Ovi -
we cover every issue
Poverty - Homeless  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Ovi Language
Michael R. Czinkota: As I See It...
WordsPlease - Inspiring the young to learn
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
Bob Geldof: The economics of poverty
by Asa Butcher
2007-10-25 00:20:04
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

"I get fascinated by the oxymoron of the economics of poverty, it's a zero sum game, and I get caught up in the meetings and the politics, and then you go back to Africa and you're sitting in a little town and you think this is bullshit," colourfully exclaims Bob Geldof, KBE, during his speech at the 'Making a Difference' seminar organised by the Helsingin Sanomat and the children's charity organisation Plan Finland in Helsinki earlier this month.

Geldof admits that he talks empirically about many aspects of poverty passionately believing that he knows how to resolve these issues, "I'm sure it's not as clear as the way I see it, but it can be," and he then asked, "Why do we always hear about women and children? Why not the poor men of the world who are given no status and no future? It is a terrible cliché that children are our future, but what other option do we have? We don't even have to say that children are our future. We look at children and we see innocence worth fighting for."

"We talk about the idea of rights, but that's a western idea. There are many, many, many parts of the world that don't accept that idea at all and they have very logical, philosophical reasons that they don't. We have to acknowledge this and work around it. Sometimes we confuse our culture with universal values, sometimes we say that human rights are a universal absolute, maybe they may turn out to be parochial values; they may only exist in the culture we developed. We have problems when we insist on our way of thinking, when we bomb our way into democracy, when we insist on this political system that is based on notion of rights, when we insist on it. When a culture may have no understanding of it, when their economy doesn't support it.

"I will fight, literally until I die, for those values. If somebody tried to take them from me I would fight, but does everyone feel that and that's the problem. The answer is no they don't, so we have to consider that when we rare discussing the problems that are discussed already, and what was discussed wasn't just the notion of children or just women or just men, what was discussed was not the problem of rights, what has been discussed is the singular and unnecessary condition of poverty, which in the globalised world is completely ridiculous.

"It is an economic absurdity, which threatens us, and is morally repulsive. You can have human rights and be chronically poor, you can be very wealthy and not believe in human rights. We can't package our values when we are taking the temperature of the world's children, we can't do that. What we can do is attack at its source the problem of poverty and we can achieve it. Poverty is empirical, all other notions need to be arrived at, we arrived a democracy after a logical period of economical development. It didn't come first.

"When we reached a mean, an average level, of well-being we then said we want to decide who rules us. It is happening in China, you can see this in progress. You can see the city states making their own way, it is a weird hybrid, it is a sort of democratic capitalism. It may work, it might not for the Chinese, we don't know if the Chinese economy will succeed, we do know that this year China will take one percent of its population out of extreme poverty – not because of human rights, not because of democracy, but because of trade.

"Don't mistake me. Don't think I'm saying that rights should dismissed or that they are wrong. Don't mistake me when I say that I don't think the voice of the people is the only legitimate reason for rule – I agree with all of those values. What I am saying is let's not confuse the two or three issues

"Non-government organisation are not big enough, the Red Cross, a giant, is not big enough. UNICEF, a giant, is not big enough. You can only deal with the symptoms. I know this, the Band Aid Trust has been doing this for twenty-five years, tiny compared to UNICEF and Red Cross, possibly even Plan, so we deal with it and we build the schools. How many schools has Plan built throughout the world? Hundreds? We need millions! You want to know the condition of the world's children? It's shit! There's the result, we can all go home, we've taken the temperature: awful, a disgrace.

"In fact, the temperature of the world's people is shit. We are very lucky. We live in the lucky part of the world. We don't have to feel guilt; we struggle and we struggled hard in Finland and Ireland to get to this point. We went through an economic revolution in 50 years. Finland went through it very quickly coming out in the '70s with your recessions, we were the same.

"I was reading an article by a Finnish professor on the plane and he talked about the ethics of dignity. We deny dignity to 75% of this planet. We cannot sustain that because they will fight for their human dignity. We can tell them they have rights, we can tell them they should vote, but what they fight for is their right of dignity as a human being, which is what we encode in our notion of human rights.

"It is not a law, we can't insist, we can't bomb them to accept it, but if you say, "This is your dignity." One definition of poverty is the denial of human potential – all the Einsteins, all the Picassos, all the Beethovens, millions of them out there denied and we won't hear them, we won't see the painting, we won't appreciate the genius, because they are dying by the age of ten, by the age of sixteen.

"Tonight, like every night, 90% of the children of Africa will go to bed hungry again because it happened last night and it will happen tomorrow night. Hungry, it is ridiculous even saying that to me, and I say it a lot, but every time I say it I am struck by how ridiculous that is. We live in a world of surplus, to die of want in a world of surplus is not only intellectually absurd, but also morally repulsive. Globalisation has created even more surplus, which is fantastic. Look at the Chinese sucking one percent out of poverty, India is on the track to do the same, Brazil, Mexico, but one continent, uniquely, is left out of the economic basket. Why?

"I asked Tony Blair to examine the why in the year 2003. There must be reasons why this happens. Let's stop all this 'it's this' and 'it's that', let's look and examine it. We did the Commission for Africa, which became the plan for the British G8 held at Gleneagles, but why I should be interested comes from my own relative poverty and the fact that I had no choices. I was reading and listening to this music and, with my self-pity, I thought things could change… I just thought that you don't have to accept what you are told or what you are given. You must be able to change the circumstances of your life – I could, I was from Ireland, but they can't."

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Get it off your chest
 (comments policy)

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-25 01:28:56
"In fact, the temperature of the world's people is shit."
"We deny dignity to 75% of this planet. We cannot sustain that because they will fight for their human dignity."
"why I should be interested comes from my own relative poverty and the fact that I had no choices"
"You must be able to change the circumstances of your life – I could, I was from Ireland, but they can't."

