Blaming the victim

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.1510)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0920.1741)

Rick, I had no idea you were so sensitive.

Yep. A New Age, sensitive guy;-)

I'll have to be very careful about what I say in the future.

Actually, you were not among those I was thinking of when I alluded to
being abused on the net. But feel free to be more careful with me in the future.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[ From Bill Williams UMKC 20 September 2001 6:00 CST ]

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.1430)]

Apparently you believe the US has
committed or is an accomplice to the murder of innocent people in the
middle east. But even if the US is guilty of this (which I very
seriously doubt) I don't see the murder of innocent US civilians as the
appropriate way to deal with whatever problem they have over there. But
even worse than the murder is the expression of glee by the perpetrators
and their sympathizers.

You describe the "expression of glee by the perpetrators and their
sympathizers." as worse than the actual murders. I, however, don't believe the
"expression of glee" as a causal matter hurts anyone. Anymore than anything
thing you've said in the past, as causal matter, hurt anyone. In both cases it
seems to me that the "hurt" is generated internal to those who choose to listen
or watch these communicative performances. If you refuse the communication, by
not listening or watching no hurt is experienced. Or you can watch and listen
with a reference level such that what you perceive generates no pain. So from my
conception of what is taking place, the "hurt" is "chosen" by adopting a
reference level that is disturbed by observing the terrorist's sympathizers
expression of glee. Having choosen not to own a television, I limit my exposure
to such disturbances. Not all of my references levels are, as yet, set so that I
am free from being disturbed/hurt by the typical TV programing content. I find
the courseness and crudity of the typical TV programming an insult to human
dignity, but this is my choice about how to order my own emotional experience.
Many people don't share my choice and evidently experience no pain while
watching typical television programing. So, the causal relationship exists in
the mind of the perceiver, not in some causal connnection between the
performance and the perceiver's pain.

It's only been comparitively recently that I've arrived at this view, but it
seems to me to be an implication of control theory. Perhaps I'm mistaken. But,
in my view an actual murder is worse than laughing at someone's pain.

best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.1910)]

Bill Williams (20 September 2001 6:00 CST)--

You describe the "expression of glee by the perpetrators and their
sympathizers." as worse than the actual murders. I, however, don't believe the
"expression of glee" as a causal matter hurts anyone.

Once again I expressed my self poorly. Of course I find murder far worse
than the expression of glee at murder. What I meant was that the
expression of glee reveals the murder (from my perspective) to be even
worse morally (to the extent that that is possible) than it would be if
it were actually some kind of action against oppression. The celebration
of the murder of innocents proves to me that this atrocity wasn't
opposition to oppression. It's just about killing Americans because of
what they _stand for_. It is treating human beings as symbols. It was
genocide, pure and simple.

I just heard Bush's speech and I think it was great. This is not a war
against people trying to liberate themselves from US oppression. This is
not even a war between the US and terrorism. This is a war to protect
liberal/humanistic civilization from religious/ideological fanaticism at
it's worst.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[ From Bill Williams UMKC 20 September 2001 10:00 CST ]

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.1910)]

This is a war to protect
liberal/humanistic civilization from religious/ideological fanaticism at
it's worst.

I would like to recomend to anyone concerned with the subject of this
discussion, a book by Karen Armstrong _The Battle For God_. It contains what
seems to me to be an exceptionally insightful analysis of fundamentalism in
Jewish, Christian, and Isamic faiths.

It remains to be seen whether "liberal/humanistic civilization" will exercise
its power intelligently after the fact. Something like fifteen years ago I
attended a State Department briefing on the status of Afganistan after the
Russian withdrawal. As I remember it, the country was then divided between a
number of warlords contending for control of the country. The attitude
expressed by the briefing officer was, we bled the Russians white on the cheap.
Now, we ( the US ) have no further interest or responsiblity in regard to the
country, let the rag heads fight it out with each other for control. I was
literally sickened by what I heard then. Is it far fetched to think that the
recent attack has some connection to the way we conducted the Afganistan war and
its aftermath? As far as I am concerned, asking this question is not at all
connected with the issue of "blaming the victim. I questioned the briefing
officer concerning the future of the country. I didn't raise the issue of our
responsiblity in the region after having sponsored the war against the Russians.
The briefing officer however discerned that I was troubled, and laid on a
thick justification in terms of "hard nosed" realism in international politics.
In retrospect I think it may be defensible to take a quite different view.
Indifference to human misery doesn't seem to me to be an intelligent policy.

