strings extend from your fingersI look up and see your face aboveintent on your motionsdetached and attached from your every move
A delicate operation, you thinkI will take just this motion from abovebut you are seduced by yourselfthin wires remain your only link
A thought remains, we teach the apes the little thingsTo sweep, to feed, but still exclaim"Forget not, lest the inmates run the asylum"The idea is strange for just a little whileAnd then our eyes meet the puddle
An interesting division of view on terrorism, perhaps akinto the "double standard" that feminists note: Idea thatterrorism has a cause, and that it is typically the result ofan injustice done upon reasonable people repeatedly marginalizedor polarized. This suggests that removing the impetus for terrorism,and having better communication and dialogue can resolve the situation.Another perspective: Terrorism is a transgression, and either has noreason, or the reasoning is inherently criminal in nature, and so it shouldbe fought with police/military action. These relate to two very differentviews on human nature, that humanity is basically reasonable in nonexceptionalcircumstances, and that humanity can stray from civilized behavior and shouldbe punished when straying. Another, nuanced viewpoint would be that valuedifferences, with a possible difference on the categorical imperative, explainhow differently people act, and that while punishment and bluster offer littlevalidity (besides the idea of 'beating into submission'), neither can oneexpect convergence, and there is very little substance to the idea of avalue-neutral reasonability. The third viewpoint, being less rosy, isunlikely to be often heard. In the meantime, we of course will see a lot ofpress by people with the 'judgement' view and the 'make things right' view.The question for the third viewpoint, "Okay, but what does that mean, practically?"is a good one. I would suggest that it means one should indeed examine thecauses of the conflict, try to fix them (ignoring the claim that it's appeasingterror/agression or will be seen as a victory by the opposition) if it can bedone so without making too much sacrifice. If one is really very certain oneis not acting improperly, or that no comprimise is possible/desirable, then one should resolve the situation as carefully as possible to avoidcollateral damage, while at the same time soliciting input and cooperation withothers, to make sure one's head is indeed screwed on tight. At all times,complete transparency about the overall political plan should be maintained.
I have a lot of sympathy for this guy.I don't support the ELF, but I do see it as a moral value to protect the planet, andI view with great distaste those who argue "I earned it", as their justificationto damage the planet with a fancy, gas-guzzling car. Private property, I stillthink, is a good thing, but it should not be used as a shield against protectingGaia. I'm not confortable with destroying SUVs (although it is tempting), butwhen it comes to spiking trees, in proper circumstances, it seems entirelyproper, and in general, very carefully-targeted, not-human-harming (except inexceptional circumstances) vigilantism is acceptable.
Finally, looks like Microsoft isn't going to get offas easy in Europe as they got off here. I still amdisappointed in our legal system about that..