American workers earn less today than in 1979.
Speaking from the perspective of income distribution, an economist from the University of California in Berkeley said the U.S. faces greater problems than it did 30 years ago.
The increasingly serious polarization in terms of the distribution of wealth has led to a growing poverty rate. Statistics show that 16 percent of the U.S. population lived below the poverty line in 1974, with the figure rising to 19 percent in 1997.
Posted by susan C on September 28, 2001, at 20:03:43
In reply to Re: Evil?, posted by Mitchell on September 28, 2001, at 19:43:16
> wish i could concentrate to read this thanks I will come back
confuse-ed mouse
susan c>Should it be the "War against sucky countries who treat their women like sh*t and launch terrorist attacks against America and possibly our allies?"
>
> Well, there again, much of the world would see that as hypocrisy. Check out the Chinese embassy site on why the U.S. is among "sucky countries who treat their women like sh*t and launch terrorist attacks." Of course, we can find data to refute their position, and why they are more sucky than us. But the last time a nation tried to establish equal rights for women in Afghanistan, we paid Islamic fundamentalists to murder their representatives and we are now dealing with the blowback of our cavalier foreign policy. And many throughout the world would cite the United States' complicity in Chile's terroristic Pinoche regime, support for death squads in Guatamala and El Salvadore, targeting of civilian neighborhoods during the most recent Pamama invasion (1989) and destruction of civil infrastructure such as water treatment plants in Iraq as acts of U.S. state sponsored terrorism.
>
> The essay from the Chinese embassy (http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/7073.html ) is posted below, since their press release section changes, a link could go stale, and if they don't have a freedom of information act about their government's publications, they should. I'm not endorsing their stance, or refuting it, I am just saying large numbers of people in the world see things differently than does the U.S. Department of State. And BTW, in statements on China's embassy-in-the-U.S. web site, China strongly condemns the Sept. 11 attacks, which also killed Chinese citizens.
>
> On Bush's use of the word evil, reports say his habit is to hand his speech writers notes containing phrases he wants included in his speeches.
>
> "Evil empire" has been a boilerplate insult for Republican administrations since Reagan, and Bush's dad embraced a moralistic tone against Sadam Hussein since shortly after the U.S. stopped providing satellite imagery to facilitate Iraq's war against Iran. But I suspect "evil" is as much a Bushism as it is a device his speech writer sold. Actually, belief in a divine endorsement runs deep in the Bush family. They are descendants of England's King Charles and of Alexander the (supposedly) Great, both of whom claimed a divine right to rule. Look up David Icke's work on Bush's lineage. Of course, Bush probably bases his claim to represent the forces of good on some other authority than his family tree, but it is interesting to note the family history of a person who advances such claims of moral superiority.
>
> Did the US support Bin Laden in the fight against the USSR?
>
> The U.S. denies directly supporting bin Laden in that war. The state department acknowledges only that he was once on the same side:
> > > > >"Bin Ladin, the youngest son of a wealthy Saudi businessman, developed a worldwide organization in the 1970s to recruit Muslim terrorists for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan". http://www.state.gov/www/regions/africa/fs_bin_ladin.html
>
> But according to ABC News interpretation of Jane's Book of Terrorists, the U.S. might not be coming clean on their one time support for bin Laden:
> .
> > > > >"This guy is trouble," observes Christ Kozlow, analyst and author of Jane's Book of Terrorists.
> Bin Laden, 45, and his army of former Mujahadeen "freedom fighters" already know the taste of victory. They once, with U.S. assistance, helped doom the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
> "If he defeated one superpower," says Kozlow, "then he figures he can do it again."
> The Hunt for bin Laden: Parting the Veil on a Worldwide Network, By David Phinney ABC News National Correspondent
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/ladenprobe100798.html
>
> Still that does not claim direct U.S. payments to bin Laden's particular band of Mujahadeen - only that they were part of a U.S. backed irregular warfare network.
>
> If Ussama bin Ladan is not among the direct recipients of CIA funding of the Mujahadeen, the most likely scenario could be similar to the way the Reagan administration illegally funded the contras in Nicaragua, by recruiting foreign sympathizers to fund insurgents Congress refused to support. Ussama bin Laden could be among the Arab sources of support for anti-Soviet insurgents that U.S. intelligence operations helped arrange. At the very least, the U.S. supported an environment of insurgency in which anyone who shared with us a common enemy was welcome on a very messy battlefield with little or no political control or oversight. When our dirty little war was over and the Soviet empire crumbled, we walked away and did nothing to help rebuild the ravaged nation we had used to weaken our former enemy, nor to contain the violence we had unleashed in the region.