And, if we are going to pursue a policy of war and "hard nosed" realism it seems
to me that we ought to see to a change in the leadership of Iraq. Isn't the
danger of delay now obvious?

best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.2150)]

Bill Williams (20 September 2001 10:00 CST) --

Is it far fetched to think that the recent attack has some connection
to the way we conducted the Afganistan war and its aftermath?

Yes. The Taliban won with our assistance. The Taliban supports
terrorists. Therefore, the terrorists should have been caused to love us
rather than hate us. So even if you believe that the victim is
responsible for what the terrorists do, what we did should have caused
the terrorists to send us flowers rather than Black Tuesday.

As far as I am concerned, asking this question is not at all connected
with the issue of "blaming the victim.

As far as I'm concerned, you are asking whether the attack was caused by
the victim. Fortunately, most of the civilized world answers the
question with an unequivocal "no way". I agree that we can't deal with
this problem with conventional military tactics. I also agree that part
of dealing with this problem must be finding diplomatic and policy
approaches to convincing the people in the countries that harbor
terrorists that we are the good guys. But we must deal with this problem
because these terrorists want to kill us; and I don't think they're
going to be able to go "up a level" and see that the system concept they
are controlling via this kind of terrorist activity is arbitrary. There
is no where for these terrorists to go but _down_, many, many levels.
And the sooner the better, but, unfortunately, it will probably take a
long, long time.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

[From Bill Williams UMKC 21 September 2001 1:30 CST ]

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.20.2150)]

Bill Williams (20 September 2001 10:00 CST) --

> Is it far fetched to think that the recent attack has some connection
> to the way we conducted the Afganistan war and its aftermath?

Yes. The Taliban won with our assistance. The Taliban supports
terrorists. Therefore, the terrorists should have been caused to love us
rather than hate us. So even if you believe that the victim is
responsible for what the terrorists do, what we did should have caused
the terrorists to send us flowers rather than Black Tuesday.

What you apparently don't wish to consider is our indifference to the condition
of Afganistan, after the Russians left. I will repeat what I said about
indifference to human misery not being a good policy. The struting about I
observed by State Department representatives who prided themselves upon their
"hard nosed realism" sicken me. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat
"even if you believe the victim is responsible" when I don't in fact think
anything of the kind. One isn't required to "blame the victim" inorder to
recognize-- that indifference to human misery is not good policy.

we are the good guys.

Not entirely. No large country is made up entirely of "good guys." And, even
the "good guys" sometimes have feet of clay. This is true war or no war.
Recognizing that this is so is not the same as "blaming the victim." As far as
a policy toward terrorists goes, I'm in favor of "hitting back first." Had my
wishes been followed, there would have been no attack, and consequently no
victims to blame. That I think ought to indicate where I locate "blame." What
I'm in favor of is thinking about what we are doing. Some thinking before the
fact might have saved us a lot of misery.

best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.0632)]

Bill Williams UMKC 21 September 2001 1:30 CST

Not entirely. No large country is made up entirely of "good guys." And,

even

the "good guys" sometimes have feet of clay. This is true war or no war.
Recognizing that this is so is not the same as "blaming the victim." As

far as

a policy toward terrorists goes, I'm in favor of "hitting back first."

Had my

wishes been followed, there would have been no attack, and consequently no
victims to blame. That I think ought to indicate where I locate "blame."

What

I'm in favor of is thinking about what we are doing. Some thinking before

the

fact might have saved us a lot of misery.

An unAmerican suggestion if I ever heard one! Our motto is, "Shoot first and
ask questions afterward." It used to be on the dollar bill, but the
proponents of political correctness had it removed. (The same fate befell,
"The only good indian is a dead indian.")

Needless to say, I'm with you all the way on this one.

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.1004)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.20.1910)

I just heard Bush's speech and I think it was great.

It seems to me that whenever you lay down an ultimatum you shift a great
deal of power to the other guy. Of course now Bush can say, "I see you have
chosen to be bombed into oblivion by the U.S."

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.21.0900)]

Bill Williams (21 September 2001 1:30 CST) --

What you apparently don't wish to consider is our indifference to
the condition of Afganistan, after the Russians left.

Excuse me, but I think the condition of Afghanistan is the
responsibility of the Afghanis. The fact that we helped an Afghan
"liberation force" expel the Russians doesn't, it seems to me, mean that
we are now responsible for the development of that country.

One isn't required to "blame the victim" in order to recognize-- that
indifference to human misery is not good policy.

You are assuming you know what the US is doing that is making the
terrorists mad. I think you have absolutely no idea. If there is any
indifference to human misery anywhere it is in the governments of those
countries where copious amounts of human misery exists.

Had my wishes been followed, there would have been no attack, and
consequently no victims to blame...

