What do you think of Patch Adams?

[jocg27]

---

Members don't see this ad.

In other words, you are trying to strike a moral equivalence between basically decent but imperfect societies like Israel and the United States with a ruthless terrorist organization like Hezbollah that laughs at your indecisiveness and hopes to use it as a weapon against you.

A minor point, just just one I want to make. I have never supported Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other fundamentalist terrorist group and since you bring it up, consider myself rather pro-Israel. I've never said anything to the contrary here, and in fact have already quoted in Israeli politician on this board. Israel absolutely is justified using armed force against terrorist organizations to defend itself. It is the size of a small US state and surrounded by dozens of nations bent on nothing less than its destruction. If Israel does not defend against these terrorist groups, it quite simply will cease to exist rather quickly. I suspect we agree on this.

I DO NOT agree that this is true of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq (or Vietnam).

 

[jocg27]

Decent societies do not lionize those who deliberately kill women and children. It's not friggin' rocket science.

I am completely in agreement. I believe it is WRONG when 'Islamofascists' kill women and children. I believe it is WRONG when American soldiers kill women and children.

 

[Beau Geste]

I am completely in agreement. I believe it is WRONG when 'Islamofascists' kill women and children. I believe it is WRONG when American soldiers kill women and children.

Sure, but don't equate the two. Amercian soldiers don't go out searching for men and women to kill - they end up being casualties of war.

Islamofascists don't care who they kill - and will even send their children to their deaths.

 

[jocg27]

they end up being casualties of war.

.

casualties of war, collateral damage, etc...terms that I N F U R I A T E us when they are used for, say, deaths in the World Trade Center.

Everyone that is killed, maimed, or raped in war, on either side, has a story, has a family, has people who will remember what happened and will hate the other side for it even more than before.

I know Panda Bear, that this is more moral equivalency, my conscience is allowing me to be used as a pawn by people who have none and would kill me given the chance.

But I will continue to believe that as long as people who have no interest in harming us are raped by us and people just trying to live their lives are killed by us, we are continuing to create new terrorists and new war.

 

[notdeadyet]

The term "Islamofascist" is sort of quintessential wartime propoganda, by the way. It's been popularized recently by Michael Savage and his ilk and Bush started using it once the war started.

It's a very deliberate term used by the right to link militant islamist extremists with the Fascism of World War II (ah, a war we can all get behind...).

It's also extremely inaccurate, as it is broadly applied to any Muslim extremist, even though their goals are very different. Different Muslim extremists by nature have very different goals from one another. And many are very anti-national, which obviously is the opposite of fascism.

I just find it funny that folks who keep talking about propoganda seem to unknowingly spread it themselves. Or knowingly. Not sure which is more amusing.

 

[notdeadyet]

But I will continue to believe that as long as people who have no interest in harming us are raped by us and people just trying to live their lives are killed by us, we are continuing to create new terrorists and new war.

Many folks can make many good arguments for the war in Iraq. But if anyone can't see that we are making far more terrorists than we are killing, s/he has a very limited view of history, politics and basic human nature.

 

[velo]

Patch Adams sucks


...just to get us back on track...

 

[notdeadyet]

Patch Adams sucks


...just to get us back on track...

And he's an Islam-o-Fascist...

 

[jocg27]

Patch Adams sucks


...just to get us back on track...

But does he deserve to die?

You might honestly (and perhaps correctly) believe so, and kill him. But his family does not think so, and will want blood, and will go and get you. And then your family does not think you deserve to die, and will want blood, and will go and get them. And then...

I am just kidding.

Sort of.

 

[8744]

You're going to laugh, but I believe I invented the term "islamofascist," at least I was using it before anybody else was. maybe it just trickled up to the media.

The term fits, by the way, as does the term "islamonazi."

The Baath party was deeply influenced by the German National Socialists and many of it's most infamous sons were great admirers of the Third Reich. Additionally, the last Grand Mufti of Jeruslam Amin Al-Hussein, the spiritual father of the PLO was an ardent nazi, lead a revolt against the British in Palestine at the behest of the Germans, and spent most of the war in Germany advocating and assisting in the extermination of the Jews. I believe he was made an SS General, no doubt an honorary title but it kind of shows whose side he was on.

I'd also like to point out that Mein Kampf is runaway best-seller in the Arab world and is read avidly by credulous and ostensibly normal people.

