Dec 28 2012: A good point Mr. Long. I suppose that the saying "content without context is nothing" is appropriate in this case. What I think I was trying to communicate is that there are other societies in which philanthropism is woven more in to the fabric of the lives of the people?
Do we Americans have that woven in to the fabric of our culture and souls more than most or all other countries, as much as FOX commentary wants to make us out to believe? Are we that special, or just should we be?
Dec 28 2012: And what might be wrong with some lebensraum to our south, to Mexico? Their culture (from the processual viewpoint of Csikszentmihalyi's "pursue your happiness as long as it doesn't hurt others") is a wreck, and they - as a whole - are a threat to our security.
Might there be another term, other than "leadership role" that you can use, since what you seem to be implying is not leadership but an immoral form of imperialism?
Dec 28 2012: Some good points Barry. Weisman, if he emphasizes the concept of "suddenly", makes his argument at least minimally cogent against those who would otherwise disagree with him.
Glad to hear that, although I personally believe that we may be called to take the high road and be a light unto others and are not, there is some thinking about what a future U.S. President might have to do, given his limited powers.
Dec 28 2012: Marianne:
Please don't take this the wrong way, however, I am not nearly as naive as you say. You don't know me except through this filter of language. Perhaps we can dialogue someday about the use of language through the perspective of Chomsky or Zizek.
I am in fact well read (including the classics that you imply), and I do understand the phrase, which has its etymology, I believe, in Greek culture and was famously used, to my recollection, by various people, for different reasons, during our lifetime, including Frank Zappa and Gerald Ford.
I think Zappa had it right.
The way you use words does not belie your world view, which seems to me to be radically conservative - that is, an outlier.
Our society is neither at the place, as Matt writes, in which "we'd all like to believe that we live in a world where non-violence perpetually solves any and everything", nor are we at another point of the multi-dimensional spectrum, at a place in which you describe, "Are we so vacuous that we need to raise a generation of people, who need to have all sharp objects kept out their reach?"
You write correctly that the average person is not aware of the facts behind "The rule of law". You write incorrectly about their thinking ability, "That being the case, it makes sense to resist this same mob from "deciding" it's time to take your gun." By making those two statements next to each other you actually contradict yourself, do you not?
".... arming for urban warfare" is also a radical statement.
Additionally, you elide my original point: no one is out to take away your guns. My point was that the Constitution does not need to be amended or repealed but re-interpreted to become valid and representative of the majority view of those in our society.
When persons carry it makes me think that I need to carry in order to protect myself. You are forcing your world view upon my freedom to live my life gun free. Your minority view is dominating the majority view.
Dec 28 2012: I was in education for close to 30 years. I have taught all over the country. I have taught to extreme demographics, from the most rich in the country to the absolute poorest. I have taught in urban settings. I have a Ph.D. in education and post doctoral work in cognitive and educational psychology, as well as in educational leadership. I also have served as a worship minister, have done service work with at-risk children, and, when younger, worked with police as a security guard for Wells Fargo and in a major metro mall.
I am not trying to persuade by authority, however, I write about myself because I think my experience might entitle me to have something to say about the issue.
1. There is something to be said, from a moral - or at least ethical - perspective, when giving in to the fatalistic idea that guns are needed to protect us from one another even places that are supposed to be the among the most safe in our society.
2. From a practical perspective, having teachers - who have gone to school to teach and not to act as police or paramilitary - carry concealed weapons affects our children's world view in a negative way. We are teaching our children that the only way to feel safe is to be packing - not what I want to teach MY children.
3. From a practical perspective, do you think that a teacher carrying a handgun, under the stress of any situation similar to what recently happened, is going to be very effective against a fully armed and possibly armored gunman or gunmen?
Malls and other open public places,, possibly. Schools, churches and other places of traditional haven from the world, absolutely not. Let us keep some of these places to the peace lovers of the world, and to the dreamers of dreams, and to the hope in the mystery of faith that passes all understanding..
Dec 27 2012: Hi Marianne. I am not sure why some of your replies are available for comment and some are not, but there seems to be some common threads that run throughout your posts.
You sound very angry about an intractable government that is bent on depriving us of our rights to pursue individual happiness as long as it doesn't hurt others, and the responsibility to promote our general welfare.
You mention the NDAA (I don't understand why you write about a govt' of men rather than law - sounds like a talking point), martial law (forgetting that Lincoln used it without authorization but, while seeming satisfied that it is some type of safeguard you also seem doubtful about the government's ability to control its military). You mention "dues process" instead of habeas corpus, and there is no mention of "enemy combatants, whether they are foreign or domestic. I don't understand why I interpret you as replying as if you are unintentionally agreeing with some points being made.