I know how tough it is to know the truth and have no one pay any
attention to you;-)

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.1233)]

From today's NYT

"Terrorism threatens every society. As the world takes action against it,
we have all been reminded of the need to address the conditions that permit
the growth of such hatred and depravity. We must confront violence, bigotry
and hatred even more resolutely. The United Nations' work must continue as
we address the ills of conflict, ignorance, poverty and disease.

Doing so will not remove every source of hatred or prevent every act of
violence. There are those who will hate and who will kill even if every
injustice is ended. But if the world can show that it will carry on, that
it will persevere in creating a stronger, more just, more benevolent and
more genuine international community across all lines of religion and race,
then terrorism will have failed."

Kofi A. Annan is secretary-general of the United Nations.

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.21.1100)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.1233)

From today's NYT

"Terrorism threatens every society. As the world takes action against it,
we have all been reminded of the need to address the conditions that permit
the growth of such hatred and depravity. We must confront violence, bigotry
and hatred even more resolutely. The United Nations' work must continue as
we address the ills of conflict, ignorance, poverty and disease...

I agree completely. And notice how Kofi didn't blame the US for creating
the conditions that produced the terrorism against it. I think the
nations that have to work to address the ills of conflict, ignorance,
poverty and disease are the nations in which conflict, ignorance,
poverty and disease are rampant. Instead of blaming the US for terrorism
I think you would be closer to the mark if you blamed the governments of
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Uzbekistan, Syria, etc. etc.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.1411)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.21.1100)

I agree completely. And notice how Kofi didn't blame the US for creating
the conditions that produced the terrorism against it. I think the
nations that have to work to address the ills of conflict, ignorance,
poverty and disease are the nations in which conflict, ignorance,
poverty and disease are rampant. Instead of blaming the US for terrorism
I think you would be closer to the mark if you blamed the governments of
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Uzbekistan, Syria, etc. etc.

I don't recall blaming the U.S. for the recent terrorist acts, but I'll be
sure not to do it in the future. By the way, whom do we blame for the
conflict, ignorance, poverty, and disease, in this country? The government?
But this is a democracy (despite the recent election) isn't it? Do we blame
the electorate, or those too ignorant or indifferent to vote? And aren't
the latter the victims?

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.21.0900)]

You are assuming you know what the US is doing that is making the
terrorists mad. I think you have absolutely no idea.

You are mistaken in your speculation as to what I think. You have described the
"terrorists" as psychotic, and in other unfortunate terms, now apparently
assume that we are in agreement that the "terrorists" are "mad." I do not
concur. Based on the information availible to me, clinical interviews with
"terrorists" indicate that they are well with a normal range of functioning.
When we confront them it would be prudent to keep this in mind.

As for my "having absolutely no idea." Most people would not agree with you. I
may be mistaken, but based on a number of years working with foreign students,
many of them Arabic, I have some ideas about how they perceive their own
culture, US cultures, the US government, and other entities. Rather than
attempt to reason about the situation in terms of abstract moralisms and
absolutes, it seems better to me to consider in some detail the historical
context in which the events which are unfolding is situated. To do so with any
confidence would require a more adaquate knowledge of US policy in interaction
with the various middle east cultures than I posses. I wold again recommend
Karen Armstrong's book _The Battle for God_ as a useful starting point in
thinking about the various religious fundamentalisms.

One of the things in recent years that I have found disapointing has been the
manner in which the CSG net discussions have been carried on. There are, of
cousre, different styles of debate. Attacking your counterpart as so lacking in
intelligence, competence, etc as to having "absolutely no idea." is one style.
It is, however, not one that believe contributes to the sort of CSG community
that many of us would wish to construct. I'll repeat what I said, that as far as
I am concerned you ought to feel completely free to express what ever opinions
you hold. From a control theory standpoint I can't see that most forms of
speech are capable of causing injury. If what someone else causes one pain, I
would locate the source of the pain internal to the person experiencing it.
But, this recognition is not the same as viewing all forms of speech as equally
helpful. Wouldn't it be better before dismissing me, to first find out what I
think rather than mistakenly attribute to me opinions that I do not hold???

Given the current difficulties with the net, and other demands on my time, I'm
going to sign off from this discussion for the time being. When the net has
been cleaned up and functioning more normally I'd be happy to resume the
discusion.

best
  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.21.1200)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.1411)--

I don't recall blaming the U.S. for the recent terrorist acts

Yep. Memory is the second thing to go.

By the way, whom do we blame for the conflict, ignorance, poverty, and
disease, in this country? The government?...Do we blame the electorate,
or those too ignorant or indifferent to vote? And aren't the latter
the victims?