...words NOT to forget

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-25 15:08:34
Thought provoking article coming from experience and leading to action, at least for the perceptive among us. Indeed, in the Renaissance, which was a rebirth of the half-forgotten Graeco-Roman civilization in synthesis with Christianity, what was reborn first was not democracy in full bloom but the concept of the dignity of Man. There is a famous treatise on it by Marsilio Ficino. After that had culturally sank in, then came the concept of inalienable human rights which are associated with the dignity of Man and which neither Greeks nor Romans ever had: they had rights but they were not inalienable, they were granted, nobles oblige, by the allpowerful State which could also withhold them. Then came the idea of self-rule and democracy based on a modicum of prosperity ast was originally the case in Athens and Florence. The whole infrastructure of the Renaissance was based on the Medici’s banking system. If England, which borrowed heavily from the Medici, were to repay with interests that debt which Henry VIII conveniently abrogated, it would go bankrupt. Now England wants to champion Africa’s cause via Blair. is right: stop the preaching on human rights which in any case are derivative of a Christianity which few if any respect or practice in Europe, and put human dignity first. By the way, the concept of inalienable human rights is derived not from Superman overlooking Rio de Janeiro on top of a hill ready to fight for democracy and the American way of life, but from the principles of a humble non-violent preacher in Palestine who used to feed people before preaching to them by multiplying loaves of bread. That, not the multiplication of bread as some sort of magic, is the real miracle that the rationalistic technocratic mind has difficulty grasping.

Sand2007-10-25 16:36:29
As ever Paparella creates statements that beg obvious questions. If, as he states, Christ's multiplication of loaves is not magic, what is it? I wonder what kind of mind finds it not magical.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-25 17:12:54
Think about it and you may eventually get to it; better still use your imagination first and then do the thinking. For example, even if we have no written record of primitive cave man, we can reason to the fact that he could not have made lampshades with human skin the way "enlightened" 20th century man did,because electricity and lamps were not around at the time. The rationalist, listening to the compelling voices in his mind, will however typically insist that since there is no written record we have no idea if primitive man had furniture and lamps in his cave; and he will do this simply to win a point in his shallow diatribes. Eistein was on target: you cannot get out of the box of rationalism with a reason devoit of intuition and imagination.

Sand2007-10-25 18:04:11
Hmmm. Ahaa! Because the Nazis made lampshades out of human skin, THAT'S what made it horrible. If primitive man used human skin for drumheads or shoes or manuscripts, that would be OK according to you.
Now, sticking to the subject (which you slither out of continuously), what about this mysterious bread manufacture? You didn't even approach the question. I'm asking you to tell me your thoughts. Or is thinking as beyond you as I suspect?

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-25 20:47:01
My God, it seems you two forgot the article's point...

Dear respectable gentlemen: I'm living in Portugal (EU), I work for 400 euros or less and a room rent here is 300. On the other hand, I have friends in Peru whom I know will only drink a glass of powder milk today.

It's a shame if you take advantage of this space for an ego-combat. Because, "In fact, the temperature of the world's people is shit."

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-25 21:06:03
Alexandra, thanks for the reminder of what this article was supposed to be all about. I thought however that my first posting did address some of its relevant points. In any case,forget the two juvenile ego-maniacs and consider their message on their own merits. One cannot ask for more. Better, forget their message and consider the message of that humble non-violent man in Palestine mentioned in my first posting who knew something about poverty and preaching to empty stomachs...a point wholly missed by the Supreme Rationalist of this forum guarding the gates of a rationality devoid of imagination. One can of course hope that those who keep silent on the side-lines are not doing so because they find the silly diatribe disagreable not because they agree with that kind of shabby mind-set.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-25 21:09:14
And here fully exposed in the last posting of the self-appointed guardian of the gates of rationalism is the paradox of rationalism: its devotees proclaim that they are interested in truth no matter where it is found and where it comes from, but then they turn around and also proclaim that they are the only ones who can reach truth by a rigorous objective logical method, and anyone who does not adopt such a method or ideology simply will not be listened to and their message will not only remain unconsidered but will also be caricatured. Socrates and Plato called such a paradox sophistry, i.e., a narcissistic desire not to arrive at truth but to win points in a debate and attempt to put one over with cleverness that they are the true “enlightened” men of their time. They exposed them for the fraud they were. Indeed, it would be quite futile to even attempt to explain the meaning of miracles in Scripture to that kind of mind-set that believes a priori that all religion is magic and superstition. In any case, sir, try reading and understanding Plato’s the Euthrypho and as an orthodox rationalist you claim to be pay attention to the message that it contains not the one who wrote it, although come to think of it, an enlightened person ought to also honor the writer of that message if he is truly enlightened.

Thanos2007-10-25 21:35:05
I’m not in Finland at the moment but back to Greece for a week where I often see the phenomenon of the poor really poor and sometimes illegal immigrants. People who still come here from Kosovo, Iraq, Turkey (the …EU candidate member Turkey!!!) Albania, Morocco from all over Africa. I seem to have forgotten also that there are people, pensioners who live with …200 and 300 euros a month.

I’m afraid, and I’m saying that very sadly that we have too much work to do to stop poverty even …in our own house!!!

Sand2007-10-25 21:48:14
I appreciate that the discussion has wandered off topic but the nature of free discussion is that no one can stake out discussion space and declare it inviolable. Since Paparella introduced a most peculiar idea I feel free to request a clearer understanding of what he declared. As usual he has avoided answering my simple direct question. I do not see this as a matter of ego as I am genuinely puzzled. If Christ's multiplication of bread was not magic, please, simply, what was it? To merely rename it as a miracle is unsatisfactory.

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-26 03:46:06
I think you two should appeal to the ancient concept of dignity and have a duel...

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-26 03:55:23
But of course you're free to discuss whatever (and in whatever way) you want...

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-26 04:14:47
I can only understand that Paparella likes to expose his academic knowledge, something which leaves Sand completely pissed, because of Paparella's apparent lack of practical sense or directness. Sand seems to like to explore the human mind, and that's ok. For me, the most important thing is not whom of you is right or wrong, or whom is more or less rational.
As for the multiplication of bread, if a third opinion is allowed, I don't see it as magic either, but as a kind of social metaphor. Each one is free to interpret it his own way, of course.

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-26 04:50:03
ps - and I humbly think that Geldof's enterprise is too important to be disregarded in itself... that's a sort of magic we can all do, can't we?

Sand2007-10-26 07:21:58
Pereira's comments are justified to a good extent but it is not Paparella's knowledge that pisses me off but his totally weird interpretation of it and it strikes me that someone should require simple clarification of his massive obfuscation. Nobody else is performing this necessary social function so it is left to me. So be it. When the floor becomes littered with academic bullshit a sense of intellectual hygiene requires somebody to at least point out it is there.
Insofar as world poverty is concerned, as long as those in power find it is profitable to finance murderers, rapists, and political thugs which in one way or other are pulling the strings of world order then the current situation will persist. There is not a goddamned thing I can do about it, especially since I am past the age when the economy is interested in providing me with even the smallest extra income to contribute to viable opposition to the current idiotic international mess.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 14:47:19
Alexandra, I trust you don’t mind it if I address you by first name as a fellow Ovi team member, and you may of course do likewise, if you so wish. I regret that I seem to have came across to you as some sort of arrogant intellectual “show off,” but that was never my intention; neither was it ever some sort of hidden agenda. I particularly regret it if it turned out to be an unnecessary distraction and perhaps even a turn off from reading my contributions to the magazine which I have thought from the beginning and continue to think as worthwhile at least in this respect, that they shed some light and engender some thinking and discussion on timely issues. The fact that they also engender controversy and even vehement opposition bothers me not a bit; it is all part of a good open-minded magazine where free speech is not only protected but encouraged and people can continue to disagree without becoming discourteous and disagreeable. (continued below)

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 14:52:29
Thr fact that there may be a nemesis in that debate that has taken it upon himself to perform an operation of “intellectual hygiene” and “a necessary social function” to clean “the floor…littered with academic bullshit” (his words, not mine), in more prosaic words, the fact that he has self-proclaimed himself the intellectual pooper scooper of the magazine within some rationalistic poetics of defecation, does not bother me a bit either; that too is part of any vigorous intellectual discourse and besides, the readers will judge for themselves whether or not such “social function” is warranted. What bothers me is the discourtesy and the intellectual bullying that turns an issue into an argumentum at hominem replete with personal insults for any one who dares disagree with what is considered the orthodox politically correct view and the sheer hubris that then calls it a necessary social function. A reader who took my position on the last piece I submitted was promptly dubbed with me a “nincompoops.” (continued below)

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 14:54:45
And it bothers me not so much personally for the boorishness and disrespect that it shows toward myself and readers who may agree with me, but for the fact that those kind of tactics, in my opinion, eventually end up tarnishing the very image of a fine magazine for which we are all working hard as contributors. When I sent my first full length article on a philosopher (Levinas), one of the editor of the magazine kindly informed me that it was the most widely read piece that month. That encouraged me to continue sending articles on great philosophers and thinkers despite the disagreements. Had I wanted to take a pompous academic stance I could have simply sent the articles and refrain from any responses to criticism, but here again, I think that a magazine that does publishes no discussion of issues (Newropeans for example) is really cheating itself of the needed feedback from readers. So, although tempting, I will refrain from disengaging from the needed dialogue of issues taking care at the risk of appearing as one of Ovi’s cartoons: a wiseass. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 15:02:21
Sir, congratulation on your promotion to intellectual pooper scooper of the magazine. Or in more pompous words: the clarifier and social hygienist of academic bullshit. Do I detect an anti-intellectual anti-academic bias too? I wonder too, is it a self-proclaimed title or was it actually assigned to you by the editors of the magazine?

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 15:44:23
P.S. I ask because for a good three months your scooping enlightening pieces were missing at Ovi. I found out by chance that you had removed yourself to an obcure blog (aptly dubbed A Lamb without any guiding Light) where you protested my presence in this magazine at your heart's content unbeknown to me. Interesting intellectual tactics indeed.

Sand2007-10-26 15:53:47
My post at the Lamb site was prompted by the site owner who has seconded my analysis of your posts as replete with foolishness.

This is a direct quote from Paparella: “And here fully exposed in the last posting of the self-appointed guardian of the gates of rationalism is the paradox of rationalism: its devotees proclaim that they are interested in truth no matter where it is found and where it comes from, but then they turn around and also proclaim that they are the only ones who can reach truth by a rigorous objective logical method, and anyone who does not adopt such a method or ideology simply will not be listened to and their message will not only remain unconsidered but will also be caricatured.”

It seems to me that Paparella by his statement has indicated that he believes that rigorous objective logic is defective in approaching reality. Sacrificing frogs at the full moon or mumbling pleas to Zeus or indulging in some other faith based ritual, frankly, seems to me somewhat more anti-intellectual.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 17:26:57
Thank you for proving my point about dubious intellectual tactics consisting in selectivey choosing what to quote and then distort the whole of what has been said. What is conveniently not mentioned here is that I never said that logic is useless and it is not part of reason but that a holistic conception of reason encompasses much more than mere rationality and whem it is reduced to just that it produces the clever by half technocrat or what Vico calls "the barbarism of the intellect."

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 17:41:43
P.S. Of course I do not know you very well, Sir, but judging from the intolerance exhibited toward any other point of view that diverges from yours, and your reprehensible intellectual tactics as exhibited in this magazine, I have a notion that the title of Grand Inquisitor, with accompanying spower to condemn people to the stake and have them and their opinions disappear from the stage (something already expressed by you on another comment) would probably be more fitting than that of a lowly intellectual pooper scooper. Indeed, one of the paradoxes of biased unreflected stances is that one eventually becomes the carbon copy of the very thing one is fanatically and misguidedly inveigning against. Jung called it projection.

Sand2007-10-26 17:57:46
You now seem rather uncomfortable with the language I quoted from your own post. That's encouraging.

I find the title of Grand Inquisitor much too overbearing. Your obvious paranoid reaction to my request for clarification of your proposals by characterizing these simple requests on the basis that I am persecuting you indicates that perhaps you should look into psychiatry on a more personal level than citing Jung.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 18:54:52
Spoken as a Grand Inquisior. There was one such in the Soviet Union some fifty years ago: he banished people who diagreed with him to insane asylums. He was not a very nice person.

Sand2007-10-26 19:05:47
Paparella, your paranoia is showing again. American psychiatrists are doctors, not agents of totalitarianism. Is an inquisior less of a problem than an inquisitor?

Your rejection of all my requests for clarification, of all of my friendly advice to regenerate your mental health makes it very difficult for me to help you.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 20:54:10
Fortunately you can only play the game of self-proclaimed Grand Inquisitor and Grand Social Hygienic intellectual pooper skooper in the virtual reality of your computer and the damage there will be minimal. I shudder to think what you'd to any of your opponents had you some political power in the real world out there. Indeed, the shift from the classical Aristotelian will to truth to the "enlighten" Nietzschean will to power has produces quite a few monsters and Grand Inquisitors in our "enlightened" times.

Sand2007-10-26 20:57:06

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 21:16:18
That kind of profundity ought to earn a high five by one of your psychophants!

Sand2007-10-26 22:11:25
Halloween is in season and since you seem so frightened of the Inquisitor it seemed the right thing to do.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-26 22:54:35
Applause from goblins and monsters from the grandstand of your unique poetics derivative of a good meal of black beans.

Sand2007-10-26 23:04:17
I'll know a monster when I see it. You are merely a confused old man but happy Halloween anyway.

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-27 00:20:45
Gentlemen (won't call you guys because of your age and mine)... you just love each other in the end! :)

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-27 02:32:19
Thanks Alexandra for dropping the idea of a duel; the Grand Inquisitor of this forum may have taken it seriously as a chance to defend political correctness, albeit he calls me an old man and he happens to be at least 15 years my senior...What was the name of that movie: Grumpier old men? In any case your remarks on the matter of magic in religion is interesting and on the right track. If I had supplied one at Mr. Sand's frantic insistence he would have undoubtedly used it as ammunition to offer "generous, charitable" and "friendly" advice on how to "regenerate one's mental health." I know his sly tactics only too well by now. But to return to the subject of miracles, have you noticed that whenever Christ was put up by Pharesees and other hypocrites in bad faith of the times, to perform a miracle understood as a magical act for their enjoyment, he would not give them the satisfaction. The miracle is a sign of faith not an entertainment for clowns at a circus. Hence Christ would say something to the effect that: this generation without faith asks for a sign but a sign will not be given. The nexus is clear and as I have already expressed the greater miracle is not the external sign but the internal act of faith which even a scientist does whenever he embarks via science on a search for truth rather than one for power. He has faith in the power of human reason, correctly understood. The miracle happens when people refuse to teach abstract notionf of ethics to people who are starving and show concern for their physical well being first and then for the spiritual for the two are also connected. Thanks for the exchange of views.

Sand2007-10-27 06:33:26
Interesting that my age determines the age of someone else. Actually age is a matter of mental flexibility and I perceive little of that in Paparella.
I am grateful that he has, after much requesting, finally come up with a way of distinguishing miracles from magic. It seems that, by his definition, miracles are not entertaining. Jesus would never have pulled coins out of kids' ears nor released a flight of pigeons from his sleeves. Nevertheless there are stories of him walking on water and raising the dead which might have evoked a smile or two. He was never caught sticking pins into dolls or emitting lightning from his fingertips. It seems a very personal definition but it at least is, finally, clear.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-27 07:16:07
Just as I thought. A sophist never asks a question to search for the truth; he already has it a priori and simply needs an answer which can then be mocked and caricaturized.

Sand2007-10-27 08:18:52
Ad hominem?

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-27 12:53:11
Indeed most of your answers are ad hominem and in fact even your questions are ad hominem, which is good news; I'd hate to think of them as ad robotum; or am I wrong in that regard?

Sand2007-10-27 13:12:20
Why do you doubt yourself, Paparella? You are revealing a novel attribute.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-27 15:10:05
When in doubt think with your computer.

Jack2007-10-27 22:38:15
Whether Jesus literally multiplied the bread by the suspension or intervention of the natural laws of science (has happened before), or whatever you would call it (ie, magic), the point is that Jesus did feed the poor. Even in the most feeble of differences in world hunger we may feel we can make, to make none whatsoever, no effort at all, becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy. Jesus must have known He could not feed them all, but He feed those that He could. What percentage of the world's populationd do this?

This defeatist attitude, multiplied by thousands of others who feel likewise, and helpless to make a difference, only ensure it's getting worse.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-27 22:47:52
My point, and I think Alexandra's point too, is that without the internal act of faith the working of miracles becomes the magic of the stage and the circus. Christ refused to perform miracles as a magician and an entertainer where he found no faith. So the miracle is the external manifestation of an internal act of faith on the part of the miracle worker and the recipient of the miracle; it will not happen "magically." That is the misguided interpretation and the caricature of the rationalist our to grind an ax against religion. Funny thing is that he too begins to do science only because of an internal act of faith in the ability of reason to lead to truth. Aquinas taught us that much some 800 years ago.

jim2007-10-28 08:16:12
sand and paparella remind me of an old comedy sketch called 'History Today' - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA

don't you both think you are undermining your points with this bickering? the point of the article was poverty and that has been totally overlooked.


Sand2007-10-28 10:38:15
What is sad to me is that none of the points made interests many of the readers at all. There is very little if any cogent analysis in comment from anybody else and only irritation that two people can become heated over what they believe to be important.
The problems of poverty are intrinsically embedded in the inequalities of th current economic systems and there is nothing to be done about it with the self serving incompetents now in power.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-28 14:12:59
Indeed it is not passion for a cause, even a misguided one,that will do us in but apathy and indifference.

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-28 14:30:52
Dear Sand:

The people in power are there because someone puts them there.

If you want to do something about it, please read the article on Bruno Buendia. This will show you there are many possibilities, I think.

Jack2007-10-28 17:09:34
I agree with the author. The point of poverty and doing nothing about it. We may not be able to unseat all those politicians but we can help our neighbor or help those who can't help themselves. Case in point, Feed The Children returns almost 100% of their donations into food. I am not going to set by apathetically and do nothing, this ensures nothing will change. Change in the world starts at least with us...

Sand2007-10-28 18:06:46
Be assured that the people put those there in power because those in power made damned sure that the people running for office are well rewarded for supporting whatever those in power desire. All major media are controlled by wealthy sources and they see to it that the elected behave themselves or are defeated in elections.
It is admirable that individuals donate to the needy but charity will not save the world.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-28 18:08:57
Indeed jim, before what you call the "comedy sketches" began in this forum, as I remember, there were precious few comments under the articles. Not many people seemed to be eager to get anything off their chest, if indeed they had anything within their chest, to use a famous metaphor of C.S. Lewis. There are still too few enlightening replies and discussions in my opinion but perhaps you'd agree that what we have now is a bit better than apathy and indifference to the vital issues of the day represented by empty comment spaces?

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-28 18:13:57
In Bernano's Diary of a Country Priest there is a conversation about world poverty and power and at one point an intriguing question is proposed: is all this heated protest against the rich and powerful love of the poor or envy of the rich? There is a difference between a St. Francis of Assisi and a Stalin.

Alexandra Pereira<2007-10-28 20:14:27
You are right, charity won't save the needy, they also need THE CHANCE to get education or develop their talents. But I know no one who can do this starving...

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-28 20:23:27
"Saving the world" is far too much. If one says to him/herself once in a while something like: "Well, I have the chance to help on this issue, so why not?", I think that's enough for a start.
The poor in the world don't need riches to "save them", because they have as much (or more) human potential as them. They just need chances... a chance to eat dinner tonight, a chance to study this, a chance to call there, a chance to protect from violence, a chance to have a jacket. In sum, the right to dignity.

Sand2007-10-28 21:40:16
Fine. What do you suggest?

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-28 22:09:03
I agree Ms. Pereira, but I also would propose that before we proceed to caricatures and dress Christ in a superman's circus costume as some kind of magician we reflect on the rabbi in Palestine who some 2000 years ago would not preach spiritual salvation to those who were starving and would not apply the rigor of the law to the woman caught in adultery, and not because he was above the law but because he was suggesting a better more compassionate way; not that of social revenge but that of forgiveness. Indeed there is a difference between Francis of Assisi and Stalin. They both claimed to love the poor.

I find it intriguing that the mention of the multiplication of bread on another posting on poverty attracted attention only from you who suggested the correct interpretation os the link with faith and the internal predisposition toward justice. Another wanted an immediate explanation to proceed to his caricatures. Were were all the other champions of social justice who read and contribute to this magazine? I surmise they went to a soccer game.

Sand2007-10-28 22:18:39
But of course, Paparella, all those little boys that the Catholic priests were screwing should turn the other cheek. Christ didn't specify which set of cheeks should have been turned, did he?

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-28 22:30:35
And of course, the caricaturist out to grind the his biased ax against religion and justify his atheism, will never tell you that to put the whole matter in some kind of perspective the shameful and reprehensible crime of pedophilia is not the sole prerogrative of one single instittution, the Catholic Church, which is what he is slanderously peddling here, and it is in fact lower percent wise than that found in other institutions such Protestant denominations, schools, families and secular orphanages. You will not hear that mentioned; only the convenient truths.

Sand2007-10-28 22:54:06
An interesting point of view. The Catholic criminals are guiltless because there are other criminals. I guess mutual guilt should excuse them all.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-28 23:39:35
That they are guiltless was never expressed in this forum; that is simply another voice in your head...You ought to stop listening to those voices Sir.

Sand2007-10-28 23:54:18
Then why enter the indication that others beyond Catholic priests who were entrusted to care for the young are also guilty unless it is meant to mitigate Catholic guilt?

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-29 00:21:01
What needs mitigation is your overt bias and hypocritical Catholic bashing sir unable to keep the issue in perspective. Here are some statistics from a psychiatrist who treats pedophiles:

Thomas Plante, a California psychologist at Santa Clara University who treats those who have molested minors writes that "The best data we have is that approximately 5 percent of priests have a predilection toward minors," he declared. "That seems consistent with other clergy who are not priests (such as Protestant ministers or rabbis)." Moreover, Plante cites research suggesting that among the general population, 8 percent feel sexually attracted to children – a higher percentage than among priests or other clergy. Such numbers, or course, reflect those who feel sexually drawn to contact with kids, rather than indicating the percentage who actually act upon this inclination which among Catholic clergy is 2%.


Sand2007-10-29 06:08:08
I am not bashing anybody, merely trying to understand your attitude. What you are saying is that the most intensive indoctrination in the Catholic religion (which is what it takes to become a priest) is totally helpless to affect the morality of pederasts and, as openly reported in the press of the USA, Ireland and Australia, the accepted morality of the hierarchy was to move the accused priests from their previous area of activity to a new location here they again put children in danger. The very heavy damages payments of the various dioceses confirms the truth of these moral lapses. So what is the use of the whole Catholic business if it is ineffective?

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-29 17:22:56
A bit of math and logic so dear to rationalists, albeit devoid of ethical moral considerations, may help. If the general population, as per Dr. Plante, produces a human nature that is 8% prone toward pedophilia, and Judaism, Protestantism and Catholicism produces clergy that is 5% so inclined (with 2% who act on it; less in Catholicism than the other two religious denominations)then one must logically conclude that at the very least one must consider the possibility that the religious moral doctine and training may have had something to do with those statistical results. To consider it is neither illogical nor unreasonable. Has it been 100% effective? No. Does pedophilia remain a monstrosity? Yes. Should it be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Of course. Does it do honor to any institution who winks at it? Absolutely not. But for crying aloud, report it in perspective or the suspicion remains that you are simply utilizing the issue to do an unfair and slanderous and biased bashing of a millenial institution that cannot be judged and assessed by mere caricature and you may be simply grinding the usual anti-religion ax. The atheist Santayana has some valuable lessons in that respect which would make your passionate atheism a bit more persuasive and respectable and perhaps make a dialogue possible. Look him up!

Sand2007-10-29 17:58:25
I have no problems with the occurrence of pedophilia of Catholics as a common statistic but I would imagine the organization of the religion should be rather sensitive to its occurrence in their midst. I have heard no reports of other religions having the multiple appearance of the malady in the same rate as the Catholics but what is much more disturbing is the systematic action of the Catholic hierarchy which should be very sensitive to moral violations to hide and protect the pedophiles and even put them into new situations where they could damage the young further. You have ignored this frightening aspect of the Catholic hierarchy altogether and this seems to me to be a major failing of the religion. Why do you even attempt to defend this?

Sand2007-10-29 18:21:12
"Civilization is perhaps approaching one of those long winters that overtake it from time to time. Romantic Christendom - picturesque, passionate, unhappy episode - may be coming to an end. Such a catastrophe would be no reason for despair." - George Santayana

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-29 18:50:46
"Why do you even attempt to defend this?"

Once again you have been listening to those voices in your head, given that I have never defended pedophilia in any shape and form from whatever quarter. Meanwhile the simple point of logic and perspective is wholly ignored. As previously advised, you ought to stop listening to those mischevious voices for they are up to no good.

As for Santayana, take notice that he calls it a disaster; which means he has a deep understanding of Western Civilization and its values, independent of his own subjective stance on them. He learned well from Vico about the recurring cycles of history and the deaths and rebirths uniques to Western Civilization. There is much to learn from both men. Whatever they were, one could not accuse them of being burdened by ignorance issuing in mere caricature of Western Civilization understood as a synthesis of Graeco-Roman and Christianity; they way even our Deistic founding fathers understood it.

Sand2007-10-29 19:00:50
Are you dyslectic, Paparella? I very plainly did not accuse you of defending pedophilia. I questioned your defense of the Catholic Church authorities who protected and hid away the pedophile priests and enabled them to continue their disgusting practices. Read it. Read it again. then think about it.
Santayana clearly states that the demise of Christianity is not to be regretted. Read that again a couple of times until it is clear.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-29 21:28:46
I said that that pedophiles and their accomplices and enablers should all be prosecuted to the full extent of the law no matter who they are and their political or ecclesiastical rank; but I also said that the issue should be kept in perspective as also the issue of two thousand years of Christianity. Chesterton has an interesting passage in his book Orthodoxy where he mentions that the Church, like its founder, has been declared dead and finished many times but somehow it has survived 2000 years, more than any other institution in the West. Santayana as well as Christopher Dawson mention this unique aspect of Western Civilizaztion. So I think it would be misguided to uncork your bottle of champagne. Not yet, you'll have to do much more ax grinding and bashing first. Intriguing too that Santayana spent the final years of his life in a monastery in Rome. As the erudite scholar he was he studied a subject to understand it in depth before attacking with irony or satire. That is quite different from shallow caricatures. In fact he became an expert on the medieval perior and its greatest poet: Dante.

Sand2007-10-29 22:21:27
That the church has lasted two thousand years is no guarantee of its future although I must concede that prediction of its immanent demise seems somewhat exaggerated. I am not out to destroy your beloved church but I am much complimented that you think me so capable. I just would like people to be able to think a bit straighter and after that the church will just have to take its chances. Anyway, considering how ineffective I have been with you, I fail to see why you are so worried.

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-29 23:56:44
"Fine. What do you suggest?"
Well, I think everyone should take at least just a little bit of responsibility in helping someone else who is in worst condition (according to each one's possibilities, of course... I think people with more resources have responsibilities too, but of course not all of those people actually feel they do). Sometimes you have to search for what makes sense for you to help on. This might require some research, or for you to take some time to think about it. Best regards, and good luck.

Sand2007-10-30 03:52:58
Thanks for the advice. As an 81 year old scratching by on minimum social security and not able to get employment to supplement my meager income I cannot see how I can be of use in the problem. That's why I asked for your advice.

Alexandra Pereira2007-10-30 14:32:40
...There's another option. I suggest you two get together to have your duel in Lisbon, half way for both, and pay me a proper dinner sitting on comfortable old men chairs in the veranda of the design museum (Sand's taste), looking over the Tagus where, according to the legend, Ulysses navigated when he came to found the city many centuries ago (Papparela's taste), and there discuss the rethorics of rationality and the phenomenology of dignity. While I eat my dinner.
Of course, Sand, helping doesn't always nor necessarily imply giving money. But you know that.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-30 15:44:53
Ah, Lisbon, Estoril, Fatima! It brings back fond memories, for it happens to be the place of my honeymoon some forty years ago. That was the time when dictator Salazar was still around ensuring law and order without justice …Does the new generation even know who he was or being “Newropeans” absolves them from knowing their millenial heritage and history? Be that as it may, wonderful place, wonderful people and the idea of conversation and dinner at the desing museum in a comfortable old men’s chair is surely appealing; for convivial conversation and dialogue are great condiments to any food. I may suggest it to my wife as a way to go down memory lane, but Lisbon for a duel? I’ll leave that to the EU politicians and bureaucrats who have congregated there to put another one over the EU people on a constitution which is no longer a constitution but a treaty and not subject to the democratic approval of the people. Are we slouching back to 1968 and beyond? Personally I would not wish to spoil those above mentioned memories with a duel over a storm in a tea-cup. So thanks again but not thanks. It is more fun and much more beneficial to spar with words. Who knows, one may hit the mark some day. On the other hands if you hit somebody with a bullet, he is dead for good with all his memories and he has stopped learning anything for good even if the place he dies in was founded by Aeneas or Ulysses. By the way, Dante places Ulysses in hell for having gone over the limits of Hercules’ columns and challenged the gods. Food for thought in Lisbon or any other place, albeit I am afraid it will not dispel physical hunger in Africa or Latin America or any place else. On the other hand, as important as bread is, Men, even old men, do not live by bread alone. You know that, surely.

Sand2007-10-30 17:23:04
But Alexandra, you have adopted Paparella's point of view that I'm driven by personal animosity that can only be solved by violence. I abhor violence and certainly would not perform such savagery against such a mentally challenged creature as Paparella who's nervous system is too far gone through either age or religious brainwashing to put up even a modest defense. I am trying to reach down to those few ganglions of his that still may have a dendrite or two that could shiver back to life under the proper stimulation. He continuously accuses me of bashing his superstitions but I am merely trying to encourage him to lay them to rest with the rest of his childish fairytales. Certainly it is an act of true compassion to provoke him to discover that he too can operate in the fields of which humanity has distinguish itself, logic and reason.
I have never visited Spain but, for a couple of years lived in northern Manhattan where the Latinos kept their radios going at full blast until 2 am. Spain doesn't tempt me from the peace of Helsinki where I can just manage a monthly bus ticket to and from downtown.
Insofar as helping the poor is concern, I bake a terrific chocolate cake with a fudge icing so if you can finance its transport to the Congo or perhaps the rain forest of South America I will get one ready.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-30 18:02:00
Uncanny how life imitates art. Have you seen the movie "Grumpier Old Men" Ms. Pereira? It takes place in Minnesota but otherwise if fits. The stars are Jack Lemmon, Walter Matheau (both passed on, the two grumpy olf men, and the incomparable Sophia Loren. The two old men spend the last few years of their lives fishing but as fun as that is they cannot desist from dueling with each other in more ways than one but the violence is a mockery of sort...It must have had a message considering that it grossed some $71,000,000. A modest proposal: rather than a duel why not invite us to stage another such movie in Lisbon? It may solve our financial problems.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-30 18:28:57
To the self-proclaimed "intellectual hygeinist and pooper scooper of intellectual crap" at Ovi magazine, otherwise known as Grand Inquisitor and gate keeper of political correctness (dubbed by Vico "barbarians of the intellect") a word of counsel: you ought to consider desisting to talk to those voices in your head who inform you about me and what I said or not said, and talk to the gods from time to time. It may surprise you how much more sane and profitable poetic that is.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-30 18:38:44
And after-thought: I wonder if has occurred to the Grand Inquisitor hygienist that the violence of the "barbarian of the intellect" of today is much more pernicious than that of the physical barbarian of yesterday. If not he ought to think of the Hennessee conference where the Holocaust was planned in two hours over chocolate cake and brandy served by pretty ladies. It would not surprise me if they also had in the background the Wagner's music of the Niebelung.

Sand2007-10-30 18:54:17
Y'know, Sand fits me fine. I really am not a man for pernicious titles.
But your dementia really goes overboard in labeling chocolate cake as antisemitic. It never hit me that such a strong advocate of the Catholic Church should be a member of the Israeli lobby.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-30 19:11:21
You are listening to the voices in your head once again Mr. Sand. And by the way, Latino as a wide brush of noice makers and loudmouth to brand a whole race of people is quite a revealing stereotipization. I am surprised you have not included the whole of Southern Europeans. It is just a glimpse but it certainly fits well with your Catholic bashing and other biases you have exhibited in this forum. Ayn Rand would no doubt approve.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-30 19:18:51
P.S. Also, Portugal is not Spain. Lisbon is the capital of Portugal. They even speak different languages. Invariably, bias is sister to ignorance.

Sand2007-10-30 20:37:19
I wonder why you pump up your ego on such false trivial matters. Have you nothing else to brighten the desolation of your mental landscape?

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-30 22:01:00
Again the voices in your head have misled you; that Portugal is not Spain may be trivial but it is not false. It is false only in your head as much of the rationalistic biased intellectual garbage you liberally peddle in this forum thus undermining the very issues you wish to champion and fanatically spread. On intellectual desolation, you may begin unberdening yourself of the ignorance you exhibit by reading T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland. It speaks of the rationalism wrought to us by a false conception of what reason is all about.

Sand2007-10-31 05:42:35
It's amusing how your puerile domesticated intellect sniffs after my rear end like a dog seeking some identity signal. My vague mention of the desolation of your mind immediately scooted your obedient nose to Eliot's Wasteland where you try to stuff(as is your persistent habit) some unidentified part into the empty space demanded by your commitment to supply a personal answer. As usual you deflect any personal requirement to someone else. An obvious ploy of an empty mind.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-31 09:58:40
Ah, dogs sniffing rear ends. It fits quite well with your unique poetic of defecation and your self-proclaimed title of "intellectual pooper scooper and hygenist" protecting the purity of political correctness. Mr.Gaebyeck had it on target: "Sand, get over yourself." The pathetic identity you project is reminiscent of that of Dante's "lantern man" holding his own decapitated head for light in one of hell's caves. Quite appropriate for Halloween. Can't you hear the gods laughing?

Sand2007-10-31 14:02:15
If you hear gods laughing why are so sure it is me they are laughing about? Anybody who distinctly receives communication from gods is obviously in need of psychiatric supervision.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-31 16:29:07
I did not say the gods were laughing at you; that was said by one of the voices in your head. In any case, given that the vast majority of the people of the world believe in a creator God, that makes them all eligible for psychaitric supervision with Sand and his like-minded minority the only sane and clever people in the world. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be the other way around? The fact that it does not may be why you cannot hear the gods laughing.

Sand2007-10-31 16:47:05
I'm sure it gives you comfort to be allied with the mass in our species that currently and throughout history has maintained a remarkable record for unnecessary human butchery and oppression. That's pretty wacko by my standards. I choose my allies with more care.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-31 17:51:00
Indeed, it begins with choosing carefully one's friends and it ends with putting the undesirables in ovens...to help evolution along a bit...the likes of latinos, Italians, people who go to church, people who don't think and act like oneself, people who cherish tradition and heritage, people who conceive of reason holistically, etc etc. In the end what is left is a deterministic world without religions because the likes of Ayn Rand and Jan Sand and Hitler and Stalin are the new gods. If that is not wacko and intolerant and violent, much more than physical violence, I don't know wha is. Fortunately those new barbarians of the intellect are not yet allowed to act on their pernicious agenda and hidden ideology. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, indeed.

Jan Sand2007-10-31 18:09:20
Jan Sand, Ayn Rand, Hitler and Stalin. How is it a religious extremist like you left off Satan? You are on the edge of accusing me of mass murder. I suppose you picked up quite a few techniques from Senator Joe McCarthy.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-31 19:00:19
Once again you are listening to your paranoid voices Jan Sand. All I said is that intolerance and bias toward religion and other institutions in the name of a misguided conception of reason is the beginning of a process which eventually ends with the gulags and the lagers; what the CIA (another child of rationalism) calls "extreme prejudice." It is up to you to determine how extremist is your position or where you are in that process. One thing is sure: rationality alone will not get you out of the constricting box of rationalism and a deficient conception of reason.

Sand2007-10-31 19:25:14
Since the rational approach is so alien to your mental capability I don't wonder you use emotional castigation to denigrate people who question your analysis. You present yourself as a moral individual but your accusations are totally without base and reveal you as a truly nasty individual.

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-31 21:12:45
Wonderful example of what Jung called "projection." Now apply the statement to yourself and, in your heart ot hearts, without telling anybody, answer to yourself: does it apply to me and my ad hominem or ad canem intellectual tactics? The honesty with which you answer that question to yourself may porve to be the first step toward intellectual sanity and a holistic conception of reason and rationality. But of course nobody can guarantee it. We are free and not pre-determined.

Alexandra Pereira2007-11-01 01:06:13
It seems you two understood my word duel in the literal sense, when I actually meant a "word-duel" as well... just placed elsewhere.

Alexandra Pereira2007-11-01 01:19:59
Actually, I think you've helped already by writing some articles, and I'm sure you know that's one of the ways of helping (by denouncing things), as a smart man you are.
The Latinos you met in New York were new excluded americans, probably coming from Mexico or Puerto Rico, and they had their own way of expressing their angers, more or less aesthetic for sure, but they should have different lives and personal stories as well. Portugal is not in Spain (that's as trivial as the US being in Mexico... even because it's the oldest country in Europe), and Lisbon is calm, tranquil, with no Latino turmoil. Spain is worth a visit, as least because of Cordoba, Alhambra and Barcelona, and I'm pretty sure it is not the clatter you imagine (nor the one the finnish newspapers' headlines convey...), don't forget it's the favorite place of retired finns themselves...
ps - not long ago, I tried a cocoa cake coming directly from maputo (mozambique) to europe and it tasted wonderfully. sometimes I think I can save the money of a cake's ingredients and send a letter somewhere. sometimes I think about exchanging my books, or send a book to someone. I'm so silly...

Alexandra Pereira2007-11-01 01:33:22
If the this generation of portuguese "newropeans" (as you call them) would be dependent of the memory of Salazar to know their millenial heritage and history, they would be fried... our parents have put the red carnations on top of their guns and kept bleeding from their souls the horrors of war, so we must know something about. Anyway, it worries me that you prefer the calm memories of a rotten dictatorship (even if honey moon ones) to the reality of a (kind of groggy) democracy. About the european constitution/treaty, I think you don't have to worry much that countries like portugal will become completely democratic as well, as E.U. as always been only for some.
ps - on the proposal of shooting another such movie in Lisbon, you can invite Paul Auster to be the director, as he likes to shoot around here and would love the characters.

Alexandra Pereira2007-11-01 01:38:23
Sand - meant "at least because of Cordoba"
Paparella - meant "If this generation"

Alexandra, the blast-iberian-newropean

Sand2007-11-01 05:24:25
Paparella, you are no one to lecture anyone about intellectual sanity and your resort to associate me with the despicable Rand, Hitler and Stalin puts you in their class. I find you disgusting and not worthy of discussion.
Your boy Jung is reported to be convinced books on his shelf would spontaneously explode. I do not find him a useful or reliable source.
Insofar as Portugal is concerned I merely reported my actual experience with Latino people. My transfer of my suspicions to Portugal may be off base but I do not admit to blanket condemnation of any national group. Paparella's eager distortion of my experience to manufacture disreputable conclusions is outrageously unjustified and a clear indication of the repellent quality of his character.

Emanuel Paparella2007-11-01 12:36:44
Projection, voices in one's head, intellectual pooper scooping and hygenist, champion of political correctness, Catholic and Jew bashing, intolerance of religion, intellectual bullying? Take you pick, for you have exhibited all of these nasty traits even if accompanied by claims of love of non-violence. You can of course remain in denial and continue to project but what the little child screamed remains true: the Emperor is naked.

Emanuel Paparella2007-11-01 12:49:22
Ms. Pereira, the term "Newropeans" was not devised by me but by Mr. Franck Biancheri, a Frenchman who runs a think tank and a political party and an on-line magazine by the same name (often hosted on Ovi) and who also thinks that many EU politicians have betrayed both democracy and the people they represent. Look him up under Newropeans.

As far as he fond memories, I get the drift of your critique. All I can say is that if we were to travel only to places where democracy is thriving and avoid the places where dictators run the show (and this was especially true in the 50s and 60s)I am afraid one would have to exlude half the world from one's travel itinerary and had I done that I would never have met some of the most lovely people I met in Portugal at the time, despite Salazar. Sometimes political correctness can be carried a bit too far, don't you think?

Alexandra Pereira2007-11-01 14:07:12
Mr. Paparella:
I know the magazine and it's name, but am I wrong to think you sometimes use the term in an ironic way? That's okay.
I didn't say you shouldn't travel to where dictators rule (Bush's playground would have to count then), it's just intriguing to prefer to keep dictator memories to democracy ones, for as nice as the people you met then were.

Sand2007-11-01 15:10:28
My consistent rejection of the inconsistencies and cruelties and rejection of the obvious realities of the universe by the Catholic Church and of the Jewish religion (although I cannot recall including the Jewish religion in my remarks) is now characterized by you as Catholic and Jew bashing. From this I perceive that you are particularly sensitive to all the religions derived from the source of Abraham which means, of course, that you probably endorse the religiously motivated interactions of the Sunni and Shia groups in their vigorous struggles to settle their differences. And, by the same token, and a bit closer to home, the recent years long violences in Ireland between the purely Christian factions which exhibited outstanding exercises in brutality must have delighted you as to how Christians settle their problems.
Outside of these groups may I assume you endorse my condemnation of the brutality of the religious factions in Sri Lanka and Nepal and India and Pakistan and Afghanistan or is this another example of my religion bashing which you feel should be rejected to permit religion free rein? Are all those various gods laughing at the gullibility of humans who support their belief? The gods really do not appeal to me as a congenial bunch.

Emanuel Paparella2007-11-01 16:09:21
Here we go again, caricature parading as scholarship and serious thinking, but the emperor remains naked.

Emanuel Paparella2007-11-01 16:16:33
Ms.Pereira, as mentioned, my memories are of nice people and my honeymoon not the dictator I never met and never applauded. I have reminded Franch Biancheri of this and I'll repeat it again for you; to declare oneself the new European is fine but that means that all the more one ought to remember carefully all the bloody history of the 20th century or risk the danger of repeating it. This new European is not a genetically modified human being; it is one who has decided that peace is smarter than war and ideologies but he is not Roussonian romantic man born innocent in some kind of earthly garden. The is always a snake in every earthly garden and only the naive ignore that reality.

Sand2007-11-01 16:32:03
Here we go again ignoring the issues and castigating the presenter.

Emanuel Paparella2007-11-01 17:10:07
Here we go again, good at dishing out not so good at receiving, presenting oneself as the aggrieved victim. But Jung had it on target: once we proclaim others inferior humans and oneself superior with a superior rational ideology, one has then to find the inferiors and dispose of them in some way in order to continue rationalizing one's superiority. You ought to look up Jung. He has much to teach to delusional post-modern "enlightened" clever by half Man.

Sand2007-11-01 17:18:58
Very interesting. Who is declaring whom superior? I made no such estimation - or do you object to me having an opinion.?

Emanuel Paparella2007-11-02 11:57:00
"The shadow knows!"

Sand2007-11-02 18:22:25
Yes, yes, Lamont. It's time for your medication.

Emanuel Paparella2007-11-02 20:44:13
Is Lamont one of your pet dogs Mr. Frankestein?

Sand2007-11-03 05:13:46
Being young and ignorant obviously protects you from the realities of life. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi