[quote]Originally posted by Dick Morgan:
My mother was Swedish, my father was Welsh and German. The original family name was Kohlmorgan. My grandfather died of accute alohol poisoning. My mother and father were both alcoholics. My daughter and brother are a practicing alcoholics. I got my degree from Johnny Walker university, as well. Did we do this all on free will?

Did you all do it based solely on genetic material? The origins of alcoholism are convoluted - nature vs nurture, so to speak. Do you drink because you are "destined" to or because you were taught by example? Is there no one in your family, immediate or otherwise, who is NOT an alcoholic? Based on what I know of alcoholic families in general, I'd venture to say there are......and so the question is, if it's an inherited gene from which there is no escaping, why not? Both my maternal and paternal grandfathers were alcoholics.....neither of my parents drank nor did any of their brothers or sisters.....my sister drinks, I do not drink. My ex-husband was an alcoholic, my three sons are not alcoholics. His (my ex's) father was an alcoholic, but his two brothers are not. And so on and so forth. Free will? Choice? Learned behavior or genetic make-up? Personally, I vote for learned behaviour, but I'm willing to accept that genetics (but not ethnicity) may play a part in "it"....with "it" being "alcoholism" as a disease and accepting that some genetic diseases are a reality - genetic personalities, however, are not reality.

While you may think genetics plays no part in what you do with your life or I do with mine--80 percent of the world believes in God--do you all think they arrived at this via "Free will"?

I think they arrived at it via familial impact. It's faith and knowledge that they were taught not faith and knowledge that they were magically "born with." If there were no free will involved how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of people who abandon their "birth" religion and convert to other faiths? People believe in God because they want to - not because they have a gene that orders them to.

Based on previous posts I assume you work in the medical profession--aren't there a series of questions you need to ask intaking a patient that have a genetic component?

I worked for 15 years in an ER and on an ambulance. We did not ever ask "genetic" questions. In fact, I believe it is frowned on by federal and local law to ask racially pointed "genetic" questions (and I am positive it is illegal to ask outright ethnical ones) in any field. If I answered a 911 call and a man was in the process of having a giant heart attack - I didn't give a rat's ass if his father had a heart attack....at that point, it didn't matter any more and it certainly wasn't going to affect my treatment protocol.

I currently work in a physician's office and most physician offices have an "intake" sheet which asks questions specific to illnesses and/or diseases which happened to "self" "mother" "father" "sister" and/or "brother" but nothing which asks race, creed, ethnic or religious affiliation. Again, there are some diseases which are prevalent in "families" but they are not necessarily ethnically common or even genetically associated. The theories of familial diseases are based just as much on the premise that you probably were raised on the same kind of diet/exercise program/living conditions as the other members of your family as it is based on anything genetically possible.

If I were a physician and Dan and a signficent other who was also Jewish and I was politically correct and didn't want to ask if he was a "jew" and as a consequence I didn't test for Tay Sach's Disease I would be guilty of malpractice.

Probably not....unless

A) you were a geneticist and the couple were visiting you because they were concerned about possibly having a child with Tay-Sachs.

B) the child in question were your patient and he or she had symptoms of Tay Sach's and you didn't recognize the symptoms - or

C) The parents had asked you to test an apparently well child and you either refused or ignored the request.

Besides, regardless of what you may think, Tay Sachs' is not limited to people of Jewish extraction and it is prevalent in non-Jewish French Canadians who live near the St. Lawrence River and in certain Cajun communities in La. And apparently not all Jews are "created equal" in regards to being susceptible to certain diseases.....Ashkenazi Jews (of Eastern European descent) have a Tay-Sach carrier rate of 1 in 27 while Sephardic Jews have a 1 in 250 chance - which is the same carrier rate as that of the general population.

Same thing with Sickle Cell Anemia which is widely regarded as a "black" disease. The Sickle Cell trait is also common in people of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and Asian Indian ancestry.

Breast cancer can be, and sometimes is, found in men.

And so on and so forth............