>
> Some reports say pro-Western regimes of Arab oil countries funded Islamic terrorist attacks against former Soviet states as recently as 1999, contributing along with bin Laden, or his family in Saudi Arabia, to fund an attack on Daghestan.
>
> > > > >"The money appears to have come from the pro-Western regimes of the Arab oil countries. General Khatab originates from Jordan, where he organised King Hussain's Chechen body-guard. The invasion has allegedly been sponsored with US$20 million from Jordan. According to the Italian newspaper La Republica one of the financiers of Shamil Basaev's troops is the Saudi oil billionaire, Bin Laden."
> -The Guardian
> http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve1/980chech.html
>
> According to the Guardian, if bin Laden leaves Afghanistan he might go to Chechnia, a state aligned with Russia which the U.S. dares not invade, but where he might continue to conduct guerilla operations against his other nemesis, the Russian government.
>
> Numerous sources identify veterans of the Afghan/Soviet war as the leaders of a more recent Islamic war against Westernization of the Islamic world. For example, the Federation of American Scientists offers this analysis:
>
> > > > >"Among the financiers is Ussama bin Laden and his brother Khaled, whose family made a vast fortune in Saudi Arabia in the construction industry over the last few decades. Bin Laden founded the Islamic Salvation Foundation in Saudi Arabia through which he financed initially the Afghani Mujahedin, later extending that to radical Islamic groups around the Arab world."
> Arab Veterans of Afghanistan Lead New Islamic Holy War, October 28, 1994, (Compass)
> http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1994/afghan_war_vetrans.html
>
> Now, about good and evil,
>
> > > >" I have wondered about the meaning of this for many years and one day it occurred to me that perhaps what it meant was the beginnings of consciousness of the self."
>
> Could be, but the evolution of a neurological capacity for self-awareness probably predated the development of written language by several hundred-thousand years. Granted, the earliest folk tales incorporated in the Jewish texts that are the first chapters of the Bible could predate written language, but there are other possible interpretations of the simple warning to not "taste of the tree of knowledge of good and evil." For Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve the forbidden fruit did not nourish an awareness of self, but rather fed an awareness of their nakedness, and a sense of shame toward their selves. If Christian doctrine is compared with neurological functions, tasting of the fruit seems to coincide with a move toward cerebral definition of values. In a way, this could be a step toward idolatry, or an iconic rather than an instinctive system of values. What comes to mind are the neurological traces of obsessive compulsive disorder - a short circuit deep in the frontal lobes that causes one to chronically try to cleanse ones' self.
>
> According to Christian teachings, as I understand them, when *we* tasted the fruit, we became subject to "the Law". Early on it was the ten "thou shalt and shalt not" statements, then an endless list of amendments and clarifications. But according to New Testament theology, an infinite justice condemns us all to death because even the most petty infraction deserves the death penalty, when measured against God's infinite perfection. To redeem us from this death sentence, we needed grace, which at least conservative Christians say Jesus purchased by voluntarily dying even though he was some direct descendant of God himself and no less than God incarnate. They say God died so we might live.
>
> Sorry, if I recount laborious theology that seems absurd to some, but it is worth thinking through, to understand the condition of grace we supposedly enjoyed before the fall, *if* the "fall" was our ancestors' act of knowing good and evil. Maybe once we objectified "good" and "evil" we moved away from a deeper set of values imprinted in more ancient parts of our limbic system.
>
> A Biblical Psalmist wrote "Thy word have I hid in my *heart.*" But recent western dogma, of a scientific variety, has at times presumed that the parts of our limbic system that govern autonomic responses are "primitive" and only by cerebral control of these "lower" urges can we realize our evolutionary potential. That might be a modern version of the serpent's tempting promise to Eve. A more sophisticated science might recognize that our cerebral functions serve our limbic urges, and the limbic system is programmed by conditioning - by things that are "pleasant to behold and good for food" … all those other trees in the garden. The way we program our limbic system in turn directs how we will program our cerebral networks that control our limbic system from moment to moment.
>
> Consider our mammalian tendency to nurture - it is a drive of our limbic systems, not a learned activity. We don't suckle human babies because we "know it is good" we do it because instinct tells us too. (Although when instinct is overwhelmed by our constructed culture, books can remind us in scientific terms that mammary glands provide the best nourishment for human babies.)
