Dow sinks 500, claws back/Anarchism

[mikebailey at speakeasy.net]

robinlandseadel wrote
> Myself, I look at things like "body count' and the general
> quality of life in the region. It's not that Saddam wasn't
> bad, it's that Cheney is probably worse. It may be
> unfortunate to have look at these sorts of things in
> this light, but the tinhorn dictators in Washington D.C. 
> give us no alternative.
>

yup, body count is a good one.  

It isn't Cheney's body that I hate, it's his policies.  Those would 
probably be strengthened by any violence against his person.  Remember 
a couple years ago when they found that grenade near where Bush was giving 
a speech?  Imagine Cheney succeeding to the presidency under 
those conditions! Likewise imagine how Cheney getting assassinated 
would undercut the doves in Congress.

non-violence.org has a good nonviolence primer; just to quote a 
little reveals a truly revolutionary platform: 

How we approach conflict is the primary ethical, spiritual, 
and practical problem in our lives. If we fail to handle a conflict well, 
we suffer, or our adversaries suffer, or perhaps both. Thus, before we 
engage our adversaries, we need to be clear about our intentions and 
our methods.

The popular approach to conflict, as highlighted in our media and modeled 
in our entertainment, encourages us to maintain the following intentions: 
( a ) define your desired results before engaging your adversary; 
( b ) achieve your desired results using whatever means necessary; 
( c ) achieve your desired results as quickly as possible; and 
(d)if suffering must occur, ensure that your adversary suffers more than you. 

To support these intentions, we are encouraged to use methods such as 
deceit, coercion, stress, confusion, threats, humiliation, 
distraction, exploitation, dehumanization, and violence.

This approach to conflict has many adherents, it enjoys a long history 
in human affairs, it is easy to understand, and it is reinforced 
daily throughout our culture. Nonetheless, pacifists reject this approach 
for three primary reasons.

First, although the popular approach to conflict has the potential to 
bring quick results, these results typically lack substance. Current 
symptoms of the conflict might be suppressed, but deep-rooted causes 
are ignored. Alleged solutions are short-sighted and inadequate. The 
conflict appears to be resolved, but soon thereafter the 
celebrated resolution begins to unravel.

Second, the popular approach to conflict is filled with suffering. We 
leave our adversaries dissatisfied, hurt, angry, and vengeful. These 
feelings set the stage for old conflicts to resurface and new conflicts 
to emerge.

Third, although the popular approach to conflict is often marketed 
in moralistic terms, it typically abandons the highest callings of 
most ethical traditions. Little value is placed on engaging our 
adversaries with respect, generosity, understanding, or compassion.

In light of these concerns, pacifists seek an approach to conflict 
that offers more substance and less suffering. Riding roughshod over 
our adversaries might provide short-term results and immediate 
gratificaton, but pacifists are more concerned with sustainable results 
and genuine reconciliation. To this end, we suggest an alternative with 
a completely different set of ground rules.

Intentions
Pacifism is an approach to conflict based on four intentions:

Use Means Consistent with the Ends Desired: This is the intention to 
engage our adversary using methods that embody the outcome we desire. We 
reap the fruit of what we sow. Thus, if we desire to live in a world 
where practices such as respect, understanding, truthfulness, and 
compassion are the norm, then we must endeavor to use these methods 
when approaching conflict - even under the most demanding circumstances.

Touch the Adversary?s Heart: This is the intention to connect with 
our adversary on a personal level so that our conflicted relationship 
can change. If we use force to compel our adversary to change their 
actions, we do nothing to address their concerns, and we can expect 
that they will return to their original course as soon as the 
opportunity arises. If we use persuasion to change the mind of our 
adversary regarding a particular conflict, we do nothing to address 
conflicts involving other matters. However, if we use methods that touch 
our adversary?s heart, we cause them to pause, and we open a door to a 
new relationship that will enable us to approach current and future 
conflicts more fruitfully. A change of action or a change of mind might 
yield some short-term relief in a conflicted relationship, but a change 
of heart redefines the relationship.

Leave Room for Error: This is the intention to make allowances for 
the possibility that we are mistaken. Due to our limited capacities 
as humans, there is always a chance that our perspective on a conflict 
is incorrect or incomplete. Thus, we should use methods that are 
flexible enough to: ( a ) provide our adversary with some benefit of 
the doubt; ( b ) provide us with opportunities to gather more 
information about the situation; ( c ) leave space so that we might 
have a change of mind or a change of heart; and ( d ) allow us to 
explore options that might be better than anything we can envision at 
the moment.

Intend No Harm: This is the intention to abandon any desire to hurt 
our adversary. In the heat of conflict, we consider bringing harm to 
our opponent directly or indirectly, physically or emotionally, quickly 
or over time. In moments of reflection, though, we know that these 
desires undermine our efforts to resolve conflict. Harmful intent only 
fuels the fire. Thus, when we approach our adversary we are challenged 
to intend no harm, intend no offense, intend no humiliation.