See how hard it is to place blame accurately. Maybe we should just stop
worrying about who to blame and start figuring out how to make things
better. The only point of my "blame the victim" post was to point out
that the terrorists, not their victims, are responsible for (controlling
for) the terrorist attack. This is true from a PCT point of view. I
don't think we can make much progress towards solving this problem until
we can start acknowledging some basic truths.

Now it _might_ be true that the terrorist attack is a response to a
disturbance of some variable they are controlling, a disturbance created
by some foreign policy of the US. But this is speculation. But no
evidence has been presented that the attack is a response to any US
foreign policy or side effect thereof. Until such evidence is presented,
all I know for sure is that some people intentionally produced a very,
very evil result and those people should be removed from the planet with
as little muss and fuss as possible.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.1524)]

Rick Marken (2001.09.21.1200)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.1411)--

> I don't recall blaming the U.S. for the recent terrorist acts

Yep. Memory is the second thing to go.

I take this as the voice of experience.

Now it _might_ be true that the terrorist attack is a response to a
disturbance of some variable they are controlling, a disturbance created
by some foreign policy of the US. But this is speculation. But no
evidence has been presented that the attack is a response to any US
foreign policy or side effect thereof. Until such evidence is presented,
all I know for sure is that some people intentionally produced a very,
very evil result and those people should be removed from the planet with
as little muss and fuss as possible.

As far as I can tell, little evidence at all has been presented. Since the
perpetrators have already removed themselves from the planet, albeit with
considerable muss and fuss, I agree with Bill Williams that it might pay to
try to understand the motives of all involved. In fact, it might be helpful
to know who was behind the attack. (I find it much more credible that it
was Saddam Hussein with the entire resources of the Iraqi government at his
disposal than Osama bin Ladin sitting in a cave in a country totally with
infrastructure, but your assessment might differ.)

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.21.1240)]

Me:

You are assuming you know what the US is doing that is making the
terrorists mad. I think you have absolutely no idea.

Bill Williams:

You are mistaken in your speculation as to what I think.

Sorry. You said things that suggested that you knew that certain US
policies were making the terrorists mad (angry). My mistake.

You have described the "terrorists" as psychotic, and in other unfortunate
terms

Unfortunate terms? My god, I don't think there are terms to describe
these scum that are unfortunate _enough_!!

Based on the information availible to me, clinical interviews with
"terrorists" indicate that they are well with a normal range of
functioning.

Based on information available to me -- that they hijaked planes full of
innocent people and drove them into buildings filled with innocent
people -- I would say that they are well outside a normal range of
functioning . Indeed, from my point of view they are very far off on the
_bad_ side of that range.

When we confront them it would be prudent to keep this in mind.

When we confront them I think it would be wise to keep in mind Sept 11
and the quickest, quietest way to remove every one of there system level references.

As for my "having absolutely no idea."

You had said that US indifference to human misery is the policy that
leads to terrorism. I said that I thought you had "absolutely no idea"
what US policy actually leads to terrorism. What I meant was that I
think you have absolutely no way of knowing that "indifference to human
misery " is the US policy that led these jerks to drive planes into
buildings. I have absolutely no idea either. We have no idea because no
one asked these terrorist scum why they did it and they didn't tell
anyone either.

Attacking your counterpart as so lacking in intelligence, competence,
etc as to having "absolutely no idea." is one style. It is, however,
not one that believe contributes to the sort of CSG community that many
of us would wish to construct.

I was not attacking your intelligence at all. I'm sorry that you took it
that way and I am also sorry I expressed myself that way. I should have
said it differently.

Wouldn't it be better before dismissing me, to first find out what I
think rather than mistakenly attribute to me opinions that I do not hold???

I was not dismissing you. I was just arguing against your point and for
mine. I'm sure I could have done better. But I will say that you are
handling what you perceive as my bad behavior far better than the
terrorists handled what they (according to you) perceived to be the bad
behavior of the US government.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.21.1330)]

Me:

Yep. Memory is the second thing to go.

Bruce Gregory (2001.0921.1524)-

I take this as the voice of experience.

I don't remember :wink:

I agree with Bill Williams that it might pay to try to understand
the motives of all involved.

I agree also. But I think it would be most useful (and most feasible) to
understand the motives of the potential audience and adherents to the
terrorist leaders. I think that the terrorists themselves are beyond
hope; they're going to do their thing no matter what. But we've got to
do things in the region that make us look better to their audience. I
think policy analysts have a very good idea of what motivates a lot of
anti-US sentiment: troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel policy, Iraq embargo,
support for corrupt regimes, etc. Some of these things could be fixed up
pretty quickly.

