[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet

John,    (01)

Quoting from http://www.kmcluster.com, which, if I'm not mistaken, you founded:    (02)

"Open, frank dialogue, productive interactions and participant-led 
community-of-practice are among the most effective means to advance KM and 
enterprise collaboration for all organizations. "    (03)

I observe that you are certainly *frank* in the dialog you offer to the 
unrev forum.  Productive? Not sure about that.  Clearly, I think, from the 
*enterprise* point of view, which kmcluster seems to be all about, then 
bashing the UN, heavy-handed *American* chest thumping, and all that seems 
in order, and you, again, I think, seem to be doing that very well.    (04)

But, I must confess that I, perhaps wrongly so, think that the unrev forum 
is a discussion about Douglas Engelbart's concerns for complex, urgent 
problems. And, I think that Aldo is pointing out that those complex, urgent 
problems are not best attended to when the *American* chest-thumping is the 
loudest signal.  Maybe it's just my own, perhaps wrong-headed, opinion 
that, when viewed from the Moon, we are less than ants running around in 
ant hills; we aren't even visible, and therefore, we ought to be looking at 
a much larger picture than one embraced from a purely *American* point of view.    (05)

I would therefore hazard the dangerous conjecture that it is not useful to 
take a purely *American* enterprise point of view when trying to conduct 
meaningful dialog in the spirit of Dr. Engelbart's vision; there must be 
other forums that would better suit your needs.    (06)

Jack Park    (07)

