[moki]

Quite an interesting article from someone with quite a bit of cred when it comes to human rights; make sure you click the link to read the full interview on Salon.com

from: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...aol_splash.htm

.....

Why the antiwar left must confront terrorism
The director of Amnesty International USA warns that the left must confront terror with the same zeal that it battles Bush -- or risk irrelevance.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark Follman

Nov. 15, 2003 _|_ More than two years into the Bush administration's lurching war on terror, William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, is aiming some of his sharpest criticism not at the White House, but at the American political left. His message: Take on the terror threat, or risk irrelevance.

War protesters of various stripes, alongside anti-globalization and human rights activists, have staged several large rallies nationwide this year, channeling their anger at the Bush administration through slogans like "No blood for oil," "End the imperialist occupation" and "Regime change begins at home." But in an interview with Salon, Schulz said that the political left has thus far botched a key mission. "There's been a failure to give the necessary attention, analysis and strategizing to the effort to counter terrorism and protect our fundamental right to security," he said. "It's a serious problem."

In his new book, "Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights," Schulz argues that rising global terrorism requires the left "to rethink some of our most sacred assumptions." A vigorous defense of human and civil liberties, while essential to spreading democracy worldwide, is not enough to stop terrorists from blowing up airplanes or shopping malls, he says. And that presents the left with a problem, because some of the tools needed to fight terror, such as stricter border controls or beefed up intelligence work -- and, perhaps, war against states that support terrorists -- chafe against traditional leftist values.

But protecting America's borders as well as its treasured freedoms is a daunting task. There is ample reason to decry (as Amnesty has) the deeply invasive potential of the PATRIOT Act, the secretive rounding up and prolonged detention of more than 1,200 Arabs and Muslims nationwide, and the alleged coercion -- some would call it torture -- of terror suspects by the U.S. government. Of equal concern is Washington's current distaste for multilateral diplomacy, which puts crucial alliances at risk at a time of mounting global turmoil. But it's not enough, Schulz says, to launch defiant rhetoric at a barreling, unilateralist Bush administration, even when its policies threaten to bulldoze the very cornerstones of democracy.

He raises some hard questions: If there's reason to believe the New York City subway is a prime terrorist target, should we really object to surveillance cameras in the name of privacy rights, especially if use of the evidence they obtain is limited? If democratic elections would bring a radical Islamist government to power in Pakistan that might distribute nuclear weapons to terrorists, should we still call for democracy there over military rule?

Like many on the left, Schulz doesn't have ready answers. Saddam's horrific human rights record was well-known -- Amnesty International documented it for more than two decades. And yet, Amnesty takes no official position on the U.S. intervention in Iraq, and Schulz sticks to careful, noncommittal language when it comes to defending human rights with military power. "The job of the human rights world is not to make military decisions of one sort or another," he says.

With the new terror threat roiling the globe -- which some argue has given brutal regimes freer license to crack down at home -- Amnesty may need to recast its framework for defending human rights. U.N. sanctions failed to undermine Saddam's rule throughout the 1990s, and they raise complicated humanitarian concerns, typically compounding economic pain for populations already pinned beneath the heel of dictatorship. "In the long run," Schulz admits, "it may not be wise of Amnesty to have a policy that it takes no position on military intervention."

Still, he remains deeply troubled by the PATRIOT Act and the Bush administration's aggressive doctrine of preemption. "I think history gives us good reason to think this is exactly the wrong strategy to pursue," he says, "if the goal is to prolong American power, and, presumably, its values."

Salon reached Schulz by phone at his home in New York

.....

Read the full interview here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...aol_splash.htm

[BlackGriffen]

Don't mistake anti-Iraq war for soft on terrorism.

That would be like assuming that just because someone thinks one woman is ugly, he must be gay. No matter how attractive you find her, one woman will never be a litmus test for a person's sexuality.

Especially if the subject is a transvestite, like the Iraq war was.

BlackGriffen

[moki]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't mistake anti-Iraq war for soft on terrorism.

That would be like assuming that just because someone thinks one woman is ugly, he must be gay. No matter how attractive you find her, one woman will never be a litmus test for a person's sexuality.

Certainly you're quite right; but as the article points out, the left has been soft on terrorism as well, equating Bush with terrorists, and doing other such ridiculous things. That isn't going to get them anywhere, let alone elected in the USA.

[theolein]

The left, the right, the right, the left, black, white, white, black....

What ever happened to grey and middle of the road or was that just some passing fad on the road to fascism and communism? For that matter I don't see many people here who support terrorism, even though I do see some who openly dislike almost anything the USA does and see many who would do anything to demonise their supposed political opponents on the left or the right, be it claiming that GW himself the biggest terrorist or that the left is soft on terrorism because it opposes the war in Iraq or the way that war is being conducted.