>
> Well, this theory does not say that our cerebral capacity is useless, or that we should abandon science. It just says we can't trust science or our cerebral constructs to tell us what is good. Ultimately, the precise definition of good and evil is as infinite as the value of pi, or the square root of two … it is something we can never really know and we will die trying to figure it out. What we can really know - with our finite and imprecise cerebral and limbic capacities for learning - is what is pleasant to behold and what is good for food. We know that in the extreme, violence and bloodshed are not pleasant to behold. Sure, we can condition our reward system to enjoy otherwise untoward experiences, but as a species, we apparently inherit some familiar desires, of which kindness and compassion are among the most attractive.
>
> But how can we live without some law to tell us which desires are safe and which will destroy our species? We evolved into the human genotype, and survived for hundreds of thousands of years without laws to tell us who we should be. There is a more perfect law, the letter of which we will never perfect in our imprecise mortal organisms. We would do better to use our complex cerebral machinery for naming the animals, and trust that the laws of nature will reward the good and mete out punishment to the evil. And Bush would do well not to condemn evil nations lest he pray doom upon his own house. All have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of their maker, George.
>
> "'Twas grace that brought me safe thus far and grace will lead me home."
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Human Rights Records in the United States
> by Ren Yanshi March 1, 1999
> http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/7073.html
> From the Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China in the United States of America
>
> On February 26, 1999, the United States issued its "1998 Human Rights Report." Posing as a "human rights judge" once again, it attacked the human rights records of more than 190 countries and regions.
>
> Ignoring the actual situation, the report blamed China for committing "widespread and well documented human rights abuses," but did not say a single word about the human rights problems in the United States.
>
> In fact, the U.S., which often grades human rights records of other countries, won low marks from its own people and the international community.
>
> A U.S. human rights organization called "Peter D. Hart Research Associates" indicated in its survey released on December 10, 1997 that 63 percent of those surveyed believe that poor people in the U.S. are usually discriminated against.
>
> The report added that over half of the surveyed in the U.S. believe that the disabled, the elderly, and the native Americans are routinely discriminated against; 41 percent believe that black Americans are often discriminated against, while 70 percent of the blacks themselves believe that they felt discriminated against.
>
> A director of the organization Human Rights U.S.A. said at a press conference that "the survey shows we have human rights problems right here in the United States."
>
> In October 1998, Amnesty International issued a 150-page human rights report on the U.S.. It cited a host of facts revealing that the U.S. has a "persistent and widespread pattern of human rights violations," while considering itself in the position of being in the "international leadership in the field of human rights."
>
> Directed against the U.S., Amnesty International launched a campaign saying that human rights are not just the affairs of foreign countries, and urged the U.S. to "mind its own business."
>
> I .The Threat to Life, Freedom, and Personal Safety
>
> The United States is a country where violent crimes are most serious in the world. On average, 65 people die and more than 6,000 people become disabled by violent crimes every day.
>
> According to information released in November 1997 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice, in 1996, 12.4 cases of violent crimes were reported among every 1,000 people at and above the age of 12.
>
> Statistics indicate that between 1991 and June 1996, 9,859 people in New York City fell victims to murder attempts. During the same period, one out of every 10 people in the U.S. working in the catering trade was murdered every week.
>
> The juvenile crime rate has risen 600 percent since the 1960s, and murder cases involving juveniles under 17 years old tripled between 1984 and 1994.
>
> According to a survey on juvenile violent criminal cases in the 26 most developed countries, released in February 1997 by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the juvenile crime rate in the U.S. is much higher than in the other developed countries.
>
> The number of murder cases by juveniles in the U.S. almost accounted for three-fourths of all juvenile murder cases in those 26 most developed countries.
>
> The U.S. also witnesses several thousand cases of criminal explosions every year. Between 1991 and 1995, 14,200 such cases of explosions were reported, claiming the lives of 456 people, injuring 3,839, and resulting in property losses of 1.l61 billion U.S. dollars.
>
> The United States has more firearms in the hands of individuals than any other country in the world. A report released by the U.S. Department of Justice on May 5,1997 indicates that the country has nearly 200 million private firearms, and two thirds of all U.S. households have guns.
>
> Though it is legal to bear arms in the United States, private firearms now seriously endanger the lives and personal safety of Americans.
>
> Statistics indicate that the U.S. has on average one million criminal shooting incidents and more than 20,000 shooting deaths a year, with a similar number of people committing suicide with guns.
>
> An international survey released by the U.S. Administration departments in April 1998 indicates that the death toll from shootings in murders, suicides and accidents in the U.S. ranks number one among the world's 36 richest countries.
>
> Between 1985 and 1995, the U.S. juvenile crime rate tripled and the number of murders involving guns quadrupled.