At 10:33 AM 9/9/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>It is precisely the fawning over these foolish and counterproductive
>"discussion and negotiation structures" that causes and sustains severe
>Look how Iraq treats the UN -- like the big, cruel JOKE it is, for
>How about moral relativism of the attack of Sept 11 -- actively debated
>at the UN in one of your dopey "discussion and negotiation structures"?
>How can you rationalized well-manicured executives at the World Bank,
>for example, offering up loans to corrupt leaders and their countries
>knowing FULL WELL they will NEVER be able to repay the principal? This
>egregious practice has sustained decades of poverty, destruction and
>Please don't be so na´ve.
>This is not about withdraw, it simple, man-on-the-street, common sense.
>The only moral obligation the USA has is to Americans. If Americans, in
>turn, wish to participate as private citizens in the world community,
>they are welcome and encouraged.
>Again the UN, is a bloated, ineffective toothless tiger. It needs to be
>retired along with all its phony pretense and elites. One great
>suggestion is to move the whole mess off 1st Ave (and GVA) to Burkina
>Faso. Just see how much faster decisions would be made operating from
>Western Africa. It would be a miracle! (Besides, it would solve the
>parking problem.)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
>[mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of Aldo de Moor
>Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 10:00 AM
>To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
>Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet
>Is this e-mail a joke?! If the US would no longer use any of the world's
>resources, have no negative impact on global climate, would no longer
>meddle around in client and other states politics, would not use foreign
>wars to cover up domestic problems, THEN you can withdraw from the world
>and do your own thing!
>Since this is clearly not the case, the US have a practical and moral
>obligation to convince the other 95% of humanity of the wisdom of its
>policies through - admittedly imperfect - discussion and negotiation
>structures like the UN, not through cynical powerplay!
>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, John Maloney wrote:
> > Greetings --
> >
> > I applaud the USA standing-up for her sovereignty!
> >
> > These phony envirocrats are as sickening as the demented free-trade
> > purists.
> >
> > The NY Times bashing republican administrations is about as original
> > as cold toast. Give us a break and something with intellectual or
> > editorial merit.
> >
> > When the world stuck its finger in the eye of America on 9/11, at the
> > World "Trade" Center and other places, it became clear that less
> > internationalism and globalism is the correct path for the country.
> >
> > Active participation in meta-government like the UN, leads to more
> > terror, war, poverty and destruction across-the-board.
> >
> > Let arrogant Finnish environmental blowhards slam the USA all they
> > want, but do not, never, allow the USA to be subsumed by the
> > globalists, particularly with supra-governmental boondoggles like
> > Johannesburg.
> >
> > Ironically, it is the counterfeit, unelected diplomats and their
> > free-trade minions that have created, and indeed, sustain global
> > poverty and environmental destruction.
> >
> > Sometimes, the smallest things help create the greatest, most
> > significant lift and change. It is time that the greater USA follow
> > the lead of the mighty LaVerkin, Utah (pop. 3,400). This is truly an
> > unfinished revolution. To wit,
> >
> > "Most city councils focus on potholes rather than peacekeeping, but
> > this Fourth of July, civic leaders in LaVerkin, fired another shot
> > heard round the world. By a vote of 3 to 2, the City Council of this
> > tiny Western town made history by declaring independence - from the
> > United Nations.
> >
> > Neighboring Virgin, Utah (pop. 400) passed a similar measure July 19.
> >
> > Under the new ordinance, city property will not bear UN symbols, no
> > resident will participate in the "involuntary servitude" of UN
> > operations, and municipal funds will not be spent to support UN
> > activities. Those who disagree must register with the city and post
> > yard signs that read, "United Nations work conducted here."
> >
> > Opponents worked overtime to caricature the resolution's backers as
> > conspiracy-peddling, gun-toting zealots still disappointed that Y2K
> > fizzled.
> >
> > Not so. They're average citizens of a state where 83% of land belongs
> > to the federal government, and residents of a town near Zion National
> > Park, a site already requisitioned by the UN's World Heritage
> > Committee. LaVerkin understands encroachment. "We live in the West and
> > we see parks now where part of the fees that they earn go to the UN
> > because it is a biosphere," Councilman Al Snow said. "I can see our
> > country's sovereignty slowly slipping away."
> >
> > The pundit chorus clucks that the move is symbolic ploy with a short
> > shelf-life. More likely, LaVerkin is cresting the first wave of a
> > global sea change.
> >
> > Mayor Dan Howard hopes "LaVerkin is the crucible to get the rest of
> > the cities and the national government to listen."
> >
> > They're already listening, Mr. Mayor. From Ireland and Denmark where
> > voters just sent the EU back to Brussels to other small towns in
> > Washington and New Mexico considering "UN free-zones" of their own,
> > sovereignty is back in the saddle.
> >
> > Had our forefathers returned to fete our nation's founding, they would
> > have been gratified by the Capitol fireworks and Philadelphia
> > performances.
> >
> > But the brave souls who transformed themselves from King George's
> > subjects to freedom's champions might have enjoyed LaVerkin more. For
> > in that Utah corner, the patriots who staked their sacred honor on the
> > first declaration would have recognized a familiar insouciance and
> > felt right at home in the country they left us."
> >
> > -jtm
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> > [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of
> > garyrichmond@rcn.com
> > Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 5:33 PM
> > To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> > Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet
> >
> >
> > This article from NYTimes.com
> > has been sent to you by garyrichmond@rcn.com.
> >
> >
> > The lead editorial of today's New York Times shows that at least one
> > wing of the American press is capable of soundly criticizing
> > Bush--even on the eve of the 9/11 tragedy.
> >
> > Jack Park wrote:
> >
> > From: elohimjl <elohimjl@mail.zserv.tuwien.ac.at>
> >
> > From: Ari Lampinen <ala@cc.jyu.fi>
> > To: Inesnet <inesnet@fy.chalmers.se>
> > Subject: 9/11/02: USA evolved as #1 rogue nation
> >
> > USA Today had a cover story on August 14 2002 on the sentiments of
> > Bush administration policy across the world. It included a photo of a
> > demonstration in London with a large US map with text "#1 ROGUE
> > NATION".
> >
> > Orwellian language was also used by International Herald Tribune in
> > its editorial on September 7-8 2002 on the results of the Johannesburg
> > World Summit on Sustainable Development: they quoted somebody as
> > calling USA and OPEC alliance as "AXIS OF OIL". Behind this, as the
> > editorial puts it was that "the conference was diminished by the
> > unenthusiastic participation of the United States" and the OPEC/USA
> > cartel succeeded in their goal "to oppose clear and binding targets to
> > increase the use of solar and wind power".
> >
> > The renewable energy issue was the last one to be agreed in the WSSD
> > Plan of Implementation. It was the most important thing for the Bush
> > administration not to have any targets and timetables for the energy
> > sector transformation towards sustainable development. Because the
> > opposite was a top priority for the EU this issue was settled only
> > after US succeeded in getting G77, i.e. the group of virtually all
> > developing countries to support its stand in exchange of having
> > targets included for health sector, another major theme of the summit
> > where US had blocked concrete action until the tradeoff.
> >
> > As one EU negotiator put it, the USA is the main stumbling block of
> > international negotiations.
> >
> > The continuation of the selfish unilateralism of the Bush
> > administration and its faithful mate Australia was recognized by the
> > audience of the final plenary of the WSSD in September 4, in the
> > reactions to the speeches of parties given after the adoption of the
> > Plan of Implementation. All except the two countries received
> > applauds. Australia was the only country whose final speech received
> > total silence. And the USA was the only one that was greeted with
> > spontaneous boos from the audience of ministers, diplomats and
> > stakeholders from almost 200 countries. This was the second time I
> > witnessed this code of diplomatic conduct: in Bonn climate conference
> > last year, when the political concensus of the Kyoto protocol details
> > was reached with USA the only country out of 179 parties to disagree,
> > the US speech was the only one receiving booing and all the other were
> > applauded to.
> >
> > In its intervention after the adoption of the WSSD Plan of
> > Implementation USA made several reservations including:
> > - USA does not recognize the Rio principle #7, i.e. common and
> >   differentiated responsibilities. It means that USA regards unfair
> >   they would be expected to do more than developing countries to fight
> >   environmental and development problems.
> > - USA does not recognize the United Nations target of 0.72232140f GDP
> >   official development aid, or any other ODA target.
> > - USA interprets that the text regarding corporate accountability
> >   improvements does not require any new actions.
> > - USA announces that it will not accept any of the biodiversity text
> >   evolve into legally binding commitments. And they also gave the
> >   impression that this applies to rest of the text as well. And USA
> > announced that they take sustainable development very seriously.
> >
> > The official plenary speech of Colin Powell earlier the same day had
> > the same attitude and it was interrupted several times by loud booing.
> > The Wall Street Journal described in its editorial September 6-8 these
> > incidents the following way: "How little interest some of the
> > delegates had in a rational discussion of their first principles was
> > on display Wednesday, when US Secretary of State Colin Powell was
> > jeered and interrupted as he attempted to address the US approach to
> > environmental issues and economic growth." For Wall Street Journal the
> > purpose of the WSSD was to "develop international environmental
> > bureaucracy" in the name of "phantom threats" with the result of
> > "keeping the poor from improving their lot".
> >
> > It is necessary to note that the business and industry sector did not
> > share the US views in the WSSD. On the contrary, they strongly
> > promoted corporate accountability and targeted actions in most areas.
> >
> > Thus, it is exceptionally small minority of people that the Bush
> > administration has so strongly devoted to serve, with exceptionally
> > little consideration of the rest.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ari Lampinen
> > Finnish society for environmental sciences
> >
> >
>   ---///     e-mail: ademoor@uvt.nl
>IN|F/OLAB    phone +31-13-4662914/3020, fax +31-13-4663069
>   |///       home page: http://infolab.uvt.nl/people/ademoor
>Dr. Aldo de Moor
>Infolab, Dept. of Information Systems and Management - Tilburg
>University PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
>==    (08)

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.    (09)

http://www.nexist.org/wiki/User0Blog    (010)