So basically what I see is political polarisation coupled with an almost complete inability to cope with criticism (sound like anyone you know?) by attempting to marginalise opponents, simply ignoring critical questions or twisting facts to satisfy their own views.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
So basically what I see is political polarisation coupled with an almost complete inability to cope with criticism (sound like anyone you know?) by attempting to marginalise opponents, simply ignoring critical questions or twisting facts to satisfy their own views.

Welcome to the US's two party political system. The polarization has been there for longer than any of us have been alive.

It's bitter, it's brutal, but it's also effective. We don't have a dozen marginal parties like they do in (he risks being slammed for mentioning the name again) France, and we don't have a one single party like they have (had, actually, given recent events) in Japan.

Anyway, back on topic. I think the column makes a good point. The people who are drawing parallels between the US and various terrorists are making ridiculous moral equivalents where they don't exist. People who consider human rights important need to articulate a comprehensive method to combat terrorism, and stop the ridiculous demonization.

[Lerkfish]

Frankly, the only group I see being demonized here is the left. the article and your comments on it are thinly veiled "shut up unless you have a better solution" or calling the left to task to solve the problem of terrorizing by being less "soft" on it.

This is a disingenuous mudsling that attempts to paint people who oppose war as ineffectual and backhandedly promoting terrorism.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
Welcome to the US's two party political system. The polarization has been there for longer than any of us have been alive.

It's bitter, it's brutal, but it's also effective. We don't have a dozen marginal parties like they do in (he risks being slammed for mentioning the name again) France, and we don't have a one single party like they have (had, actually, given recent events) in Japan.

Anyway, back on topic. I think the column makes a good point. The people who are drawing parallels between the US and various terrorists are making ridiculous moral equivalents where they don't exist. People who consider human rights important need to articulate a comprehensive method to combat terrorism, and stop the ridiculous demonization.

Uhm, talking about demonisation, what would you call the claim that the left is soft on terrorism then? It works both way, doesn't it, even when couched in supposedly subtle sentences and semantics.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
Uhm, talking about demonisation, what would you call the claim that the left is soft on terrorism then? It works both way, doesn't it, even when couched in supposedly subtle sentences and semantics.

That isn't demonization, it's just reality. I stated that the left needs to come up with a way to confront terrorism, and they do: they are focusing on attacking Bush more than attacking the problem of terrorism, as the article rather clearly states.

There's no demonization here at all; rather, it's good political advice, if the Dems wish to get someone else in the White House next year. Read the article and the interview, it's interesting.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Frankly, the only group I see being demonized here is the left. the article and your comments on it are thinly veiled "shut up unless you have a better solution" or calling the left to task to solve the problem of terrorizing by being less "soft" on it.

This is a disingenuous mudsling that attempts to paint people who oppose war as ineffectual and backhandedly promoting terrorism.

That isn't my intention at all -- and I highly, highly doubt it is the intention of the director of Amnesty International, don't you?

Address the issues the article raises.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
That isn't demonization, it's just reality. ....

Pot.kettle.black no?

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
Pot.kettle.black no?

No. And you may now go read the article so you have something relevant to discuss here.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
No. And you may now go read the article so you have something relevant to discuss here.

Perhaps, before you "order" me to RTFA, I should remind you of another discussion we had today on the topic of China, where I posted the same link no less than three times and specifically pointing it out without you once clicking on that link to RTFA.

It works both ways, Moki. You just did what you vehemtly denied was true in my so called pop psychology and biased insight. You finally came out and said that your view was reality and that the others were guilty of demonisation, whereas, from what I can see, both "sides" engage in the same tactics and lay their claim to reality, the "truth" and being "right".

[tie]

Originally posted by moki:
the left has been soft on terrorism as well, equating Bush with terrorists

I'm not sure what criticizing Bush on Iraq has to do with fighting terrorism. Different subjects. Next thing you'll be talking about how the left is soft on terrorism because they want a balanced budget and care about the economy. Tell me, what is the right doing about terrorism?

For the most part (Afghanistan the exception), wars are not the answer. Following through on our commitments (Afghanistan no exception) is one answer. Saudi Arabia supports terrorists more than Iraq, but invading Saudi Arabia won't help either, amazingly enough.

Inept diplomacy is not the answer. International cooperation is invaluable for fighting international terrorists organizations. The right loves to vilify France and the rest of Europe, and to make fun of the UN, but that's not helping the war on terror.

A backward-looking energy policy is not the answer. We have the technology to significantly decrease our foreign energy dependency, at a cost comparable to hundred billion dollar wars. Corrupt contracts throwing money at Halliburton doesn't make the US look good in Iraq.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
That isn't demonization, it's just reality. I stated that the left needs to come up with a way to confront terrorism, and they do: they are focusing on attacking Bush more than attacking the problem of terrorism, as the article rather clearly states.