I think the word "fascist" is tossed around a little too casually but in the case of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, what remains of the Baath party in Syria and Egypt, and Al Queda it is appropriate.

 

[8744]

...Panda, you may propose to speak for the side of the neocons, but you have a pretty weak grasp on the left. I think the left recognizes the fact that the west and former soviet block are very different cultures...

I'm guessing you don't really remember the Cold War and were born only a few year before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The fact is that in that long struggle, the American and European left certainly did not support the West against the Soviets. In fact, generations of Soviet rulers contemptously referred to pro-Soviet western leftists as "usefull idiots."

After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was discovered that the KGB had both infiltrated and financed much of the Western European peace movement, which of course came as no surpirse to anybody with eyes. This is the same peace movement that gave us the spectacle of young West German Communists marching in solidarity against the United States and NATO in plain view of the Berlin wall which separated them from a ruthless tyranny that executed and exiled protestors.

The hard left during that time openly supported the Soviets while the so-called "soft left" were more subtle and espoused moral equivalence.

 

[notdeadyet]

You're going to laugh, but I believe I invented the term "islamofascist," at least I was using it before anybody else was. maybe it just trickled up to the media.

Who knows? Stranger things have happened. The term goes back to the late 80's/early 90's, depending on whose take you believe.

The term fits, by the way, as does the term "islamonazi."

Interesting stuff you posted. I'd be curious how much of this is actual belief in Nazi-ism vs. plain old anti-semitism coupled with "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

I think the word "fascist" is tossed around a little too casually but in the case of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, what remains of the Baath party in Syria and Egypt, and Al Queda it is appropriate.

Still don't see the link to fascism. And I haven't been able to find any ties to the Nazi's since WWII. Certainly not amongst today's extremists.

I think the reason I'd object to Islamofascist or Islamonazi or any of those is the same reason Yankee Scum and whatnot is rather tired. It's great for displaying gut reactions to who you're describing but just isn't very accurate.

No matter. The irony is that many of those that would love to use the term and what it represents are the same folks having a tough time getting passed pronouncing the ethnicity AY-rab; I think Islamofascist might be a bit toothy.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm guessing you don't really remember the Cold War and were born only a few year before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I wish. That would make my med school application a lot stronger. I remember growing up having nuclear war drills at elementary school and the like.

The fact is that in that long struggle, the American and European left certainly did not support the West against the Soviets.

Yep. I remember. What I was disagreeing with is your statement that the left believed that there was "no real difference philosophically between the West and Soviet Bloc". The left felt there was a huge difference between capitalism and communism. Many felt communism (or socialism, anyway) was better.

I'm sure a lot of leftists are sheepish remembering this. Communism failed miserably all on its own.

 

[jocg27]

As long as self-proclaimed liberals sympathize with our enemies, I *will* question patriotism. Free speech goes both ways.

*

Fair enough. Free speech goes both ways, and you can question my patriotism, and I can question yours and George Bush's and Ben Franklin's.

But neither you nor I have any right to decide what someone should think in order to be an American.

 

[chewsnuffles]

Sometimes I feel sorry for old Sadamm... because the country that is Iraq is a hodge podge conglomeration of random angry arab groups he could barely hold together even with his brutal, iron fisted leadership approaches.
I feel more sorry for him after seeing that the US, with its outstanding military, struggles day to day to keep the country from destroying itself.
I don't blame the US military, they do an amazing job.
But things are stacked against them over there.
And just from what I heard Iran right now is "supposedly" the catalyst behind most of the insurgency in Iraq becasue they know that as long as we are in Iraq we don't have the available resources and public opinion to initiate anything against Iran's extreemist government...
I think it goes back to what you said earlier Panda about the arab's being their own worst enemy, and the death toll that israel has racked up against them is small compared to what they have done to themselves. Something I never really considered before you said that, but I'll go with it.
So my question really is, what can we do there? What are we trying to do? How can "democracy" work when, unlike here where the republicans and democrats may not see eye to eye, its been a long time since a democrate suicide bombed a republican's campaigne head quarters...
AH, its ugly. I like on paper what we are trying to carry out in the middle east, but in practicality it is damn near impossible.

