Serious Problem, Serious Solution

Dave Long dl@silcom.com
Mon, 08 Oct 2001 11:39:04 -0700


[recent events seem to have made
the following mostly moot.  as
partial compensation for stale
bits, I offer a web quiz:
<http://www.alllooksame.com/>
--dl]

> SUGGESTION.  Require the Taliban to turn bin Laden over to a
> non-Afghani Shariat (court of Shari'ah) --- preferably in as
> fundamentalist and conservative a nation as possible, possibly Iran
> --- immediately for judgement. 

Anything wrong with this suggestion?

>From the statements made by the Taliban
so far, it seems unlikely they would
disagree; if they did, it would become
evident to what degree they are acting
on pushtunwali instead of islamic ideas.

If our evidence is as clear as has been
claimed, the verdict should be also.

Civilized* people speak softly, even when
(especially when?) they carry big sticks.

-Dave

* conversely, to go in with guns blazing
is to "cowboy" around.  Remember that
on a rancho the cowboys were only the
/sudras/, but the /kshatriya/ owners
(such as Roosevelt) should have been
acting like gentlemen.**

Then again, this last analogy shouldn't
be pressed too far -- when Arjuna drops
soma in his chariot while wondering if
it's OK to kill his cousins, uncles and
teachers (dude, didn't they know about
set and setting?) his driver morphs to
Krishna, and assures Arjuna that Duty
demands it. (more specifically, that
duty demands that he try, with success
only a side effect.  is that correct?)

I suppose many in this country might
be better hindus than I, for "Duty,
Honor, Country" seems to agree more
with Krishna than with my feeling
that Honor, Duty, Country sorts the
ends properly.

** of course, according to Jefferson
and Lincoln, /varna/ shouldn't exist
in American society; the cowboys ought
to become owners as they acquire their
own grubstakes.

> It was apparently after the Civil War when it became obvious that the
> old ideas about 'free labor' were untenable, and that large numbers of
> people would wind up working for wages their entire life, that the
> concept switched to freedom of contract.

Why were the old ideas untenable?
Are they still?