There's no demonization here at all; rather, it's good political advice, if the Dems wish to get someone else in the White House next year. Read the article and the interview, it's interesting.

OMG! you really have no clue to your own transparency.

I read the article. I gave my assessment of it, which you denied, and then continued to confirm.

[zigzag]

I applaud Schulz for being willing to reconsider his position, or at least acknowledge that there is no simple answer. Too often, Amnesty International has been the butt of jokes for ranking rights violations like Consumer Reports ranks VCRs - objectively but devoid of context.* There's some merit in this but at some point one has to come to grips with the fact that some offenders really are worse than others and that you might have to choose sides.

Anti-war is not necessarily soft-on-terrorism, and the "Left" is no more monolithic than the "Right," but there is a contingent of the Left that is either (a) driven more by anti-Bush sentiment than by a detached analysis of the problem (just as members of the Right are often driven more by Bush loyalty than by detached analysis, etc.), or (b) would fail or refuse to confront what is possibly a very dangerous trend. One can come to different conclusions about what needs to be done, but I think Schulz is correct in saying that old assumptions have to be re-examined.

Here's another prominent Leftist thinker who also has some provocative things to say about the Left and terrorism (you can sign in and read the whole thing by looking at an ad):

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2003/.../index_np.html

Berman's remarks were published in March but I think they have broad significance.

* I mention Consumer Reports because they used to run videotape comparison tests, apparently blind to the fact that all of the tapes were made by the same company.

[theolein]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I applaud Schulz for being willing to reconsider his position, or at least acknowledge that there is no simple answer. Too often, Amnesty International has been the butt of jokes for ranking rights violations like Consumer Reports ranks VCRs - objectively but devoid of context.* There's some merit in this but at some point one has to come to grips with the fact that some offenders really are worse than others and that you might have to choose sides.

Anti-war is not necessarily soft-on-terrorism, and the "Left" is no more monolithic than the "Right," but there is a contingent of the Left that is either (a) driven more by anti-Bush sentiment than by a detached analysis of the problem (just as members of the Right are often driven more by Bush loyalty than by detached analysis, etc.), or (b) would fail or refuse to confront what is possibly a very dangerous trend. One can come to different conclusions about what needs to be done, but I think Schulz is correct in saying that old assumptions have to be re-examined.

Here's another prominent Leftist thinker who also has some provocative things to say about the Left and terrorism (you can sign in and read the whole thing by looking at an ad):

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2003/.../index_np.html

Berman's remarks were published in March but I think they have broad significance.

* I mention Consumer Reports because they used to run videotape comparison tests, apparently blind to the fact that all of the tapes were made by the same company.

Well put!

[wang_himself]

What ever happened to these good old days of war:

[moki]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Anti-war is not necessarily soft-on-terrorism, and the "Left" is no more monolithic than the "Right," but there is a contingent of the Left that is either (a) driven more by anti-Bush sentiment than by a detached analysis of the problem (just as members of the Right are often driven more by Bush loyalty than by detached analysis, etc.), or (b) would fail or refuse to confront what is possibly a very dangerous trend. One can come to different conclusions about what needs to be done, but I think Schulz is correct in saying that old assumptions have to be re-examined.

Indeed, well, said.

Here's another prominent Leftist thinker who also has some provocative things to say about the Left and terrorism (you can sign in and read the whole thing by looking at an ad):

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2003/.../index_np.html

Interesting article, thanks for pointing it out. It's little disturbing that the author would state "it's just tragic that the United States is led by such an inarticulate and intellectually confused and unattractive figure who personally makes me cringe" -- I mean give me a break -- but perhaps he's going out of his way to show he does indeed despise Bush so that he's able to more easily state the things Bush is doing right.

Regardless, this caught my attention:

But there's even more grotesque examples of it -- that of the French socialists in the 1930s. They wanted to avoid a new outbreak of the First World War; they refused to believe that millions of people in Germany had gone out of their minds and supported the Nazi movement. They didn't want to believe that a mass pathological movement had taken power in Germany, they wanted to be open-minded to what the Germans were saying and to the German grievances of the First World War. And the French socialists, in their open-minded, warm-hearted effort to avoid seeing anything like the First World War occur again, went out of their way to try and find what was reasonable and plausible in the arguments of Hitler. They really did end up thinking that the greatest danger to world peace was not posed by Hitler but by the hawks in their own society, in France. These people were the antiwar socialists of France, they were good people. Yet one thing led to another, they opposed France's army against Hitler, and many of them ended up supporting the Vichy regime and they ended up fascists!

"They really did end up thinking that the greatest danger to world peace was not posed by Hitler but by the hawks in their own society" -- that's certainly a theme that's oft-repeated around here with regard to the "neo-con hawks" being the real danger, not <insert tinpot dictator or terrorist here>

(on a sidenote, I've decided that the author is clearly anti-French for using this example... probably a Frenchman stole his baby blanket... )

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
* I mention Consumer Reports because they used to run videotape comparison tests, apparently blind to the fact that all of the tapes were made by the same company.