And on another note, seriously, the UN is worthless. After living in Europe it's become obvious that the Euopean governments corruption is just as bad or worse than the US standard. Many of the countries that didn't support us did so not because what we are doing in Iraq is "wrong", but because they were more concerned with covering their own "asses" from future terrorist attacks (countries such as france currently have constant tension over racial lines, there were recent "race riots", and they also have huge unemployement (that may not be conencted)) than helping a country that saved their "asses" in World War II. Cowards in my opinion...
In conclusion, I don't oppose the Iraq war on it's merrits, and I understand that battle plans have to be flexible to change.
I DO oppose it that I feel it isn't what is best for our country. It is a war that even if we can "win" it (define that how you would like), we benifit so little for what we had to sacrifice to obtain it!
I do agree, possibly thanks to our preventative actions in the past we arn't staring at a city that has been turned into a nuclear waste land, but I swear for the current conflict there has to be a better way! (althogh none immediatly pops into my mind, but it would probably involve some sort of financial aid that is a fraction of what we spent on the war to prop up a puppet government somehow, although it probably was tried.)

Excuse my rant, I tried to make it short at first, but found out that there are so many sides to this, making it short wouldn't have done the situation any justice...

 

[Beau Geste]

I definitely agree... the UN is worthless.

 

[Beau Geste]

Fair enough. Free speech goes both ways, and you can question my patriotism, and I can question yours and George Bush's and Ben Franklin's.

But neither you nor I have any right to decide what someone should think in order to be an American.

to a certain extent, yes. As an American, though, I have the right to call someone out who would distribute anti-American propaganda (blatant stuff, I mean), or call out someone who plots to do something horrible (a la assassination, or something like 9/11).

 

[notdeadyet]

Many of the countries that didn't support us did so not because what we are doing in Iraq is "wrong", but because they were more concerned with covering their own "asses" from future terrorist attacks

What countries are you talking about? Even in the US, a majority of Americans do not support he war. And that's in our own country? If I ever ran into anyone from another country who supported our invasion and occupation of Iraq, I'd be pretty shocked.

Calling other countries "cowards" for not supporting a dodgy military action is pretty weak. Were we "cowards" for not helping the British with the Falklands? They had a lot more justification there than we do in Iraq and the world didn't support them. Nobody was using the word cowads though.

And we didn't give a $hit about helping out the Europeans in WWII until it was patently obvious that we could not sit out the war and our own a$$es were on the line. If we were over there fighting in 1939, we'd have bragging rights. But we entered the war not over concern for our allies but because we were being attacked.[/QUOTE]

 

[notdeadyet]

As an American, though, I have the right to call someone out who would distribute anti-American propaganda (blatant stuff, I mean), or call out someone who plots to do something horrible (a la assassination, or something like 9/11).

For the latter, you not only have the right to call someone out, you have the responsibility, as it's against the law.

For the former, you not only have the right to call out someone who would distribute anti-American propoganda. You also have the right to call out Bush for being a serial liar, call out Cheney for being more concerned for his business connections than the voting public, call out the media for being the lapdogs of public entertainment, or call out your landlord for charging too much rent. You have the right to call out whatever you want, regardless who agrees with you. Aside from fire in a crowded theatre and all that.

 

[jocg27]

It takes absolutely no courage whatsoever to be anti-war, anti-israeli, or anti-American in any modern Western liberal democracy. This is the default position of the intelligentsia. It's not as if you are running any risks. The Jews will not issue a Fatwah against you if you publish antisemitic cartoons and the government is not exactly rounding up dissidents to ship to a gulag in Wyoming.

In fact, being anti-war in the West is about as gutless a position as you can possibly take. Your typical peace fetishist is nothing like Martin Luther King or the largely mythical version of Ghandi, both of who actually risked something for their beliefs. All you have to do is preen and pontificate, assert your moral superiority because you're not willing to bloody your hands defending the West and liberal democratic ideals.

I'm curious what you think about someone like Murtha, or the Republicans who have increasingly withdrawn support for the war...These are respected, responsible politicians, men with military backgrounds in some cases. Many of them have gone to Iraq and have seen that this war is simply unwinnable, we are not fighting for the reasons we originally said we were and in fact many people do not actually know why are fighting, the psychological strain of war is making *some* of our soldiers commit actions that are not fitting with our American ideals, and are, quite simply, reprehensible; we were lead in on what our commander in chief has openly admitted was faulty intelligence, and now lack any semblance of a clear objective or exit plan.