>
> With the widespread use of private firearms, gun-related incidents are now endangering security in the schools.
>
> On March 24, 1998, two middle-school students in the state of Arkansas, one 11 and the other 13, took 10 rifles and pistols and killed four girl students and a female teacher and wounded another 11 students and teachers within 30 seconds in a schoolyard.
>
> On May 21, a high school student aged at 15 in the state of Oregon shot his parents to death before rushing to his school and madly shooting at more than 400 fellow students, killing two and wounding 19 others.
>
> Since the second half of 1997, U.S. school campuses have experienced over a dozen such incidents, shocking people all over the country.
>
> Though the U.S. administration claims that the number of violent crimes has been reduced in recent years, an investigation indicates that 61 percent of Americans believe that the crime problem has become more and more serious, and 68 percent expected a higher crime rate in the year of 2000, according to an article in Time magazine's January 20, 1997 issue.
>
> A recent poll conducted jointly by the Washington Post and the American Broadcasting Corporation shows that many of those surveyed expressed concern over crime and did not believe the latest government figures claiming that crime rates have declined.
>
> The United States calls itself the "Free World". The proportion of prisoners in the United States, however, tops the world.
>
> A report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice on August 17, 1997, says that the number of people who committed crimes and received sentences in the United States in 1996 hit a record 5.5 million.
>
> According to a report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on January 22, 1998, the number of people serving prison terms in the United States increased to more than 1.7 million by June 30, 1997 from 740,000 in 1985. This figure more than doubled in 12 years, with an average annual increase of 8.1 percent.
>
> The German magazine Der Spiegel pointed out in an article on December 14, 1998 that the number of prisoners in the United States had reached 1.8 million people, the highest number in history.
>
> Jail is also used to confine those suffering mental disorders, and some 200,000 mental patients are now imprisoned in the United States.
>
> To meet the demand of the increasing number of prisoners, the country has had to build many more jails.
>
> According to a 1997 report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, the United States built 220 new jails between 1990 and 1996 to accommodate a 43 percent increase in the prisoner population.
>
> The number of beds in the jails in 18 states increased dramatically to 74,000 at present from 2,620 in 1986.
>
> In spite of this, the increased number of jails lags far behind that of the prisoners.
>
> Jails in the United States are in poor condition and prisoners are ill-treated there.
>
> Many juveniles are placed in the same jails as adult prisoners, but children seeking protection are sometimes put in jails different from their parents. By the end of June 1998, some 3,500 juvenile offenders were jailed together with adult prisoners.
>
> Violence is very prevalent in U.S. jails. Prisoners are maltreated not only by fellow prisoners, but also by prison guards.
>
> The United States ranks first in the use of high technology for the purpose of suppression. Stun guns and electro-shock stun belts are used against prisoners by the Bureau of Prisons and Marshals Service in more than 100 counties and at least 16 states.
>
> Some 3,000 police offices use chemicals such as oleoresin capsicum spray , which has killed more than 60 people since 1996.
>
> The United States started to use higher jails in 1994 and conducted extremely harsh control measures against prisoners, who were denied almost all personal contacts with others and were put under a solitary confinement around the clock
>
> The Ellis No.1 Jail in Texas is a place for those who are sentenced to death and about to be executed. Prisoners are kept in separate rooms only three-square-meters large. Unbearable high temperatures in the jail can reach 40 degrees Celsius with humidity as high as 98 percent.
>
> AIDS is rampant in U.S. jails. A report issued by the U.S. Federal Disease Control and Prevention Center indicates that 5.2 out of every 1,000 prisoners suffer from AIDS, a proportion six times greater than that of the rest of the population.
>
> The United States also arbitrarily enforces the death penalty without justice, and jury verdicts are often affected by race and economic status.
>
> The United States is one of only six remaining countries in the world that imposes the death penalty on juveniles, with 25 states violating the International Human Rights Convention and maintaining the death penalty for minors.
>
> Four states prescribe 17 years old as the minimum age for the death penalty, while 21 other states define the age as 16 or have no lower limit.
>
> The number of minors sentenced to death in the United States exceeds any other country. Since 1990, eight teenagers who committed crimes when they were under 18 years old have been executed, and 60 other juveniles are now awaiting execution.
>
> In the past decade, the United States executed 30 people suffering mental disorders, including a murderer in Texas with the mental capacity of a seven-year old.
>
> Moreover, the United States ignores its international obligations and denies the rights of arrested foreigners to obtain assistance from their embassies and consulates.