Sorry, this is OT, but: So?

Vivitar and Contax lenses are both made in the same factory. You'll have a tough time arguing that Contax aren't better.

There are huge differences in the quality of magnetic media. I don't see this point.

-s*

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Sorry, this is OT, but: So?

Vivitar and Contax lenses are both made in the same factory. You'll have a tough time arguing that Contax aren't better.

There are huge differences in the quality of magnetic media. I don't see this point.

-s*

Perhaps, but we're talking about ordinary VHS tape. If your goal was to inform consumers, wouldn't it be worth mentioning that it all comes from the same supplier(s) and that your tests might not really mean anything? This is one area where I think CR is lacking - I'd sometimes like to get more background information and context about products, but they appear to think that this would damage their objectivity. Consider their computer evaluations - they compare price and speed but say virtually nothing about what really makes Macs and PCs different. They're better at dealing with quantitative information than qualitative information.

I might be mistaken, and I don't mean to pick on CR, which I like - my greater point is that, like AI, their objectivity and detachment can sometimes work to their detriment. Sometimes I think you have to step back and make value judgments. This seems to be what Mr. Schulz is struggling with.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
The people who are drawing parallels between the US and various terrorists are making ridiculous moral equivalents where they don't exist. People who consider human rights important need to articulate a comprehensive method to combat terrorism, and stop the ridiculous demonization.

It's a bit misleading to say you agree with the author and to then articulate two points that he did not make. He neither said that the moral comparisons are "ridiculous" nor did he say that the left hasn't articulated a comprehensive method. These are your point. I think you're wrong to say that. Probably what you mean is that you disagree with their comparisons and you disagree with their plans.

First point, I don't see why drawing paralells between US policies and actions and those of terrorists is ridiculous. As I recall there was quite a lot of support from the left for the Afghan war which WAS about terrorism; as opposed to Iraq which we can hardly say had anything to do with terrorism. In Iraq, the US Army goes into a village from where an attack on their forces was launched and they destroy houses and olive orchards and openly state that their intention is to "impress upon the population" through the application of force, that there will be a price to bear for supporting the Resistance. I hardly see why pointing out that such behaviour amounts to the use of fear to achieve your purposes is "ridiculous." I fail to understand why it is ridiculous to draw paralells between that behaviour and the behaviour of terrorists who seek to inflict damage on civilian populations so that those populations will realise that there is a price to bear for supporting their Government's policies. Except that it is an easy way for "the right" to dismiss an issue without presenting substantive points - which is precisely the critique of the left being presented here.

I think part of the problem here is that there is such an onslaught on accepted international values and morals from the Bush camp that it's difficult to fit any constructive contribution in edge-ways. With Bush committing war crimes left, right and center, being condemned by international trade tribunals, abusing human rights, undermining treaties on international instruments designed to deal with environmental devestation, land mines, weapons of mass destruction and the commission of genocide and war crimes; it's very difficult for the left to focus on places where they can work with Bush and those who support him.

If the left is criticised for not addressing the threat from terrorism that the right identifies, then the right stands equally accused of not taking the idea of Bush and his policies as a threat to democratic ideals and international peace seriously either.

Second point. I don't think it's true that the left hasn't come up with a plan for combatting terrorism. You just ignore it because it doesn't involve things that you think show a serious commitment like thousands of mobilised troops. I've read Naomi Klein and Chomsky (how further left do you want to go) writing about confronting terrorism as an international community; about addressing both the military threat and the root causes of terrorism. Much of the left's criticism does not call the threat of terrorism into question but questions whether the current policies are addressing the problem or aggravating it. That is an inherent admission that terrorism is a problem. It's no more fair to say that Bush doesn't have a plan for dealing with global warming. He has a plan; a bad plan IMHO. Just as "the left's" plan for dealing with terrorism may seem to you to be a bad plan. Not the same as no plan.

On this topic, I have two friends who have been recruited by the US Embassy in Paris to play their original Southern folk music all over West Africa. The Embassy's idea is to focus on the human element of America; to take the focus off what is perceived across the world as a war-mongering, aggressive, not very bright, dangerous president and onto the average American. I personally think that is an excellent idea and these two friends should, IMHO, be considered as part of the war on terrorism as their alumni who are in Iraq.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Perhaps, but we're talking about ordinary VHS tape. If your goal was to inform consumers, wouldn't it be worth mentioning that it all comes from the same supplier(s) and that your tests might not really mean anything?

Why do you equate "coming from the same supplier" with "is the same product"?

That's like saying that Frosties are identical to Raisin Bran, since they're both made by Kellogg's, and any difference between the two is therefore imagined.