What about military men like Gen. Shinseki, who said that the war would be unwinnable as planned, whose estimates of the number of troops needed was deemed as far too high and steamrolled by Rumsfeld, a civilian, who believed that the 'hard' part would be getting rid of Saddam, after that its all cheesecake. Or Newbold, a marine officer very much in favor of invading Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and alQaeda, those who actually attacked us, but was willing to admit that the IRAQ war is unnecessary and a mistake. Both were high ranking officers, not whiners and caterwaulers.

Do you honestly believe this is gutlessness? I'm not talking about college kids sitting in drum circles, I'm talking about people who truly understand war, understand its necessity and its realities, but have decided that THIS war is simply not one that is currently worth fighting. No, no one's going to a gulag in Wyoming...But some have broken ranks with party brass, taken political hits, an ex-Marine has had his courage called into question on the floor of congress. The generals opposed to the war are no longer in the military. Some people really have stood up for what they think... Maybe not everyone who is opposed to the war is a tree hugging stoner hippy, the spoiled children of spoiled babyboomers, or useful idiots -- maybe there really are valid reasons to think about why we are there and the scale and rationale of what we are trying to accomplish.

It seems to me that this is an honest appraisal of the situation in which we find ourselves, not gutlessness.

 

[notdeadyet]

It seems to me that this is an honest appraisal of the situation in which we find ourselves, not gutlessness.

Very nicely said. This is why I disagree with the notion that to be against the war you are gutless. Too many brave men with combat experience and local knowledge are against it.

 

[8744]

Yep. I remember. What I was disagreeing with is your statement that the left believed that there was "no real difference philosophically between the West and Soviet Bloc". The left felt there was a huge difference between capitalism and communism. Many felt communism (or socialism, anyway) was better.

I'm sure a lot of leftists are sheepish remembering this. Communism failed miserably all on its own.

Oh. Okay. I agree with you on that one. Also that communism failed on it's own. It always does. But Soviet Communism was a failure almost from its inception, the Soviet empire being held together from the beginnig by repression and terror and never enjoying the kind of prosperity, the "worker's paradise," promised by Lenin. The Soviet Empire itself was brought down in part because a succession of American Presidents (skipping Carter, of course, who was something of a gutless appeaser himself) kept up the pressure untill their system collapsed under the economic stress of the so-called arms race.

Recently released politburo documents from that era confirm this. President Reagan was their worst nightmare because he kept upping the ante.

A lot of leftists are sheepish but most are not, espousing the philosophy that communism can work if only the right people implement it.

 

[chewsnuffles]

What countries are you talking about? Even in the US, a majority of Americans do not support he war. And that's in our own country? If I ever ran into anyone from another country who supported our invasion and occupation of Iraq, I'd be pretty shocked.

Calling other countries "cowards" for not supporting a dodgy military action is pretty weak. Were we "cowards" for not helping the British with the Falklands? They had a lot more justification there than we do in Iraq and the world didn't support them. Nobody was using the word cowads though.

And we didn't give a $hit about helping out the Europeans in WWII until it was patently obvious that we could not sit out the war and our own a$$es were on the line. If we were over there fighting in 1939, we'd have bragging rights. But we entered the war not over concern for our allies but because we were being attacked.

[/QUOTE]

I've met Iraqies in Sweden who whole heartedly support the war...

Good point on WWII though...

What I mean is there are countries like France and Germany and Spain who are more worried about their involvement in a war on Iraq making them terrorist targets than preventing the spread of WMD's.
Spain pulled out because of the Madrid bombings (caved into terrorism... what kind of example is that?) I don't know what Germany's deal is. France has its own race issues.

Bottom line is since they arn't in the crosshairs like the US is, they would rather go for appeasement than possibly escalating the danger to their own countries.

I know Iraq is a dodgey war though... that I must agree with.

Truthfully, if I were to say where the big threats are I would say:
#1 - Any of the Russian nuclear warheads that are unaccounted for...
#2 - North Korea - Arguably they have the bomb already... and we can't invade or they destroy s. korea, + leader = crazy
#3 - China if there is a flash point over Tiwan. We sold them rockets that can deliver ICBM's. (I believe they were boeing rockets clinton sold for satalite launches)
#4 - Iran far down the line... but not from the country, from warheads "proliferated" to terrorist groups...