>
> Some 60 foreign citizens have been sentenced to death in the United States, and most of them have not been informed of their rights under the Vienna Convention.
>
> Police brutality is a serious problem in the United States. Human Rights Watch issued a 440-page investigative report on July 7, 1998, describing police behavior in 14 cities. The report cited brutality as one of the most serious, enduring and divisive human rights violations in the United States.
>
> An investigative report released by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that a total of 125 civilians died of maltreatment at the hands of police officers between 1980 and 1995, with only one police officers punished for related crimes.
>
> Some 500,000 people in the U.S suffered from abusive police treatment in various forms, including physical blows, assaults, or threats with police dogs and guns in 1996.
>
> According to a report in the June 1997 issue of U.S.-based " Insight" weekly, compensation paid to victims subjected to illegal behavior on the part of New York police officers increased to 24 million U.S. dollars monthly in 1994.
>
> The monthly compensation figure of seven million U.S. dollars in 1988 surged three-fold in only six years.
>
> In addition, a large number of cases involving police brutality have by no means been dealt with .
>
> II. Dollar Democracy
>
> The U.S. boasts of being the world's model of democracy in spite of low voter turn-out for elections. According to a report in the August 26, 1997 issue of Singapore's Unite Morning News, a leading daily of the country, an increasing number of voters are losing their enthusiasm for participating in elections to fulfill their basic political obligation as U.S. citizens.
>
> The 1996 voter turn-out in the U.S. was only 48 percent, with the figure dropping below 50 percent for the first time since 1924.When considering both the presidential and mid-term elections, the participation of eligible voters in the U.S. was the lowest among all the developed countries.
>
> This continuing decline in turn-out, the longest and worst in the history of the United States, has influenced people of all classes, ages, income levels and races. The turn-out of voters between 18-24 years of age dropped from 42 percent in 1972 to less than 30 percent in the last presidential election, and only 16 percent in the 1994 election.
>
> The turn-out for voters with annual incomes of less than 15,000 U.S. dollars dropped 20 percent between 1990 and 1994, with the participation for mid-term elections falling to less than 10 percent.
>
> The disparity between black and white U.S. voters was five percent in 1984, and the figure rose even further to more than 10 percent in 1994.
>
> Controlling state power has always been the privilege of a small number of wealthy U.S. citizens. Based on the annual personal asset reports of members of the current Clinton cabinet, approximately half of the cabinet members have personal assets of over one million U.S. dollars, with some reporting family assets of over 80 million dollars.
>
> According to a 1997 report in USA Today, the average personal assets of 25 judicial candidates suggested by U.S. President Bill Clinton was 1.8 million U.S. dollars, with the list including 15 millionaires.
>
> Statistics compiled by a Washington-based organization show that 34.1 percent of judges in the United States are millionaires .
>
> Even in the Congress, the proportion of millionaires to the total number of legislators is dozens of times higher than the level for U.S. society as a whole.
>
> The United States always glorifies its freedom of press. However, freedom of press in the U.S. is nothing more than a myth. A research report compiled by the Sociology Department at Sonoma State University, California, showed that the U.S. press is controlled by boards of directors for major multinational companies which are either owners or shareholders of the country's most powerful TV stations and newspapers.
>
> The 11 most powerful print and electronic media giants in the U.S. all have connections with 144 of the 1,000 largest enterprises. In addition, each major enterprise maintains close relations with heads of at least two of most powerful media giants. Eighty-one managers of the six largest members of the electronic media hold important positions with 104 major enterprises, with 76 general managers of the five largest print media giants which publish 160 dailies maintaining close connections with 66 of the 1,000 largest enterprises.
>
> U.S. enterprises and press media giants are controlled by wealthy individuals. Journalists often maintain their jobs, salaries and promotion opportunities by catering to the values and viewpoints their general managers and the wealthy hold concerning international political and economic affairs.
>
> In their most recent research report, researchers from Sonoma State University point out that the U.S. government wants American citizens to believe that members of the press media are "independent organizations". However, according to report, they are in fact "hostages" of the values and economic benefits of their owners and sponsors .
>
> Another survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1998 revealed that most Americans harbor suspicions concerning the so-called free press system. Seventy-eight percent of the public pointed to the overly biased viewpoints of the press, while 80 percent indicated that newspapers dramatize some news items for commercial purposes, with over 75 percent citing suspicions that some news lacks credible sources .
>
> III. Troubled With Poverty
>
> The U.S., the world's wealthiest country, has recorded steady economic growth for eight years running. Nonetheless, the country is still troubled by poverty, hunger and homelessness due to the serious polarization of wealth distribution.