Better magnetic properties are better magnetic properties.

And why the insistence on "it's just ordinary VHS tape"? Would it make the slightest difference if they were talking about quality differences in professional beta tape?

Or are you just saying, "It all looks the same to me", in which case you've obviously never tried the higher-quality VHS tape.

You're not making sense, I'm afraid.

-s*

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Why do you equate "coming from the same supplier" with "is the same product"?

That's like saying that Frosties are identical to Raisin Bran, since they're both made by Kellogg's, and any difference between the two is therefore imagined.

Better magnetic properties are better magnetic properties.

And why the insistence on "it's just ordinary VHS tape"? Would it make the slightest difference if they were talking about quality differences in professional beta tape?

Or are you just saying, "It all looks the same to me", in which case you've obviously never tried the higher-quality VHS tape.

You're not making sense, I'm afraid.

-s*

Many products come out of the very same production lines, whereupon different companies put their names on them and market them. It doesn't mean that there are never differences between products - I didn't mean to suggest that. Nor does it mean that there aren't different grades of products - I didn't mean to suggest that either. It just means that in many cases, a given type and grade of product is the same regardless of who stamps their brand name on it. It's my understanding that ordinary-grade videotape is one such product. I don't think Consumer Reports even bothers testing it anymore, probably for that reason.

But it's not important, I don't want to argue about it, I was just trying to make a point about the way AI sometimes fails to take the big picture into account, and I probably didn't make it very well. So let's assume that I was completely wrong about Consumer Reports and forget that I ever mentioned it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Many products come out of the very same production lines, whereupon different companies put their names on them and market them. [...] It's my understanding that ordinary-grade videotape is one such product. I don't think Consumer Reports even bothers testing it anymore, probably for that reason.

Ah, I see. I seem to remember a plethora of different VHS brands and grades available, but it has been a long time since I bought a VHS tape.

And your actual point was well made.

Sorry for distracting from it, but sometimes these litttle things irritate me.

-s*

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Ah, I see. I seem to remember a plethora of different VHS brands and grades available, but it has been a long time since I bought a VHS tape.

And your actual point was well made.

Sorry for distracting from it, but sometimes these litttle things irritate me.

-s*

I understand. I'm not even sure if it was VHS tape or VCRs or something else, I just remember an episode of that nature about 25 years ago. I like CR but sometimes they can seem a bit oblivious.

OK, back to our regular programming . . .

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Vivitar and Contax lenses are both made in the same factory. You'll have a tough time arguing that Contax aren't better.

Do you mean Zeiss lenses? There is no such thing as "Contax lenses." Contax (formerly a Zeiss brand, now a brand owned by Kyocera) makes camera bodies. The lenses are Zeiss but are assembled for Zeiss in a joint project by Kyocera in Japan. I don't believe that Kyocera ever assembled any Vivitar lenses and if they did, it would be in a separate factory. Zeiss is very picky about that Zeiss line in Japan.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by moki:
Interesting article, thanks for pointing it out. It's little disturbing that the author would state "it's just tragic that the United States is led by such an inarticulate and intellectually confused and unattractive figure who personally makes me cringe" -- I mean give me a break -- but perhaps he's going out of his way to show he does indeed despise Bush so that he's able to more easily state the things Bush is doing right.

Yeah, a bit of hyperbole there, but Berman is a serious leftist, so I wouldn't expect him to like Bush. But I respect the fact that he's willing to go against the grain on the war question and challenge Chomsky. I'm not smart enough to know whether Berman's theories are sound but I think they're worth noting.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you mean Zeiss lenses? There is no such thing as "Contax lenses." Contax (formerly a Zeiss brand, now a brand owned by Kyocera) makes camera bodies. The lenses are Zeiss but are assembled for Zeiss in a joint project by Kyocera in Japan. I don't believe that Kyocera ever assembled any Vivitar lenses and if they did, it would be in a separate factory. Zeiss is very picky about that Zeiss line in Japan.

IIRC, my brother owns "Contax"-branded lenses for his Contax camera. I am aware that they are Zeiss. I may be a bit behind the times, but ten years ago, Zeiss manufactured the optics for both "Contax"-branded stuff (it is possible that my memory fails me and it was actually branded "Zeiss", but I don't think so) and the Vivitar-branded lenses.

The only difference being tolerances, meaning that Zeiss only used 2% or so of the optics for their own brand, the rest going to Vivitar for assembly in their lenses.

I may be wrong, though, so if you have information to the contrary, I'm willing to be educated.

At any rate, it was just an example.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I like CR but sometimes they can seem a bit oblivious.

Heh. Our own Stiftung Warentest at some point in the late 80s decided that they would no longer comparison-test CD players, since they were all pristine 16-bit/44.1kHz digital quality!



As I recall, it didn't take terribly long for them to realize their boneheadedness, the imbeciles.