My opinion is that the threat for nukes comes not from actual states, because the retalation would not make using them worth it. The proliferation and falling into terrorist hands is what you have to avoid. Sadam tried for the bomb and most likely would try again. He probably would have had no problem selling a few as well if he had the chance...

Long term perhaps the war in Iraq will be looked back on as a great course of action that stabalized the middle easy and made it impossible for terrorists to hide out there. I doubt it, but it could happen... then Bush would be hailed as one of the greatest presidents/visionaries ever.

 

[instigata]

Truthfully, if I were to say where the big threats are I would say:
#1 - Any of the Russian nuclear warheads that are unaccounted for...
#2 - North Korea - Arguably they have the bomb already... and we can't invade or they destroy s. korea, + leader = crazy
#3 - China if there is a flash point over Tiwan. We sold them rockets that can deliver ICBM's. (I believe they were boeing rockets clinton sold for satalite launches)
#4 - Iran far down the line... but not from the country, from warheads "proliferated" to terrorist groups...

My opinion is that the threat for nukes comes not from actual states, because the retalation would not make using them worth it. The proliferation and falling into terrorist hands is what you have to avoid. Sadam tried for the bomb and most likely would try again. He probably would have had no problem selling a few as well if he had the chance...

Long term perhaps the war in Iraq will be looked back on as a great course of action that stabalized the middle easy and made it impossible for terrorists to hide out there. I doubt it, but it could happen... then Bush would be hailed as one of the greatest presidents/visionaries ever.[/QUOTE]

Have you not considered the thousands of nuclear warheads the United States has that are "unaccounted for?" You make it seem like everybody is a threat to the United States while we are not a threat to anybody else. Keep in mind that the United States is the only country to ever have used an atomic bomb...

 

[notdeadyet]

I've met Iraqies in Sweden who whole heartedly support the war...

My apologies, I thought you were talking about Europeans, who are for the most part staunchly against the Iraq war. I can imagine non-resident Iraqi's have a lot of support for it.

Spain pulled out because of the Madrid bombings (caved into terrorism... what kind of example is that?)

That's actually not true.

Leading up to the bombings, the Spanish were about 90% against the Iraq war. It was incredibly unpopular. The challenger presidential candidate (who ended up winning) ran on a platform of total and immediate withdrawl from Iraq. The bombs came, he won a few days later, and he upheld his promise to pull out. His campaign strategy, platform, promises and plans came long before the bombings.

Spain has had to deal with terrorism on its own soil for 30 years. We're very new at this.

 

[notdeadyet]

The Soviet Empire itself was brought down in part because a succession of American Presidents (skipping Carter, of course, who was something of a gutless appeaser himself) kept up the pressure untill their system collapsed under the economic stress of the so-called arms race.

That's actually not the normally held view by most if you read nonpartisan historical accounts of the Soviet Union failing. The arms race was expensive and contributed, but their economy was in the toilet due to hidden inflation and food shortages. Their black market economy was crippling.

The whole notion of the Soviet Union and their huge economic support for their client states was what ultimately did them in. That combined with the cultural factors and openness of Gorbachev's policy brought an end to things.

Very rarely is an entire economic and political system destroyed on the basis of an arms race. I kinda guessed you're a big Bush/Reagan fan, but to pretend that the arms race was what brought them down is a bit simplistic.

 

[akademiks1989]

Although unorthadox and annoying in his actual approach (especially as a medical student disguised as a MD), I respect the way he helped other people through humor and compassion. I also respect the way he defied every negative thing said about health care (from the Dean, who said it is medicine first, then the patient). I don't like the fact that he stole supplies, because that alone could take away from all the good things he has done.

His private practice was definitely not the way I currently envision my career in medicine. LOL. Crazy guy

 

[jocg27]

Leading up to the bombings, the Spanish were about 90% against the Iraq war. It was incredibly unpopular. The challenger presidential candidate (who ended up winning) ran on a platform of total and immediate withdrawl from Iraq. The bombs came, he won a few days later, and he upheld his promise to pull out. His campaign strategy, platform, promises and plans came long before the bombings.

Spain has had to deal with terrorism on its own soil for 30 years. We're very new at this.

Regarding Spanish politics, they say that where you have 3 Spaniards, you have 4 opinions...