>
> The gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen as the bulk of the country's wealth flows into the wallets of the rich.
>
> The Washington Post carried an article on March 1, 1998, saying that the richest one percent of the U.S. population possesses more wealth than the total wealth of 90 percent of the total population.
>
> The bottom 25 percent of U.S. families witnessed a nine percent decline in income between 1979 and 1995, with the richest 25 percent of families enjoying a 26 percent increase during the period, according to a U.S.A. Today report in 1997.
>
> The income for the richest five percent of families was 5.7 times that for bottom 20 percent of families in 1995.
>
> A report released by the U.S. Census Bureau in October 1997 noted that the richest American families had enjoyed a 46 percent increase in income since 1967, with the level for the poorest rising by only 14 percent.
>
> Official statistics released in 1997 show that the top 20 percent of U.S. families shared 49 percent of the country's total income in 1996, with the income level for the bottom 20 percent families falling by 1.8 percent.
>
> Although the U.S. leads the world in terms of average family income, the income gap between the rich and poor has nonetheless reached the greatest point in the past two decades. Increased work hours have, in fact, been accompanied by falling incomes.
>
> Various surveys show that the average work week for an American jumped from 40.6 hours in 1973 to 50.6 hours in 1995.
>
> The current income level for the top 20 percent of the population is nine times more than the figure for the bottom 20 percent, up significantly from the 3.5 times figure in 1979. In addition, some 75 percent of American workers earn less today than in 1979.
>
> Speaking from the perspective of income distribution, an economist from the University of California in Berkeley said the U.S. faces greater problems than it did 30 years ago.
>
> The increasingly serious polarization in terms of the distribution of wealth has led to a growing poverty rate. Statistics show that 16 percent of the U.S. population lived below the poverty line in 1974, with the figure rising to 19 percent in 1997.
Posted by kazoo on September 29, 2001, at 0:37:01
In reply to Re: Evil? :: 'Llewd did I live, evil I did dwel', posted by Mickey on September 28, 2001, at 7:51:45
Posted by Mickey on September 29, 2001, at 9:34:42
In reply to ATHEISM: a non-prophet organization (nm) » Mickey, posted by kazoo on September 29, 2001, at 0:37:01
LOL
Posted by Mickey on September 29, 2001, at 10:13:35
In reply to Re: Evil?, posted by Mitchell on September 28, 2001, at 19:43:16
> Now, about good and evil,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post especially regarding the above. I hope to respond to it in the future but first I need to get a better grip on what you have said.
I have not read Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" in about twenty five years or so. I may need to reread in order to respond with more clarity. It's been on my list for awhile.
Posted by Mitchell on September 29, 2001, at 12:49:11
In reply to Now, about good and evil, - Mitch, posted by Mickey on September 29, 2001, at 10:13:35
> I have not read Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" in about twenty five years or so.You must have read it shortly after it was printed, then. My copy is dusty now, but there are some on-line summaries that might let you consider the content without following every phrase of Jaynes' hypnotic tour of world history. Bear in mind, Jaynes was not a neurologist, and neither am I. That must mean I am eminently qualified to criticize my fellow non-neurologist's theories.
Jaynes proposal, though interesting and suggestive of some important concepts, is deeply flawed as an effort to apply neurology to human behavior, and fails as an assessment of the evolution of consciousness. Fundamentally, Jaynes "bicameral" left/right dichotomy fails by presuming that the right hemisphere now or ever governed unconscious thought and that the left hemisphere controls action. Information to suggest otherwise was available when Jaynes composed his fascinating essay, but more recent neurological research has added definition to the neurological topography that disputes Jaynes' hypothesis.
The more salient bicameral divisions of the mind, which could conceivably be applied to a revised interpretation of Jaynes' conclusions, have unconscious activity originating closer to the center of the brain, and movement directed in both cerebral hemispheres. But more accurately, emotion (to move), is driven in large part by mid-brain patterns - perhaps the "voices of the gods" to which Jaynes refers. And in the cerebral hemispheres, a fore/aft dichotomy is probably more accurate than a left/right dichotomy. The occipital, temporal and parietal lobes are more involved with sensation, while the frontal lobes are used for planning movement. But the dichotomy is not nearly so simple. Sensation and execution of movement for any particular body part are closely related vertically along the layers of the cortices - the neurons that feel fingers are very close to the ones that move fingers, and the same networks are involved in sensation and action. And the routing of neural activity, from perception to planning to execuction, is not a simple one-way street. Mental activity, even for some of the most simple actions, encompasses a complex array of feedback involving the basal ganglia and cerebellum, parts of the mid-brain and myriad cerebral nodes,.