The drawbacks of having the same team apply the same methods and reasoning to dishwashers, audio equipment, computer software, and floorboarding. It just doesn't work sometimes.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
IIRC, my brother owns "Contax"-branded lenses for his Contax camera. I am aware that they are Zeiss. I may be a bit behind the times, but ten years ago, Zeiss manufactured the optics for both "Contax"-branded stuff (it is possible that my memory fails me and it was actually branded "Zeiss", but I don't think so) and the Vivitar-branded lenses.

The only difference being tolerances, meaning that Zeiss only used 2% or so of the optics for their own brand, the rest going to Vivitar for assembly in their lenses.

I may be wrong, though, so if you have information to the contrary, I'm willing to be educated.

At any rate, it was just an example.

-s*

I'm not aware of any Contax branded lenses for the Contax camera. Contax (Kyocera) make a big deal about "the essence of Zeiss T* optics." Regardless of the factory they come from, it is in their interests to keep pushing that. Zeiss is a on of the best lens brands out there (along with Schneider, Leica, and Rodenstock). Why would they muddle things up by putting a brand that has always been a camera body brand on the lens?

Vivitar never built lenses. It was originally an optical design house that subcontracted assembly. They made their name in the 1970s with their Series One zooms. But those lenses were never made by Vivitar, and they never had a factory. Stephen Gandy has a web site here that shows how to figure out who made that Vivitar lens. Kyocera is not on the list at least up to 1990, and in any case, it certainly isn't true that Vivitar are just substandard Zeiss lenses. The two brands are quite separate.

Contax was originally a Zeiss brand that went dormant in the early 1970s when Zeiss almost went broke. Zeiss then went into a joint project with Yashica and the Contax RTS was born in 1974. The idea was that Zeiss would make the lenses in Germany, and Yashica would make the bodies. Later, Kyocera bought Yashica and gradually more and more lens assembly shifted to Japan. Zeiss and Kyocera run a joint factory there that assembles Zeiss lenses, as well as one of the Leica zooms for the Leica R cameras.

But two things are important. First, it is just assembly. The designs (the Zeiss ones, not the Leica one) are still Zeiss optical designs. It's not just a matter of tolerances. Secondly, the elements are made in Germany by Zeiss. They are then shipped to Japan for assembly (ironically, some of the glass is made by Hoya in Japan, the rest is Schott). Zeiss technicians inspect the lenses after assembly, and if they aren't up to snuff they are shipped back to Germany for reassembly.

That's basically the reason why Zeiss lenses are more expensive. Most lenses are only batch tested, Zeiss are individually tested, which costs a lot of money, but makes it less likely that you will get a bad sample. This is partly why Contax makes such a big deal of the Zeiss heritage. Contax is a niche brand. They sell themselves primarily on their access to Zeiss glass.

Can you tell I used to be a Contax dealer?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Can you tell I used to be a Contax dealer?

Stand back, everybody!



Seriously, thanks for that comprehensive history.

-s*

[christ]

Originally posted by tie:
...Tell me, what is the right doing about terrorism?

Sorry to interrupt the consumer testing initiatives, but I thought that the above from tie deserved a bit more prominence.

It is alright asking what the left would do about terrorism, but it is not only the left that appear to have no appetite for fighting terrorism - each side appears to have their own agenda, and 'terrorism' is the boogeyman that both sides use to further their own, even when the actions underwritten by this excuse have little, if anything, to do with terror.

It is difficult for me to understand your reasoning, moki, for starting these threads, as I am no psychologist (pop or otherwise), but it appears that your point is:

The right was right to invade Iraq because of the humanitarian need ('61,000 Baghdad residents 'executed''), but also right to invade Iraq because they may have had WMD hand grenades ('How the 45-minute claim got from Baghdad to No 10'), neither of which has anything to do with terrorism (in fact, I can't offhand find one of your threads that relates Iraq to terrorism), but the left is wrong in opposing the war in Iraq because 'Why the antiwar left must confront terrorism'.

Now I understand that these are all op-eds about things from different perspectives, but the sum total of your threads appears to give a confused message, and it is difficult to see what you hope to gain by throwing differing, and often conflicting, threads out, in the apparent expectation that 'the left' (what does that mean to you, by the way?) will disagree with either you or the op-ed author.

[ebuddy]

I still have a Beta Player! Bxxtards at Sony ruined everything!!!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Stand back, everybody!



Seriously, thanks for that comprehensive history.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I still have a Beta Player! Bxxtards at Sony ruined everything!!!

No - you have a Betamax player.

Entirely different standard - except for the cassette size.

-s*

[Millennium]

Originally posted by theolein:
The left, the right, the right, the left, black, white, white, black....

What ever happened to grey and middle of the road or was that just some passing fad on the road to fascism and communism?

