I frequently see visceral reaction to those who look for the "root causes" of acts of terror of crime. Jeff Jarvis eventually says that looking for reasons for hate crimes is futile and immoral by citing the example of the Nazis.

The Nazi example is great one to use, because I think it proves the opposite point on why it is rational to look for the causes of hate. There is a big difference between a reason and an excuse. Of course what the Nazi's did is inexcusable. But the question of what could cause so many ordinary people to have so much hate is relevant, simply because if we can do things to prevent, or at least mitigate the hate, without compromising our own values , it is worth doing. In the case of the Nazis, after WWII our leaders looked and said that the treaty of Versailles after WWI doomed Germany to economic misfortune for years, and humiliated them. An entire country was humiliated and in dire straits, and an unspeakable evil rose up in some of those and took advantage of it and blamed it all on the Jews (which of course was patently false). Hitler was pure evil from the get go, but I have doubts of whether the rest of Germany that either participated, or at least acquiesced was evil from their inception as human beings. They were receptive to the evil because of the hate and shame they had subsequent to Versailles, and they were given an easy target to direct that hate and shame at, and eventually hate and shame morphed into pure, unmitigated evil.

And so, understanding parts of this, our leaders decided that after this victory, they would pour their efforts into restoring Germany to its glory (minus the world domination and genocidal bits), rather than imposing on them the costs of war by the victors (as was done at Versailles). And what did we see from Germany (and Japan) after WWII? Amazing success at creating vibrant democracies that grew to be the third and second largest economies in the world.

While I think it is futile to look at what created Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or Pol Pot, I do not think it is futile to look at why so many people have been receptive to them. And we can do all of this without saying it is our fault. Take the emotions and pride out of looking why people hate us, and you see that sometimes, from a purely practical perspective, you can make some changes, without changing who you are.

We won't ever cause everyone to stop hating us, but I'm convinced that it is not a black and white game of them hating us or not. There is a level of hatred, and a number of people who are infected, and those numbers can be changed.

That is what fighting the "roots" of terrorism is about, not self-loathing.

Tap Dancing, Clinton Style:

I really haven't had an unnatural hatred towards Bush. I was generally supportive of the war in Iraq, even if I thought the diplomacy leading up to it was the most awful clusterfuck we have seen in years. thought they really blew a legitimate chance at a peaceful solution at best, or a war with far more international backing at worst. Which truth be told, might have been the best outcome. It was a sick fucking regime, and democracy there COULD actually help the region. But that requires others so that we don't look like imperialists. Having others around merely to diffuse criticism would make a gigantic difference in the levels of hatred. Right now, we have hatred, and some shame. Confusion and shame would be much better (though I'm sure hatred would linger).

All that being said, I'm now perversely enjoying the way the administration is twisting in the wind. I fully believe that in any organization, one of the most dangerous sins is to not listen to opposing views. Insistence that you must be right, and refusal to pay attention to contradicting facts or views will lead to some awful choices. Wow, the Greeks even had a word for it. And when you are running the biggest country in the world, with by far the most military might, those choices could turn from being awful to being disastrous.

I'm not saying that it was disastrous to go to war in Iraq. I'm somewhat glad that we have removed such an evil, though I am incredibly angry at the opportunity we have squandered there and in Afghanistan to do actual good, rather than merely remove evil. These countries could have been the Marshall Plan for the 21st century. But I cannot stand the idea that such an intellectually dishonest (note that I did not say incompetence, there sin is willfully ignoring information, not being ignorant of it) administration continuing to lead my country.

The Niger document has changed me from possibly being a Bush supporter firmly in the not a chance in hell category. He's being as bad as Clinton but on issues laid out to go to war. I can't stand Clinton, but at least his lies were on a smaller scale (though in fairness, I wouldn't be utterly shocked if he would play with the facts on matters of national security if he had been around after 9/11). Given all of the other issues I have with Bush (bad at free trade, fiscal rescklesness, and weaknesses on corporate responsibility), I couldn't possibly see voting for him. Let's hope they don't pull a Gore and make my decision like last time, a choice between beating myself with a hammer or stabbing myself with a hot poker.

Random thought, and I may want to talk to some people in the know before posting this out there for everyone, but here goes . . .
Shouldn't a rich man who knows sports be talking to David Stern about resurreting the defunct CBA. My god, if Zeke was nearly as good an exec as he was a player. Could have done a great deal. Major teams would not need to own the new minor league teams. They could just pay their salaries. They could do the same with the coaches. The true "owners" (who could be the pro teams if they so wanted) would then pay the rest of the salaries (i.e. of players who aren't under contract), and be in control of marketing and coaching. Players under contract to a pro team could be released or traded (with the consent of the pro team owners), but of course if they were under contract to a pro team, they would forfeit that money. Players who weren't under contract could not be released. If hockey can thrive in Raleigh, why can't basketball succeed (okay maybe not raleigh, but freaking alabama would love that stuff, as would many other cities and states). In order to keep some stability, as well as to get the right incentive system in place, the pro team owners could pay out to the minor league teams a certain percentage of the remainder of the salary (i.e. 10%) , or a sliding scale based off total compensations for the year. that increases as the season goes on to prevent fans from seeing their team collapse after almost making the finals for the remaining calendar year. If you make the percentages right, you have situations where fans can still get somewhat attatched to players, because movement is somewhat limited. At the same time, the minor league team has incentive to develop players, because of the payouts from the salaries. Imagine Kwame down there, with his ~$3 million dollar contract per year. Doesn't it make more sense to have him play against others to develop. And he'd probably rapidly grow. Okay, so the owners might not losing Kwame if they really need him, but they'll be smiling about the $1.5 million they make as he is called up to play in the bigs. And as long as there was some ability to trade and sign others, it could allow for a very dynamic league with lots of constant trades going on. I should study how baseball and hockey do it, but I'm convinvced that with some tweaks of the incentive system (specifically so that local fans don't feel hosed) you could have both a big money maker (come on David, think residual tv rights, ownership fees, etc.) as well as a developmental system to deal with all of these new youngsters who don't get enough time on the court to develop into real players.

Salon has quality stuff. Hope the new advert biz model works for them. I'm still too cheap to pay