Dear David,

I'm glad that you enjoyed the ballet. Theatre, good books, for me are an escape - one can dream. And the truth is - we need to dream: souring imagination is the glue that keeps our souls from shattering under the impact of a prosaic world.

You're right we are likely to be disappointed if we expect dramatic results in the form of an immediate end to war and militarism. All over the world hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers devote their skills to planning new and more efficient ways for humans to kill one another; millions of workers labour to manufacture instruments of death; and tens of millions os soldiers train for combat - many actually going to war. From a moral and even an economic
point of view, this vast investment of human ingenuity and energy seems a tragic waste.

For millennia people have hoped for peace in their time. Today, as usual there is no shortage of grand proposals for peace. Yet wars continue as before, sometimes creating the discouraging idea that hopes for peace are too "idealistic." The prospects for peace look much more encouraging, however, once we recognize that war and peace are really opposite ends of a continuum, and the movement along this continuum, in either direction, is the result of social processes that develop and change over time under the influence of government policies and popular pressures.

As for the Vietnam war - When the antiwar movement first challenged the war, it received little support from politicians or the press, and its goals seemed almost hopeless. But the tide of public opinion gradually began to shift. In the 1968 presidential primaries, an antiwar candidate backed by student volunteers did unexpectedly well and President Johnson decided not to run for re-election. From that point on, political debate on the war focused not on how to stay in it, but on how to get out of it. Through collective action, ordinary people with few resources other than their own determination changed a national consensus for war to a national consensus for peace.

Dear Squeers,

You said; "We saw the patriots in action recently over the revenge-killing of Bin-Laden, cheering at ground zero.". Well perhaps we did but if I had lost family members or friends or even just lived through 9/11 as a New Yorker then I may have well joined them. To label them solely as patriots I think is a little flippant.

If I found a person who had just grievously harmed or murdered my family and I took his life whether he was armed or not there would be an expectation I would receive sympathy for my actions from the public at large and leniency from the justice system. Nor would I expect to wear the label of 'murderer'.

Where it does become an issue is when the cold hand of the government decides to fill that role. We expect better from the 'collective us' that is what civilization is about.

That connection between the death of Osama and the cathartic effect on New Yorkers should also be the one that drives deep disquiet when a Madeline Albright say the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it".

I am one who believes the vast majority of humans are deeply empathetic and what is important is facilitating that empathy and guarding against anything that hinders or hijacks it's full expression.

csteele,

"I am one who believes the vast majority of humans are deeply empathetic and what is important is fascilitating that empathy and guarding against anything that hinders or hijacks its full expression."

Too true - one of the abiding and most deeply held of man's behaviours is his "empathy"....but let's not forget the media's role as a fascilitator of government expression in all of this.

My problem is that man's disposition to empathise is often caught up in the fervour generated by the media.
So that a mass outpouring of empathy is in effect employed as a media weapon to serve as validation for whatever is in the interests of the the powers that prevail.

The ordinary man in the street is like a poppy bobbing about in the field, swayed in whichever direction the media breeze is enticed to blow.

csteele,

I'm not labelling Bin-Laden as 'murdered', I said 'revenge killing'. I do understand the emotions of those directly involved and sympathise, though if it had been a loved-one of mine I wouldn't have put on a show for the cameras. I suspect a great many of those aggrieved stayed quietly indoors, unconsoled, after Bin-Laden's execution.
I absolutely agree that "We expect better from the 'collective us' that is what civilization is about". We ought to have ethical foundations that governments hold to steadfastly, how else can they expect their citizens to respect them or ther values? Our governments all prate about values, human rights, God's laws etc., but it's empty rhetoric.
People are indeed capable of great empathy, but not self-examination.
Anyway, I respect your opinion and will think it over. I hope you will think over my opinion.

I hesitate to make generalisations about the great majority of people as to their empathy, humanity, guilt, aggressiveness or whatever. I find that those people I am drawn to and know best, even those I disagree deeply with, are like me in many respects. Therefore if I make generalisations based on the behaviour or attitudes of those I know and extend those generalisations to the general population I am likely wrong because the sample I started with is probably unrepresentative of the population as a whole.

Dear David,

Well said. Unless we have real experience and knowledge, what can we say that won't sound foolish, or worse - bigoted to someone who knows and appreciates more than we do. I'm finding that the more I live and learn, the more I realise how little I know and I'm not likely to be in a position to have something worth saying unless I spend years immersing myself in gaining knowledge, experience and understanding - and only then if my agenda isn't hostile. It's one thing to feel that I'm on the right path, but it's another to think that mine is the only path