It was hijacked by both sides, each one wanting you to believe that it's the real center, rather than a wing.

Kind of like how both sides want you to believe that they somehow represent 'American values', when frankly they're both wrong; no one person or entity can represent American values, this being part of the whole point.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by moki:
(on a sidenote, I've decided that the author is clearly anti-French for using this example... probably a Frenchman stole his baby blanket... )

...'and many of them ended up supporting the Vichy regime and they ended up fascists!'

This has to be one of the most stupid comment I have read in a long time. He has no clue. If the other comments have the same 'accuracy', you can dismiss everything he writes.

villa

[finboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't mistake anti-Iraq war for soft on terrorism.

It's tough to NOT make that mistake, but so much of the anti-war BS was really just anti-Bush, anti-conservative. Those folks on the left that consistently were anti-war still have my respect (anti-Bosnia, anti-Kenya, anti-Haiti), but they're appeasers.

BG, I think you'll find that you're in the minority if you're tough on terrorism yet anti-war. Either that, or you'll find that lots of folks songs have changed since January of this year.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Can you tell I used to be a Contax dealer?

What a coincidence, I used to be a Mandrax dealer.

[Lerkfish]

BOT:

the "left" as moki has demonized them have been putting forth suggestions for dealing with terrorism, its just that moki doesn't like the suggestions.

Let's look at the problem, shall we?

--- Take a look at all the to-date [i]thwarted[i] terrorist attempts. How were they averted? Were they averted by invading and regime-changing a country, or were they averted by diligent cooperative international investigation and surveillance of access points to targets?

--- Can terrorists be located? if so, they can be targeted. If they cannot be located, what gets targeted, and why? Is that an effective solution? As an example, if a student skips class, do you punish the other students who made it to class, simply because you cannot find the student that has skipped? If you do that, are you likely to encourage other students to skip themselves, since they've already been punished for a crime they didn't commit or discourage them?

--- If there is a root cause for terrorists, do we spend as much energy addressing the cause of terrorism or do we spend all our resources addressing the symptoms instead of the disease? Is that a valid long term strategy?
Do we work towards garnering allies in the fight against terrorism, or do we threaten allies with the same treatment if they don't cooperate? Which method would be more effective?

--- The battleground for fighting terror: When we need to find a needle in our haystack, do we do that by adding more haystacks to search or develop better methods for finding needles? by that I mean, is it effective to keep invading different countries to find them, possibly helping the recruitment of more terrorists or is it more effective to improve methods of finding them in our own haystack?
After all, if they attack, won't they be attacking here? wouldn't looking here for them be a smaller and more manageable zone than the entire freakin world?

I have to go to a meeting, more later.

[voodoo]

Good thoughts there Lerkfish.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Good thoughts there Lerkfish.

thanks. to continue:

--- how effective is a stated "enemies list" of nations you intend to invade? If the reasoning is they will somehow "shape up" or risk being invaded, India proved how wrong-headed that was when they commented that it would behoove them to accelerate their WMD programs to protect themselves from the threat of invasion by the US. Their point was that if you are trying but not suceeding in developing a WMD program, you'll be invaded. But if you already have one, the chances of being invaded are less likely (North Korea as an example).
Further, by polarizing the US against the rest of the world with an "enemies list", you've already eliminated the possibility of negotiation or cooperation of those nations in apprehending any terrorists they might have. This, to me, is one of the worst strategic backfires in foreign policy I've witnessed. Right at the time you WANT other countries to come on board for help, you paint targets on them. Even if there were reasons for doing so, this blows out of the water any chance to rectify the situaion EXCEPT to invade them at some point. You've given them NO reason to parley with you or negotiate extradition of terrorists.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Further, by polarizing the US against the rest of the world with an "enemies list", you've already eliminated the possibility of negotiation or cooperation of those nations in apprehending any terrorists they might have. This, to me, is one of the worst strategic backfires in foreign policy I've witnessed. Right at the time you WANT other countries to come on board for help, you paint targets on them. Even if there were reasons for doing so, this blows out of the water any chance to rectify the situaion EXCEPT to invade them at some point. You've given them NO reason to parley with you or negotiate extradition of terrorists.

If your goal is to reshape the world under your own conditions exclusively, though, that is the perfect method.

You turn potential partners into enemies that ultimately leave you no choice but to invade them to turn them into friends, all the while adjusting your rhetoric and justifications in accordance with opinion polls, to lubricate your twisting and turning as you shove it to the public.

And as the strongest military on the planet, it is unlikely that you will encounter real resistance.

Just remember to declare each massive terrorist attack an indicator of success ("Yes, we must be hitting close to home now"), and you're all set.

Is it that simple?

Look at how well it's working on moki for just one example.