Not especially relevent or anything, just thought I'd share a slice of Spanish culture... 😛

 

[8744]

That's actually not the normally held view by most if you read nonpartisan historical accounts of the Soviet Union failing. The arms race was expensive and contributed, but their economy was in the toilet due to hidden inflation and food shortages. Their black market economy was crippling.

The whole notion of the Soviet Union and their huge economic support for their client states was what ultimately did them in. That combined with the cultural factors and openness of Gorbachev's policy brought an end to things.

Very rarely is an entire economic and political system destroyed on the basis of an arms race. I kinda guessed you're a big Bush/Reagan fan, but to pretend that the arms race was what brought them down is a bit simplistic.

You are obviously a very thoughtful person with carefully formed opinions. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[notdeadyet]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Nothing wrong with that. Hashing out The Issues with people of a similar mindset gets real old real fast. It's a treat deliberating with an articulate conservative who knows his $hit. Cheers.

Now if I could just get you to come around on Carter... ;-)

 

[chewsnuffles]

Yeah, both of you had some good points there, I definately took something away from all of this...

 

[instigata]

Patch jumped off a cliff?? 😱 What? when?

 

[BuckerPark]

So many moons later, I stumbled across this post and am not entirely sure what I was thinking when I wrote my first response.

Peace: fine....doesn't really have much to do with medicine.
Justice: when thought in terms of "social justice" has very much to do with medicine. For example, who deserves a heart transplant more: a felon or a soccer mom? This is a type of ethical debate that falls into a broader category of social justice and affects the practice of medicine.

 

[spicedmanna]

I don't know anything about the real "Patch" Adams, just what I saw in the movie. It's hard to separate Robin Williams, who I think is a phenomenal actor, from the role. However, from my observations of the character in the story, there seems to be a composite of stored up sadness and anger underneath his "humor", which probably drives his actions and choices. I think he has a great ability to connect and resonate with his patients, at least the Robin Williams version does. I don't think this is dependent on what he actually does as much as his presence. But good doctors do care about their patients and that is a felt-experience orthogonal to any parlor tricks. In other words, I don't think you don't need to "clown" around to be a space for healing; that's his MO. For example, while waiting with my sister in the ER, I noticed a older woman who was shaking in a wheel chair, clearly in distress. Nobody seemed to notice or care. I looked around nevously, thinking I should do something. But what? I just walked up to her, talked to her, asked her what she wanted, and held her hands tightly. She wanted me to take her shoe off, which I did. She stopped shaking and seemed at ease momentarily, and she thanked me. For what? I didn't actually do anything I would call useful, but I was there for her. I think that's what Patch is saying in the movie; don't leave out the importance of being truly present with somebody who is sick. On the other hand, don't go out of integrity to achieve those ends, either (like practicing medicine without a license, stealing supplies, etc.). That just makes you creepy, and you could undo the good that comes out of your good intentions.

I do think that taking one's self too seriously can shift one into a greater state of disease, as in loss of ease. But, then again, so can taking one's self too lightly, and shirking responsibility and integrity. So, yes, laugh a lot, but also tie up those camels impeccably, too, eh? 😀

 

[WanderingDave]

To his credit, I think Patch Adams (I only know the movie character too) had a lot of balls. I respect anyone who's willing to think and act outside the box, rather than just 'going through the proper channels' blindly. Some of the world's greatest discoveries and breakthroughs, in all areas of knowledge, have been made by people who dared to try something different. That's why I've never sympathized with social conservatives, whose essential principle seems to be 'when in doubt, take the way that's known, established, and precedented.'

That said, if you're an outside the box thinker, it pays to be judicious, to constantly check yourself to make sure your novel ways are really achieving the desired effect, and to BACK OFF IMMEDIATELY if they're not, especially if someone else's well being is on the line. It pays to always have a more conservative Plan B, and never be too proud to fall back on it.

This is where I think Patch Adams failed -- he became a bit too self-righteous about his 'treatments'. I'm appalled at his attitude toward mental illness that someone above just mentioned. In all his reading, does he know anything about neurotransmitters, and how a slight imbalance in their production and/or release can have disastrous effects on personality and consciousness?

As for the whole 'peace and justice' thread hijacking, I think of Pope John Paul II's famous bumper sticker saying, "If you want peace, work for justice." I've always defined justice as fair and equitable access to resources and opportunities for all. It includes the same fair, impartial treatment in the courts of law for each person, but goes way beyond that. When double standards are created that grant a right to one group but deny it to another, and those groups interact a lot, there's going to be tension, and if this tension is not resolved, violence.

