this machine kills fascists ....

i just read most of an article about the dutch and french rejections of the new european union and constitution in today's times. clearly propaganda, it pushed all out capitalism (is that the key issue of the new union? i guess i should have been paying attention.), and did little to answer key issues. for example, instead of focusing on how it was a "democratic infitada," it should have focused on what exactly the people were opposed to.

in that, i am saying that i felt the article was far more concerned with how the rejection of the constitution was a referendum of the european politicians, and not a genuine vote on the constitution.

it should be noted that any progression toward a world community cannot be based in values that are not shared universally. for a communist and a capitalist to agree, they cannot discuss social and economic structure. a true democracy would not enforce ideals. and for democracy to spread, it cannot attempt to do so.

in saying this, i am rejecting any democracy that doesn't cooperate with any and all structures. and by rejection, i mean that no such democracy will ever be the "more perfect union" sought in the united states' constitution. and i am leaving that vague because it is still hard for me to imagine a democratic system that allows for unity and peace more effectively than a rolling empire.

of course, that conquering empire is not an option in the nuclear age. and so i am convinced that the solution is in a more true, more representative form of democracy that allows for all religious viewpoints and political approaches -- as god and country are almost always the causes of war.

either way, this article did bring up one valuable point (at least in the part that i read). and that was that a lot of europe is worried about the inclusion of turkey into the union, and it implied that europeans do not want the increase in the islamic influence in europe. for obvious reasons, i think this is pretty significant.

it will be hard to find peace in a world where hurtful prejudices are so ingrained. in that, i am not saying that i don't find it a legitimate concern for the minds of europeans. but with regards to my vision, i am not sure how many, if any, religions are really ever going to be happy sharing the planets with others.

i still remember the day when kermit (an elderly pakistani man that worked at the store around the corner -- we called him kermit, because he look and spoke like the furry frog; we called the store "hallah" or "goat head" because it sold hallah brand goat meat) and i spoke of kashmir.

if you don't know, kashmir is probably the most likely scene for the opening act in a nuclear exchange. this is a land between pakistan and india; both nations lay claim to it. pakistan and india are both nuclear powers. and pakistan, an islamic nation, is ruled by a military dictator who often cooperates with the west.

at this point in time, i feel that the most likely scenario for the first nuclear exchange would be an islamic revolution in pakistan, followed by islamic extremists control of nuclear weapons, and yada yada yada.

either way, i asked kermit about kashmir and he switched from kermit to hitler. he began to preach rather violently about how the indians weren't even on the same level as the rest of us (meaning jews, christians and muslims) because they did not even believe in god. he repeated several times "they worship rocks." it was one of the most amazing and powerful experiences in my life.

i guess i am saying that i can't forget how much people hate each other. and that to want to change how someone feels, even when they feel hatred, is wrong. it presumes that you know what is right and wrong, and you are willing to enforce it. and where that may be just manipulation in a social environment, when you are talking about people you don't know, it is fascism.

and it's in this clash between common interests and intolerable means that we find the greatest hurdle in the race with the nuclear age.

i think i am rambling now.