-s*

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks. to continue:

--- how effective is a stated "enemies list" of nations you intend to invade? If the reasoning is they will somehow "shape up" or risk being invaded, India proved how wrong-headed that was when they commented that it would behoove them to accelerate their WMD programs to protect themselves from the threat of invasion by the US. Their point was that if you are trying but not suceeding in developing a WMD program, you'll be invaded. But if you already have one, the chances of being invaded are less likely (North Korea as an example).
Further, by polarizing the US against the rest of the world with an "enemies list", you've already eliminated the possibility of negotiation or cooperation of those nations in apprehending any terrorists they might have. This, to me, is one of the worst strategic backfires in foreign policy I've witnessed. Right at the time you WANT other countries to come on board for help, you paint targets on them. Even if there were reasons for doing so, this blows out of the water any chance to rectify the situaion EXCEPT to invade them at some point. You've given them NO reason to parley with you or negotiate extradition of terrorists.

Where have you got this US threat of invasion of India stuff from? India condicted its firse nuclear weapons test in 1974 and it wasn't because it was scared of the US. It was because of Pakistan. I think you maybe need to revise your history a bit here.

As for whether a state can ever coerce another state into cooperating, I don't think your analysis stands up. To take one example of a terror-exporting state that is desparately trying to curry favor from the US, we have the example of Libya. Other states are doing the same thing. Pakistan is probably one of the most notable. Pakistan's secret service was the primary sponsor of the Taliban. Pakistan most certainly made a startegic calculation after 9/11 that it would be better to be on the side of the most powerful nation on earth than to be against it.

You mischaracterize US policy if you imply that it is all stick, and no carrot. That isn't the case by any means. Pakistan isn't the only country that has made a lot of money by supporting the US. The US has won a number of other interesting allies around the world in the fight against terror. There are quiet little US bases in places as diverse and previously unfriendly as Yemen, Georgia, Ukraine, and so on. That wasn't because they fear the US. It is mostly because we sent large wads of cash their way.

But just as the carrot can be useful, so can the stick. You would forgo the stick. I think the historical lessons are that a toothless foreign policy is an ineffective one. I cold give you examples, but I'd start off with the reoccupation of the Rheinland and the French and British inaction to that. But then you'd accuse me of invoking Godwin's Law. So I will just say that you have to have both the carrot and the stick.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...I will just say that you have to have both the carrot and the stick.

....and the rest of the world is America's donkey?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
India condicted its firse nuclear weapons test in 1974

You partaking in some of ChrisT's christmas cheer ... or Spheric's gluehwein?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You partaking in some of ChrisT's christmas cheer ... or Spheric's gluehwein?

Mmmm. Gluehwein. Now that's something I miss from Germany. Gluehwien at the Weinachtsmarkt. Worms' or Heidelberg's being my favorites. [/nostalgia]

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Mmmm. Gluehwein. Now that's something I miss from Germany. Gluehwien at the Weinachtsmarkt. Worms' or Heidelberg's being my favorites. [/nostalgia]

My girlfriend recently had a Weihnachtsguetsi (is that a Swiss German word or "high" German - cookies) and gluehwein party in LA. Freaked out the local populace! I have a recipe for gluehwein that can be made with ingredients freely available at Trader Joe's if you want it. OMG - I just offered to trade recipes on the Internet ... that must be Prong 5 of something!

[UR-20]

Originally posted by wang_himself:
What ever happened to these good old days of war:

I completely agree. Call me old fashion, but wars were much more effective when you had two opposing armies: swordsman, archers, calvary,(All of who trained for years instead of the few months at basic training) each trying to out wit the other, using high ground, flanking, all that fun stuff. The generals were actually present on the battle field, not a couple hundred miles away in a bunker somewhere. Iraq was just a crap load of "button pushing" no skill or strategy required. We out number them, we out gun them, just send over a bunch of missles, tanks, and troops, and lay waste.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Troll:
My girlfriend recently had a Weihnachtsguetsi (is that a Swiss German word or "high" German - cookies) and gluehwein party in LA. Freaked out the local populace! I have a recipe for gluehwein that can be made with ingredients freely available at Trader Joe's if you want it. OMG - I just offered to trade recipes on the Internet ... that must be Prong 5 of something!

"guetsi" is definitely Swiss German.

Ah, Glühwein.

I missed a rehearsal last year because of Glühwein on a Weihnachtsmarkt. Couple of boys' final get-together for a cup of Glühwein downtown, before everybody left for Christmas holiday. Yes. We chose the Glühwein mit Schuss (with rum), and it turned out not one round, but five, in the space of ninety minutes.

I have rarely had as much fun as that evening, stone drunk at 7:30 p.m. in the middle of Hamburg's city center. I eventually got on the train to go to rehearsal (I remember wondering how the _hell_ I was going to play at all), and woke up about two hours later, after the subway had gone back and forth *twice* already. I got off and went to bed.

As I recall, I was the only one who had a key to the studio.

-s*