I suspect the sheer amount of information Jaynes presents persuades many to accept his findings, though his analysis is flawed. Another basic flaw of Jaynes' work is that he incorrectly defines conscience as consciousness. The failure to separate conscience from consciousness deprives him of the understanding he needs to properly dissect conscience. Presuming consciousness to be self-awareness and a product of an erosion of left/right cerebral compartmentalization, he fails to recognize the neurological capacity for self-awareness among other non-human species. Self awareness is not a product of an eroded left/right dichotomy, but of vague onion-skin layers or zones from the inside of the brain outwards. And self-awareness is not conscience. Conscience is "other-awareness" and a recognition of the similarities and differences between self and other. Cerebral functions seem to improve our capacity for conscionable behavior, but reliance solely on cerebral constructs to define conscience, I suggest, is the essence of the forbidden fruit.
To return to my theory of the fall and the forbidden fruit, when the serpent tempted humankind with the knowledge of good and evil, it suggested that such knowledge would allow humans to know good and evil as does god. Clearly in that myth, the god or gods knowledge of good and evil was present - good and evil existed, humans just could not taste the fruit of that knowledge. So the myth seems to suggest that knowledge of good and evil was properly assigned to the "voices of the gods" which Jaynes claims are sub-human instincts and not trustworthy. I suggest that Jaynes' theories derived from a culture intoxicated by forbidden fruit, in which a codified knowledge of good and evil is presumed to be conscience. I suggest that, by personifying the "gods" and by making little wooden statues of them or three letter words to name them, we began to venture down the path toward moral death, drunk on forbidden fruit.
When we began to codify our god-like knowledge, we damaged the map back to Eden. Instead of knowing beauty and sustenance - all the trees that are pleasant to behold and good for food - we began to follow our misguided concepts of right and wrong, of good and evil. We no longer felt remorse when we killed for food, because our knowledge of good and evil said it is good to kill for food, and remorse was inappropriate. We soon forgot that when we kill a deer, we are killing something very much like ourselves. Our conscience became callused by layers of learned cerebral values. Instinct became lost and the "word of god" that would otherwise instruct our deepest feelings was replaced by the "word of man." Unabashed remorse for the ugliness of our mortal existence was repressed, perhaps planting the seed of mental disease and of more recent types of social conflict. Recognition of beauty was clouded, and soon we found it necessary to constantly cloth and adorn ourselves - to fabricate ersatz beauty. We can now call our enemies "evil" and never pay a thought to our own complicity in evil, or to the good in the hearts of our enemy. This poison fruit continues to threaten mankind with destruction. If we do not forsake our unwholesome diet, perhaps our culture will die.
Posted by galtin on September 30, 2001, at 9:04:35
In reply to Re: Evil? , posted by tina on September 28, 2001, at 8:03:55
> I'm just finding Bush's speeches to be the same words and phrases over and over again. He says nothing new. Someone above said something about it being just to rally the troops and I think that's right. Bush says evil in a cavalier way. Some say a man who beats his dog is evil. SOme say a parent who abuses a child is evil. Serial killers are evil. I think this word is bandied about far too commonly and it was a poor choice on Bush's part. I don't believe evil has a set definition, just a personal interpretation. I'm sure Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the US and it's allies to be the evil ones.
> The word was a poor choice, plain and simple and I think Bush should fire his speech writer.
>
> > The word evil sounds very diabolical, as though there is such a thing as an evil force or spirit. Being the Atheist that I am I see it more as cruelty based on our deep animal instincts and our need for survival. The USA may be considered one of the cruelest nations of all, with a few exceptions, by most of the world. Though I am not religious, (perhaps more of a gnostic) I think the roots of most cruelty can be found in the seven deadly sins, again purely from a biologocal, anthropological viewpoint. With this in mind we are are guilty to some degree.
Mitch- I doubt that Bush devotes many hours to pondering the concept of evil. But his use of the word probably captured the feelings of many, if not most, of his fellow country persons. The use of the term, whether it has cosmic overtones or not, presumes common ethical standards (against murder, in this case). This presumes intentionality and the choice between good and bad. Can acts committed in the grip of "animal instincts" be intentional? Are predators in the wild (lions,tigers, bears) evil?Bush to the side, calling terrorists evil does not get America off the hook for its many misdeeds, though the many thousands of innocent civilian deaths that the US has purposefully caused does not get much of an airing at times like this. And ultimately the word's use depends on the existence of ultimate, "objective" values (truth), which is a tough claim to defend outside a religious/spiritual framework.