What may be a "familial" disease is not necessarily a "genetic" disease. Diet plays a part, exercise plays a part, lifestyle plays a part, environment plays a part. What's more, genetics and ethncity are not the same thing at all. One covers an extremely broad spectrum and one is much more narrowly targeted. I'm often unsure as to whether you are using the terms interchangably or not.

Be that as it may, Genetics and/or ethnicity have never been proven (and I doubt either one ever will be) to play a part in the way people understand things or feel things or see things. Those things are entirely individual and they are entirely personal and they can be chosen. Wise people chose wisely, kind people chose kindly and intelligent people chose intelligently - regardless of their backgrounds or their genetics or their ethnicity.

How can we solve problems if we are not allowed to use constants

If you want a "constant" I'll give you a constant......Choice is a constant..."Free will" is a constant. While it is true that we cannot change where we've been or what we came from we can certainly still choose to change what we are, what we will become, and what direction we want to go in.




[This message has been edited by Lo (edited September 07, 2006).]

Ah hah! My orders exactly (though I've had my tea now). So we DON'T live in separate universes, not quite anyway.

Actually, this is the first I've heard of the Brethren Movement, but since I wasn't raised Christian (unless you count anyone who celebrates Christmas as Christian) and I'm guessing it's more of a UK thing, that's not surprising.

It's not a popular opinion, but I don't think that anyone needs or consequently deserves a "Homeland" anymore than they need or deserve an "ancestral estate" or any other airs and titles they didn't earn themselves. Or if they do, then I'd like folk to reestablish Prussia, because, if the family records are correct, then I'd get to be a count. Of course I'd expect the folk in modern day Poland, Germany and wherever else Prussia was to look at me at best as some sort of Emperor Norton figure, but ah well.

Originally posted by Seree Zohar:

"This is an exceedingly difficult issue to address."

Yes. Agreed, Seree.

"I doubt your curiosity could ever be satisfied on this one."

Well, my curiosity has led me this far and I'm willing to explore it.

"However, here is the information I have accessible to me from sources that are disclosable and others that aren't."

Okay, I can live with that. I'm interested in the disclosable.

"Israel is in constant discussion with all parties involved in the overall Mid East dispute, at all times."

This is good to hear. Sounds wise.

"Most often, the behind the scenes host is Jordan, and often, too, Germany. It is done quietly, without fuss and paparazzi, so as not to harm groups or countries whose position with other Arab countries is not officially endangered."

Quiet diplomacy, backchanneling. What we generally consider discreet diplomatic effort. Good.

"Less frequently, the initiator or host is Egypt, but sometimes even Kuwait and Dubai."

Good. Wise to have plenty of countries involved. Is there also quiet diplomacy within the U.N. and with the Bush administration?

"(What all these countries stand to gain, or lose, by the success or failure of these talks should be fairly obvious at certain levels, perhaps less so at others)."

Sorry, Seree, this is less so for me. I think it's too vague for my direct comprehension. My key failure to understand may lie with the word, "level."

"Those of us following the deeper level news"

Is this deeper level news, any of it, available where I can read it? I find myself depending upon U.S., British, Greek and Canadian sources, with much of my information coming via war correspondents from those countries.

"on all issues Israel-related often learn about such discussion via 'back-door' news items. When an unexpected media headline or radio item announcing "No further updates have been received on Ron Arad, or Baumel" (or whomever) it is understood that SomethingHasBeenGoingOn; sometimes info is leaked to the press that Diplomat So&So just returned from (country) after a flash visit to discuss "the situation". Once, it was leaked that Jordan's King popped over for a half hour, closeted in his jet with Ariel Sharon... for a country that has official diplomatic relations with Israel, a visit like this indicates that SomethingHasBeenGoingOn. "

This sounds pretty inpenetrable for me, especially "back door," which sounds close to private gossip or the French Resistance.

"Press leaks" of such visits, or phone calls, are occasional but always, afterwards, are followed up with information concerning just the kind of diplomatic conflict resolutions you wish to hear about. "

I take it you mean good news for both of us. At least there's something made public. Does this information show up in English in a source I could access?

"Thus, despite NOT having official diplomatic ties with any number of countries in the region, it is abundantly clear that Israel does whatever possible to effect solutions in ways other than military."

Okay, I'll take that on your word. Do you know if this kind of activity takes place directly with Hezbollah? Our administration doesn't deign to talk with the enemy as far as I know. Won't dignify them.

"I have been closely watching Israel issues for the whole of my adult life, involved at greater than breaking-news flashes or 9pm daily broadcasts,"

That's good. I don't trust the daily electronic news myself. I'd rather read the papers, some weeklies, monthlies, quarterlies, and books. TV and radio in the U.S. is in sad shape when it comes to news or accurate information.

"and can say that my impression is that the 'world in general' has no clue as to how much effort is put in behind the scenes to reach peace, truce, understanding, solutions, whatever it takes,"

This is very good to hear. I'd be grateful for any sources in English that I could read to make me wiser than "the world in general."

"even if the final outcome remains no <u>official</u> ties with those same neighbors/regional parties, and in fact nothing more than a peaceful and respectful status quo. Live and let live."

Well, that's a big "nothing more." They apparently haven't achieved that yet with Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Iran, and Syria. But persistence, such as that you've described, could pay off eventually.

Thanks for addressing this, Seree. I appreciate it.

Bob

Kevin,

If you get to be a count, and your county of Prussia has anything good on it, I call your northern flank!!!! (We can move the border around as we negotiate...)

Okay. The above is in jest. It is purely meant to be funny. You are wrong about everything. Wait forget that part. This is a humor break.
--------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it, I have both Bob and yourself to talk to about recent history, and Lo has Free Will versus Predestination to tackle in the side argument. We'll all have our hands full (and, it being football season's first night, my part might be somewhat delayed.)

But here's one random scattered thought to add: I know Mr. Foote just joined in, and happens to be biased toward Israel. I know too some here feel I favor the Israeli side of this conflict http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif. I know that could mean I'm just throwing support to the guy who threw his support my way.

But: you guys (and we guys, more generally) have totally jumped ugly on him, to use the technical term. Come on -- look back at the first few posts responding to him!

How about "sit down, have some tea/coffee, welcome to our board, energy bar?"

I just wanted to say thanks for the kind words, Stephen, and thanks for popping in. From time to time here many of the posters have flamed, and I am sure I have flamed pretty eggregiously myself. The "light blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance" comment earlier was a great one - we're getting passionate here, and I think you joined us at a perfect moment to act as a ready made target. And you know what? Had you come in on the "other" side, I cannot guarantee I would not have done something similar. (I hope, but do not know, that I wouldn't.)

Okay last note, it just happens to be in my head: I count myself as a "Liberal" and have also noticed "Liberal" used as a dirty word. A phrase like "liberal hand-wringing" to me is not as bad as "typical [your ethnicity here]" hand-wringing, because the charge of "Liberal" can be refuted, defended, or rendered powerless through abandonment of the position (yuck, but it's true.) But okay, it's still a good way to piss off a bunch of liberals.

There is, however, an increasing use on the Liberal side of things, of the term "Neocon" in exactly the same way. Since "Conservative" has a happy all-American ring to it by this point for many Americans, "Neocons" are being substituted for purposes of public debate. For the record you're supposed to have been something else before a "conservative conversion experience" to be a Neocon... so people becomming Neocons early and staying that way should be a contradiction in terms. As I understand it though, the original Neocons had a specific school of thought, subsequently adopted by second generation Neocons, though they'd never been Paleocons.

Point is, the use of "Neocon," and the actual grouping of Neocons, may well be as far apart as the equivalents for the term "liberal."

One more one more note, specifically to Bob: Bob, when I come back to this thread, let's just drop the question of length. I know I'm going on and on sometimes, but at the same time, the last couple posts here remind me that people DO want to soak up some facts in the region. I found your last post to be a lot like what I use to say -- and probably will say again, if conditions merit it -- about Israel's options. But from case A to case B to case C there are a world of differences, and getting at them can take some verbiage. Better if it did not, I know. The mideast is a thicket. I find myself agreeing with you on Krauthammer on Iraq, and would perhaps have found myself agreeing with you on Krauthammer on Israel, circa 1995. I agree that turning the Cedar Revolution into an - ahem - neocon triumph, is silly. But I found his posts regarding the "victory" of Hezbollah to just be really on target.

Now then, I am passing around cybervalium, eating some spaghetti, drinking a beer or two, and watching some football. The real kind. Not that there's anything wrong with that other game.

Seree, thanks very much for your recent posts, and your own civility of tone (which I, on occasion, simply jettison in the belief that "it's okay if everybody's doing it," or possibly in the belief that "I know more I get a pass.") Though I'd deny that's happened, I bet others see it that way, and figuring out who is right and wrong is just another whole side tray of recriminations.

Objectively,

Dan



[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited September 07, 2006).]

Dan and Stephen,

For the most part I see your point about how harshly we have treated Mr. Foot. That said, I strongly take issue with the contention that "The very people you purport to stand up for hate and despise the liberal beliefs you base you arguments on. They consider you weak, disposable and eminently exploitable." I know that the people I have spoken up for are the people of Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories -- not Hezbollah, not Hamas, just the people. (I have spoken up for the Israelis, whom I certainly have wished no harm.) I didn't meet a single person in Lebanon who hates freedom when I was there this May. Actually, if anyone remembers the news, the Lebanese were pretty excited about the prospect of freedom, at least around March 14, 2005. Remember that 1 million people (out of a country of around 4 million) came to Beirut to demand Syria's exit from the country??? Actually, I met a conservative family in Baalbek who could not stop telling me "Merci George Boosh" for helping rid their country of Syria. Is that hating freedom? Oh, sure, the Hezbollah ideology is nutty, but that is not what most people in Lebanon want for their country. This man speaks for what many want for the future of the country: Walid Jumblatt .

On a different note, and speaking of liberal-bashing, Ahmedinejad has joined in David Horowitz's and Lynne Cheney's crusade to clear the universities of liberalism: see BBC article .

Take care all. Peace, Shalom, and Salaam.

- Daniel

Where I have no bias they are all of the Old Roman Empire
History never changes, nor men with it.
there will always be evil in power mad minds
and sheep will always follow— frankly I’m passed caring
bring on the fiddler, light the last match

and write some bloody poetry men now that *can* make a difference

Putting on my crazy hat

And when the armies of Rome went home they found all their lands gone to the generals. The lame, the dead, the blistered and the weak- they fought and killed, done butchery on other men who in essence worked hard and prospered, and the evil eye wanted it. Land is not a possession— fuck all the men who fight and argue over dirt; dirt!!

and what the hell has this thread proved

That you all given the chance would join in. don’t you know how easy that is? To pick a side? Time to let go, time to take stock of what being human means on this planet, we have reasonability’s to the future and we better get it right, or you, all you who fight for life have been a fucking waste of space and time

take the blame for both sides and make it go away

----and write good poetry

Daniel,
I am listening to the Daniel Barenboim BBC lectures. I am more than grateful for your presence on this thread.

I heard the BBC report about the Iranian university lecturers. That really is something to fear.

Janet

Dan Haar,

Noted. We've at least to some extent made him one of us http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

And I just want to chime in, from the perceived as Israli-biased side, that Dan's absolutely accurate in his portrayal of himself, and to his portrayal of the Lebanese revolution of 2005.

Much of what raises the blood pressure here is that the people of Lebanon are caught in a conflict they don't want, for the benefit of a militia/gang/terrorist group/NGO/whatever-we-want-to-call-them.

There's the point of who they claim to represent, the idea that they're benevolent to the citizens in their areas of influence, etc., and that's part of what I want to come back to. But football is still on, alas. I just wanted to note 1) okay, yeah, Foot's new and not a saint even though we jumped him the moment he piped up, and 2) Haar speaks the truth about how he's gone about this. Hats off for that.

Dan