Our government is not a Tyrany and is not likely to become one because we, as an eclectic society, live in an information age. If something, such as our grid being knocked out, or some other similar catastrophic act takes place, our government as it is, our society, and our cultures become vulnerable. Then it might be time to think about the viability of owning guns as the 2nd Amendment is currently, and I believe incorrectly, interpreted by the Court. By that time, however, TED will not matter and we are back to the stone age anyway. Relax a little about our government's insipid acts. They don't seem to be able to do much to help about anything anyway. Large blocks of citizenry, however, can do something about gun ownership and ensuring safety for others NOW because the momentum is there. And it will happen.
TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: About U.S. hegemony.
A reply on Conversation: About U.S. hegemony.
Do we Americans have that woven in to the fabric of our culture and souls more than most or all other countries, as much as FOX commentary wants to make us out to believe? Are we that special, or just should we be?
A reply on Conversation: About U.S. hegemony.
Might there be another term, other than "leadership role" that you can use, since what you seem to be implying is not leadership but an immoral form of imperialism?
A reply on Conversation: About U.S. hegemony.
Glad to hear that, although I personally believe that we may be called to take the high road and be a light unto others and are not, there is some thinking about what a future U.S. President might have to do, given his limited powers.
A comment on Conversation: Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Please don't take this the wrong way, however, I am not nearly as naive as you say. You don't know me except through this filter of language. Perhaps we can dialogue someday about the use of language through the perspective of Chomsky or Zizek.
I am in fact well read (including the classics that you imply), and I do understand the phrase, which has its etymology, I believe, in Greek culture and was famously used, to my recollection, by various people, for different reasons, during our lifetime, including Frank Zappa and Gerald Ford.
I think Zappa had it right.
The way you use words does not belie your world view, which seems to me to be radically conservative - that is, an outlier.
Our society is neither at the place, as Matt writes, in which "we'd all like to believe that we live in a world where non-violence perpetually solves any and everything", nor are we at another point of the multi-dimensional spectrum, at a place in which you describe, "Are we so vacuous that we need to raise a generation of people, who need to have all sharp objects kept out their reach?"
You write correctly that the average person is not aware of the facts behind "The rule of law". You write incorrectly about their thinking ability, "That being the case, it makes sense to resist this same mob from "deciding" it's time to take your gun." By making those two statements next to each other you actually contradict yourself, do you not?
".... arming for urban warfare" is also a radical statement.
Additionally, you elide my original point: no one is out to take away your guns. My point was that the Constitution does not need to be amended or repealed but re-interpreted to become valid and representative of the majority view of those in our society.
When persons carry it makes me think that I need to carry in order to protect myself. You are forcing your world view upon my freedom to live my life gun free. Your minority view is dominating the majority view.
A comment on Conversation: Should parents, teachers and other personnel be able to carry a concealed weapon in a school?
I am not trying to persuade by authority, however, I write about myself because I think my experience might entitle me to have something to say about the issue.
1. There is something to be said, from a moral - or at least ethical - perspective, when giving in to the fatalistic idea that guns are needed to protect us from one another even places that are supposed to be the among the most safe in our society.
2. From a practical perspective, having teachers - who have gone to school to teach and not to act as police or paramilitary - carry concealed weapons affects our children's world view in a negative way. We are teaching our children that the only way to feel safe is to be packing - not what I want to teach MY children.
3. From a practical perspective, do you think that a teacher carrying a handgun, under the stress of any situation similar to what recently happened, is going to be very effective against a fully armed and possibly armored gunman or gunmen?
Malls and other open public places,, possibly. Schools, churches and other places of traditional haven from the world, absolutely not. Let us keep some of these places to the peace lovers of the world, and to the dreamers of dreams, and to the hope in the mystery of faith that passes all understanding..
A comment on Conversation: About U.S. hegemony.
A reply on Conversation: About U.S. hegemony.
A reply on Conversation: Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
You sound very angry about an intractable government that is bent on depriving us of our rights to pursue individual happiness as long as it doesn't hurt others, and the responsibility to promote our general welfare.
You mention the NDAA (I don't understand why you write about a govt' of men rather than law - sounds like a talking point), martial law (forgetting that Lincoln used it without authorization but, while seeming satisfied that it is some type of safeguard you also seem doubtful about the government's ability to control its military). You mention "dues process" instead of habeas corpus, and there is no mention of "enemy combatants, whether they are foreign or domestic. I don't understand why I interpret you as replying as if you are unintentionally agreeing with some points being made.
Our government is not a Tyrany and is not likely to become one because we, as an eclectic society, live in an information age. If something, such as our grid being knocked out, or some other similar catastrophic act takes place, our government as it is, our society, and our cultures become vulnerable. Then it might be time to think about the viability of owning guns as the 2nd Amendment is currently, and I believe incorrectly, interpreted by the Court. By that time, however, TED will not matter and we are back to the stone age anyway. Relax a little about our government's insipid acts. They don't seem to be able to do much to help about anything anyway. Large blocks of citizenry, however, can do something about gun ownership and ensuring safety for others NOW because the momentum is there. And it will happen.
A comment on Conversation: Do you believe in extraterrestrial life?
From a faith perspective, I don't know.