Most of the original gnostics were religious; many believed themselves Christians even though they were pronounced heretics (now there's a scary word). The gnostics believed that the entire material world is evil (bit of a value judgment there) and that the spark of right knowledge could release the soul from its physical captivity in the body. But if physicality is itself evil, it doesn't leave much room for an ethical yardstick that distinguishes the actions of terrorists from those of the fallen firefighters. Evil may have connotations of a "cosmic force," but if you chuck it overboard, where does that leave us? And putting the theoretical to the side, If evil is "personal interpretation," then we are in a hell of a mess
galtin
Posted by Kristi on October 1, 2001, at 1:33:10
In reply to Re: Evil? , posted by galtin on September 30, 2001, at 9:04:35
I'll be honest with you.... the more you post, the more I like you. Weird. At first.... NOT. Now..... YOT. Here's to ya.
Take care,Kristi
> > I'm just finding Bush's speeches to be the same words and phrases over and over again. He says nothing new. Someone above said something about it being just to rally the troops and I think that's right. Bush says evil in a cavalier way. Some say a man who beats his dog is evil. SOme say a parent who abuses a child is evil. Serial killers are evil. I think this word is bandied about far too commonly and it was a poor choice on Bush's part. I don't believe evil has a set definition, just a personal interpretation. I'm sure Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the US and it's allies to be the evil ones.
> > The word was a poor choice, plain and simple and I think Bush should fire his speech writer.
> >
> > > The word evil sounds very diabolical, as though there is such a thing as an evil force or spirit. Being the Atheist that I am I see it more as cruelty based on our deep animal instincts and our need for survival. The USA may be considered one of the cruelest nations of all, with a few exceptions, by most of the world. Though I am not religious, (perhaps more of a gnostic) I think the roots of most cruelty can be found in the seven deadly sins, again purely from a biologocal, anthropological viewpoint. With this in mind we are are guilty to some degree.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mitch- I doubt that Bush devotes many hours to pondering the concept of evil. But his use of the word probably captured the feelings of many, if not most, of his fellow country persons. The use of the term, whether it has cosmic overtones or not, presumes common ethical standards (against murder, in this case). This presumes intentionality and the choice between good and bad. Can acts committed in the grip of "animal instincts" be intentional? Are predators in the wild (lions,tigers, bears) evil?
>
> Bush to the side, calling terrorists evil does not get America off the hook for its many misdeeds, though the many thousands of innocent civilian deaths that the US has purposefully caused does not get much of an airing at times like this. And ultimately the word's use depends on the existence of ultimate, "objective" values (truth), which is a tough claim to defend outside a religious/spiritual framework.
>
> Most of the original gnostics were religious; many believed themselves Christians even though they were pronounced heretics (now there's a scary word). The gnostics believed that the entire material world is evil (bit of a value judgment there) and that the spark of right knowledge could release the soul from its physical captivity in the body. But if physicality is itself evil, it doesn't leave much room for an ethical yardstick that distinguishes the actions of terrorists from those of the fallen firefighters. Evil may have connotations of a "cosmic force," but if you chuck it overboard, where does that leave us? And putting the theoretical to the side, If evil is "personal interpretation," then we are in a hell of a mess
>
> galtin
Posted by Adam on October 2, 2001, at 17:44:59
In reply to Evil?, posted by Adam on September 27, 2001, at 14:39:13
I have read all your posts with great interest, and thank you all for the intelligent and enlightening discussion. I guess Mitchell gets the overachiever award for his illuminating didactic. I will follow the links hungrily.
Reading the above has confirmed two hopes/assumptions: "Evil" is a tough concept to pin down, and at least some people appreciate this.
I am interested in the use of "evil" in the current rhetoric; Tony Blair, who I consider to be a bit more cerebral than his American counterpart, has also inserted the word into at least one speech recently,without a hint of irony. Interesting move for "new Labor". Old alliances may be thicker than ideological blood; or perhaps I'm to cynical, and Blair really thinks there is such a thing as "evil" too.
I really wish I could get into a Bush's or a Blair's head to see how much of this evil buisness resonates on a personal rather than a rhetorical level. As for Bush the senior, I've never had much of a sense of his theology or what-have-you. I've been a bit interested in his old ties to the purportedly cabalistic "Skull and Bones". That association may be as important, if not more so, than the uberblue-blood lineage.
I'm particularly interested in a statement that galtin made: If evil is really a personal rather than universal concept, are we really in trouble? Must there be a universal standard? Could such a thing exist, even in a godless universe?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.