What the former Pope said was true. I've lived in Japan, a country with a very low GINI coefficient (quantitative measure of economic inequality). It's a society that has long had a goal of every Japanese earning a living wage for what they do, and having equal access to education and health care. There is practically no poverty there. As a result, incidents of violence and unrest there are rare and sensationalized. They have peace because they have justice.

Israel will never have peace, because it does not guarantee equal access to the country's resources and opportunities to all who live there. It discriminates on the basis of religion and ethnicity. IMHO the country was founded wrong to begin with. The Zionists in the 1940s should have sat down in Switzerland with the native Arab leaders of that area, and worked out a plan whereby anyone who can prove native roots in that place -- Jew, Muslim, Samaritan, Druze, Maronite Christian, the whole enchilada -- should be able to be an equal citizen with equal rights in the new nation. That's the only peaceful way I could've seen flying. But it's too late now. The Palestinians are native to that place too. They were called the Philistines in the Bible.

East Asia, Canada, and I'd guess much of Western Europe (I've never been there so I can't say for sure) have all gotten with the program and realized that the best weapon around is economic clout through high-tech, knowledge-heavy pursuits. I'm not saying a country shouldn't have a self-defense force and some weapons to defend itself in case someone attacks it. But if most of the world depends on you to supply them with top-end products/services X, Y and Z, most countries are not going to WANT to attack you, because they depend on you and would only be hurting themselves by doing so. Military aggression is soooo last millennium 😛

But I don't involve myself in politics or economics professionally. They're not my cup of joe. All I want is to relieve people's pain, no matter the cause. That's the best way to help the world be a better place, IMHO.

 

[USCguy]

I've never seen the movie, but after looking over the website for his Gesundheit! Institute, it seems that he is more of a social activist/hippie/whateveryouwanttocallhim. I saw lots of info on his agricultural techniques, but I didn't see anything medically related. They are hoping to build a hospital there, but how close are they to actually doing so? I saw that medical students from Ohio State COM can go there and receive credit, so I guess you would have to be doing some medically related, and I wouldn't think dressing up as a clown would cut it. Just wondering if anyone knows!

 

[8744]

T

...Israel will never have peace, because it does not guarantee equal access to the country's resources and opportunities to all who live there...

...But I don't involve myself in politics or economics professionally. They're not my cup of joe. All I want is to relieve people's pain, no matter the cause. That's the best way to help the world be a better place, IMHO....

You can't be serious? Is that why Iran has sworn to destroy Israel, becasue Iranian cabbies aren't allowed to work in Tel Aviv? Or is that why Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan have at one time or another attacked Israel?

A lot of Palestinians, by the way, used to work in Israel until, of course, various Palestinian terrorist organizations decided to expand economic opportunity by bombing Israeli nightclubs, shopping centers, and other public places. Not to mention rocketing Israel from Lebanon.

How about economic inequality in the Muslim world which is many, many times as pronounced than in Israel?

It's obvious you don't involve yourself in politics or economics at any level. Why not just accept this instead of throwing out the latest addle-pated leftist talking points?

 

[8744]

...East Asia, Canada, and I'd guess much of Western Europe (I've never been there so I can't say for sure) have all gotten with the program and realized that the best weapon around is economic clout through high-tech, knowledge-heavy pursuits. I'm not saying a country shouldn't have a self-defense force and some weapons to defend itself in case someone attacks it. But if most of the world depends on you to supply them with top-end products/services X, Y and Z, most countries are not going to WANT to attack you, because they depend on you and would only be hurting themselves by doing so. Military aggression is soooo last millennium...

But I don't involve myself in politics or economics professionally. They're not my cup of joe. All I want is to relieve people's pain, no matter the cause. That's the best way to help the world be a better place, IMHO.

Man, you have not been paying attention at all. Western Europe will be predominantly moslem in 50 years. They have gotten with the program to the extent that what you know as Europeans are dying out as a result of declining birthrates, lack of purpose, and economic stagnation.

Pacifism is soooo last millenium, it's just that much of the West hasn't realized it yet. Hopefully they will before the burka is de rigeur on the Champs D'elysee.

 

[DoctorLove69]

The Iraq war was built on lies, just like Vietnam.

 

[Sharknad0]

The award for oldest bump goes to...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile