Comments for MarcGopin.com http://www.marcgopin.com Citizen Diplomacy Blog Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:22:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on French anti-Semitism must share the blame for the murders in Toulouse. – Slate Magazine by David Lobron http://www.marcgopin.com/2012/03/23/french-anti-semitism-must-share-the-blame-for-the-murders-in-toulouse-slate-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-9401 David Lobron Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:22:48 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=4276#comment-9401 I think Marc is making a critical point here. Just because democracy and reason failed to stop violence and hatred in the 20th century doesn't make them worthless. I think people have a tendency to reject systems completely when they fail (e.g., people who totally reject the Enlightenment in favor of fundamentalist religion). What if, instead, we try to combine the wisdom from many systems and traditions and let them all have a voice. That mingling of voices seems to me like democracy's greatest strength, as long as it's not stifled. I think Marc is making a critical point here. Just because democracy and reason failed to stop violence and hatred in the 20th century doesn’t make them worthless. I think people have a tendency to reject systems completely when they fail (e.g., people who totally reject the Enlightenment in favor of fundamentalist religion). What if, instead, we try to combine the wisdom from many systems and traditions and let them all have a voice. That mingling of voices seems to me like democracy’s greatest strength, as long as it’s not stifled.

]]> Comment on About by Tahera Zamanzada http://www.marcgopin.com/about/comment-page-1/#comment-9400 Tahera Zamanzada Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:28:40 +0000 http://www.thefirstbasket.com/marcgopin/?page_id=2#comment-9400 You are truly an inspiration and someone to emulate! You are truly an inspiration and someone to emulate!

]]> Comment on EVE OF DESTRUCTION: 2500 YEAR OLD ADVICE by Tisha b’Av 5770 | Time for a change http://www.marcgopin.com/2010/07/19/eve-of-destruction-2500-year-old-advice/comment-page-1/#comment-9388 Tisha b’Av 5770 | Time for a change Sat, 31 Mar 2012 04:15:28 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=3677#comment-9388 [...] http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=3677 [...] [...] http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=3677 [...]

]]> Comment on Dont trust the world by Charlie Reynolds http://www.marcgopin.com/2012/02/14/dont-trust-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-9387 Charlie Reynolds Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:27:05 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=4255#comment-9387 I agree that we must fight for democracy, for basic freedoms, for the achievements of human rights and the valuation of every human life. Ideally this is accomplished through improved understanding and building relationships. Sometimes the use of force is necessary to protect these against those who would destroy them. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 provides an insightful wisdom on the balance of life. The challenge is in determining the correct response in any given circumstance. I believe the key is being motivated by a genuine concern and love for people, but far too often the motive of politicians is power and prestige. We can build trust in our world with those who share the correct motives, even politicians, and seek in doing so to influence the motives of others. I agree that we must fight for democracy, for basic freedoms, for the achievements of human rights and the valuation of every human life. Ideally this is accomplished through improved understanding and building relationships. Sometimes the use of force is necessary to protect these against those who would destroy them. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 provides an insightful wisdom on the balance of life. The challenge is in determining the correct response in any given circumstance. I believe the key is being motivated by a genuine concern and love for people, but far too often the motive of politicians is power and prestige. We can build trust in our world with those who share the correct motives, even politicians, and seek in doing so to influence the motives of others.

]]> Comment on Millions of Indian Muslims Protest Terrorism, Surrender Holiday Spirit: Media Silent by imra-usa.org » Blog Archive » Do Muslims Really Condemn Terror? http://www.marcgopin.com/2008/12/10/millions-of-indian-muslims-protest-terrorism-surrender-holiday-spirit-media-silent/comment-page-1/#comment-9382 imra-usa.org » Blog Archive » Do Muslims Really Condemn Terror? Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:39:28 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=864#comment-9382 [...] Consider the photo above. It is supposed to be an example of Muslims condemning terror acts. Now consider this headline from a Muslim-appeasing Jew: MarcGopin.com, 10 Dec 2008, Millions of Indian Muslims Protest Terrorism, Surrender Holiday Spirit: Media Silent [...] [...] Consider the photo above. It is supposed to be an example of Muslims condemning terror acts. Now consider this headline from a Muslim-appeasing Jew: MarcGopin.com, 10 Dec 2008, Millions of Indian Muslims Protest Terrorism, Surrender Holiday Spirit: Media Silent [...]