There is quite a bit of expertise on this here at RAND. The
administration is getting some very good advice and it seems to be
understanding it. Most important, I don't think the administration is
going to use conventional military means to deal with this problem.
Colin Powell's approach should prevail. But I may be wrong; Rumsfeld is
kind of militaristic (and an ex-RAND board member, so it's a mixed bag
over here). But it _looks like_ the cooler, subtler heads will prevail.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
MindReadings.com
10459 Holman Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 310-474-0313
E-mail: marken@mindreadings.com

[ From Bill Williams UMKC 21 September 2001 6:00 CST

[ to Rick Marken ]

Me:

You have described the "terrorists" as psychotic, and in other unfortunate
terms

You:

Unfortunate terms? My god, I don't think there are terms to describe
these scum that are unfortunate _enough_!!

I've recently come to the conclusion that words/speech (unfortunate terms etc)
can not injure listeners. I'm repeating myself, but it seems to me that the
pain that words/speech may appear to _cause_ is actually a pain that the
listener generates internally. You could say that the listener has "chosen to
hurt." -- that is by way of the choice of reference levels about speech and self
concept etc. As I understanding it this is an inference derived from control
theory. So, if my understanding is correct, the function of using terms to
describe "terrorists" like "psychotic" or "assholes" or "scum" can only apply to
listeners who do not understand the principles of control theory. Or, perhaps
the speaker fails to understand that words are not actually weapons and
entertains a Or, a magical belief that strong words can wound. But, words are
just words they can't by themselves cause injuries. All this is so obvious,
that after having thought of it I an filled with wonder that it requires any
thought at all. But, it seems to generate a further insight-- I think that the
use of emotionally charged terms may be an indicator that either the speaker or
the listeners in some sense don't understand, or at least apply, control theory
in their communicative performance.

Does my own reaction to words conform to what I understand to be an implication
of control theory? Not perhaps completely, but I do regard speech acts much
differently than I once did. Verbal abuse, it now appears to me, is a misnomer.
Speech can only hurt in combination with reference levels which one chooses.
However, it seems to me that when refers to other persons using terms of abuse,
this may be an indication that the speaker is inclined to regard the person
spoken of as being less that fully human. And, this it seems to me is a mistake.
When one human being regards another human being as being less than fully human
then it seems to me unfortunate results are likely to follow. If this isn't a
self-evident proposition, perhaps the converse case provides a simpler example.
When if ever,does a vile description of another human being serve a constructive
purpose???

Best
  Bill Williams

Are other people experiencing the same webb delays that I am???

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[ From Bill Williams UMKC 21 September 2001 6:00 CST

Are other people experiencing the same webb delays that I am???

I infer from your question that you are experiencing unusual delays. Here in
Connecticut using a modem I am not. (At work I have a T-1 line so that
comparison is not helpful.)

[From Rick Marken (2001.09.22.0850)]

Bill Williams (21 September 2001 6:00 CST) --

it seems to me that the pain that words/speech may appear to _cause_ is
actually a pain that the listener generates internally.

Words evoke imagined perceptions in the listener. To the extent that
these perceptions differ from the listener's existing references there
will be error -- pain -- so in this way words can seem to be the cause
of pain. Words can also cause pain by evoking images in the listener
that lead the listener to perform hurtful acts. Iago uses words this way
in Othello. It's because words can be used in this way that most
civilizations teach their children that it is wrong to use words in
certain ways (free speech or no), in particular it is wrong to use
speech to slander and bear false witness.

You could say that the listener has "chosen to hurt."

I think this is rarely the case. Words hurt because they evoke images
that differ from existing references or because they lead to hurtful
actions aimed at eliminating the word-evoked disturbing perception (as
in the case of Othello and Desdamona).

Verbal abuse, it now appears to me, is a misnomer.

I think it's a perfectly good nomer; you can abuse people with words
quite effectively.

When one human being regards another human being as being less than fully human
then it seems to me unfortunate results are likely to follow.

I think the behavior of the asshole, scumbag terrorists prove this to be
true in spades. I don't think the terrorists are (or were) less than
human. The words I used to describe them are meant to communicate the
obvious fact (obvious to everyone I know or want to spend any time with)
that these slime represent the worst that humanity has to offer in terms
of their choice of reference signals.

When if ever,does a vile description of another human being serve a
constructive purpose???

When those human beings have done something that hurts me (and my loved
ones) beyond speech and comprehension; something that sucks the meaning
out life for my children and their generation; that plunges everyday
life into a fearful, graceless exercise; and that virtually ends
political dialog. In that case, using vile words to describe the human
beings who did this serves the constructive purpose of making the world
(in my imagination) seem a little more sensible.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313