]]> Comment on A Different Approach to Russia, China, in terms of Syrian and Global Governance by Cosanostra http://www.marcgopin.com/2012/01/31/a-different-approach-to-russia-china-in-terms-of-syrian-and-global-governance/comment-page-1/#comment-9357 Cosanostra Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:34:35 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=4235#comment-9357 I only want to say one thing : LMAOOO , "We the United States stand for human rights and democracy" , What about Mosaddiq of iran , Gulf PetroDollar Kingdoms , Guatemala , Panama , Jordan . I only want to say one thing : LMAOOO , “We the United States stand for human rights and democracy” , What about Mosaddiq of iran , Gulf PetroDollar Kingdoms , Guatemala , Panama , Jordan .

]]> Comment on A Different Approach to Russia, China, in terms of Syrian and Global Governance by Lack of agreement between the U.S. and Russia on what to do with Syria is giving the regime its confidence, its hope and insistence on persisting in the killing spree « Eslkevin's Blog http://www.marcgopin.com/2012/01/31/a-different-approach-to-russia-china-in-terms-of-syrian-and-global-governance/comment-page-1/#comment-9344 Lack of agreement between the U.S. and Russia on what to do with Syria is giving the regime its confidence, its hope and insistence on persisting in the killing spree « Eslkevin's Blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:08:01 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=4235#comment-9344 [...] A Different Approach to Russia, China, in terms of Syrian and Global Governance by M. GOPIN [...] [...] A Different Approach to Russia, China, in terms of Syrian and Global Governance by M. GOPIN [...]

]]> Comment on A Different Approach to Russia, China, in terms of Syrian and Global Governance by George http://www.marcgopin.com/2012/01/31/a-different-approach-to-russia-china-in-terms-of-syrian-and-global-governance/comment-page-1/#comment-9343 George Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:37:45 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=4235#comment-9343 Thanks for clarifying your basic intentions for your piece. You are also correct that US media tend to be quite poor in providing an analysis of policy that looks past official rhetoric and public relations talking points (spouted both by the US govt and by other govts) and focuses instead on the recent history of relevant govt actions and interests, which speak louder than words. Thanks for clarifying your basic intentions for your piece.
You are also correct that US media tend to be quite poor in providing an analysis of policy that looks past official rhetoric and public relations talking points (spouted both by the US govt and by other govts) and focuses instead on the recent history of relevant govt actions and interests, which speak louder than words.

]]> Comment on A Different Approach to Russia, China, in terms of Syrian and Global Governance by mgopin http://www.marcgopin.com/2012/01/31/a-different-approach-to-russia-china-in-terms-of-syrian-and-global-governance/comment-page-1/#comment-9342 mgopin Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:15:43 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=4235#comment-9342 Well, George, you got my intention about lifting the veil, and perhaps I should have made a stronger case for it from the beginning. As far as why would they give up this veil? There are many 'they's". Many in government would agree with me and do not appreciate these kind obfuscations. So my intent is to strengthen their internal governmental arguments on these matters. Secondly, I have seen very little constructive analysis on this in the media, and I think that sometimes when you lift a veil of a tactic then the tactic becomes less useful. The more widely known it is that the United States is not really being honest with Russia in the discourse of the debate the more easily that the confidential discussions between them can dispense with nonsense and talk about spheres of influence, 'the day after', and other constructive conversations. Well, George, you got my intention about lifting the veil, and perhaps I should have made a stronger case for it from the beginning. As far as why would they give up this veil? There are many ‘they’s”. Many in government would agree with me and do not appreciate these kind obfuscations. So my intent is to strengthen their internal governmental arguments on these matters. Secondly, I have seen very little constructive analysis on this in the media, and I think that sometimes when you lift a veil of a tactic then the tactic becomes less useful. The more widely known it is that the United States is not really being honest with Russia in the discourse of the debate the more easily that the confidential discussions between them can dispense with nonsense and talk about spheres of influence, ‘the day after’, and other constructive conversations.

]]> Comment on A Different Approach to Russia, China, in terms of Syrian and Global Governance by George http://www.marcgopin.com/2012/01/31/a-different-approach-to-russia-china-in-terms-of-syrian-and-global-governance/comment-page-1/#comment-9340 George Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:20:31 +0000 http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=4235#comment-9340 Marc, your thought provoking article makes sense given your conflict resolution background, according to which the parties to a dispute must discuss their real issues and interests, not obfuscate, if progress to resolution without violence is to be made. You write: "What I am arguing for is a form of emerging global governance that strips away self-righteous language from the negotiating state and focuses on ways to transition societies in peaceful and prosperous and more just directions, without using instability and revolution as an opportunity to shift the balance of power between the major global powers." States use the rhetoric of human rights and democracy to sell and justify their proposed policy and to garner legitimacy for their existence. I respectfully ask you, why would they give up such useful rhetoric? The political narratives you sketch early in your piece are important to inculcate psychological identification with the state from an early age, to make elites feel confident about the policies they prescribe, and more generally to sell to the domestic constituency the notion of the necessity of the existence of the state with extensive international ambitions. Regarding the second half of your sentence (following the word "without"), why would stronger powers give up such options? For example, the US govt has undertaken many regime change actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions) in an effort precisely to use "instability and revolution as an opportunity to shift the balance of power" in its favor. You conclude with: "We as analysts and activists must take the veil off of self-righteousness in order to induce more great power honest negotiations, and to more aggressively and quickly serve the human rights of populations in conflict zones around the world." Is this the crux of your proposal, for "analysts and activists" to "take the veil off" by exposing the self-serving policies obfuscated by high-sounding rhetoric? If that's what you mean then, respectfully, you didn't make that clear throughout your piece. You could introduce that idea earlier in the piece and give some examples of such debunking analysis by activists and scholars and examples of how such analysis has been effectively propagated. I conclude with the words of a great American activist from an earlier time (Frederick Douglass) writing about state power: "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will." Best, George Marc, your thought provoking article makes sense given your conflict resolution background, according to which the parties to a dispute must discuss their real issues and interests, not obfuscate, if progress to resolution without violence is to be made.

You write: “What I am arguing for is a form of emerging global governance that strips away self-righteous language from the negotiating state and focuses on ways to transition societies in peaceful and prosperous and more just directions, without using instability and revolution as an opportunity to shift the balance of power between the major global powers.”

States use the rhetoric of human rights and democracy to sell and justify their proposed policy and to garner legitimacy for their existence. I respectfully ask you, why would they give up such useful rhetoric? The political narratives you sketch early in your piece are important to inculcate psychological identification with the state from an early age, to make elites feel confident about the policies they prescribe, and more generally to sell to the domestic constituency the notion of the necessity of the existence of the state with extensive international ambitions.

Regarding the second half of your sentence (following the word “without”), why would stronger powers give up such options? For example, the US govt has undertaken many regime change actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions) in an effort precisely to use “instability and revolution as an opportunity to shift the balance of power” in its favor.

You conclude with: “We as analysts and activists must take the veil off of self-righteousness in order to induce more great power honest negotiations, and to more aggressively and quickly serve the human rights of populations in conflict zones around the world.” Is this the crux of your proposal, for “analysts and activists” to “take the veil off” by exposing the self-serving policies obfuscated by high-sounding rhetoric? If that’s what you mean then, respectfully, you didn’t make that clear throughout your piece. You could introduce that idea earlier in the piece and give some examples of such debunking analysis by activists and scholars and examples of how such analysis has been effectively propagated.

I conclude with the words of a great American activist from an earlier time (Frederick Douglass) writing about state power: “Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will.”

Best,

George

]]>