Community forest:

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WESTSIDE STORY AND LI'L ABNER:

SIMILARITIES AND FIFFERENCES BETWEEN WESTSIDE STORY AND LI’L ABNER: The Westside Story and Li’l Abner are two American musicals that on the surface appear amateurish but actually address deep social and political issues of their time. The two movie musicals, Li’l Abner and Westside Story, therefore address many similar but also some differing social issues. Li’l Abner is a comic satire, a mockery of the (Federal) political system, and gender roles in the United States. The Westside Story, in contrast is a romantic tragedy similar to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, which among other things deals with issues of juvenile delinquency and gender. The issue of gender and masculinity is prominent in both musicals, as featured in the rite of Sadie Hawkins day festival in Li’l Abner and in the character ‘Anybodys’ in the Westside Story. Mammy Yokum’s concoction is believed to turn weaklings into strong and muscular men, something that eventually was used to convince Washington to spare Dogpatch (Li’l Abner’s town). While Li’l Abner, a comic strip is funny and humorous, the Westside Story is not at all funny. The Westside Story is a dark and tragic Broadway show. In the Westside Story, dance takes the leading role instead of song as in Li’l Abner. The entire cast in the Westside Story comprises largely of dancers, primarily kids with very little experience. In Li’l Abner, however song (singing) is a more important element and the cast consist of more experienced people. The story in Li’l Abner is primarily told through songs while that in the Westside Story is mainly though dance. A striking difference in the two musicals is their plots. Li’l Abner, unlike most comic strips deals with southern experiences and was set in Dogpatch, Kentucky. The Westside Story however is set in the New York City and addresses northern issues. Although the plot, cast and the mood of the musicals are different, they both address questions of politics, gender, love, and rivalry. Both musicals turned out to be very iconic and enduring. The endurance of both musicals is largely the result of the relevance of the issues they address through time and generation

BOOK REVIEW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KHALED HOSSEINI’S ‘KITE RUNNER’ AND ‘THOUSAND SPLENDID SUNS’ .

SUMMARY: The ‘Kite Runner’ and ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’ are two books written by the same author, Khaled Hosseini, an Afghan-American medical doctor and novelist. Both books are critical examinations of not only Afghan society and its political history but also Islam as a culture and the questions it raises about freedom, the rights of women and minorities. The history and geography of Afghanistan; its people, landscape, literature, politics, and culture are the main threads of Hosseini’s writings. The ‘Kite Runner’ opens with a phone conversation between Amir (now living in California) and Rahim Khan, his father’s friend and business partner (now living in Pakistan). Most of the rest of the book is a flashback on Amir’s life with his father (Baba) in Kabul until their relocation to California following the Russian invasion. The last part of the book dealt with Amir and Baba’s life in the United States and Amir’s dangerous trip to Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban to rescue Hassan’s son Zohrab from the orphanage which brought him face-to-face with Assef, a Taliban executioner and child molester. Amir and his Baba fled their luxurious life in Afghanistan for the United States in 1981 through Pakistan. In the United States, they lived a life of poverty in California and Baba’s health was gradually failing. He finally died of terminal cancer the year Amir graduated from high school and married Soraya, General Iqbal’s daughter. Soraya, who once ran away with a man, was considered unmarriageable until she met Amir with guilt of his own from the past. The ‘Kite Runner’ is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the rule of the Shah, and the Soviet invasion in the late 1980s. ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’ however is in four parts: the Soviet occupation, the Mujahedeen uprising, Taliban rule, and the United States invasion following September 11, 2001. The book is set in Afghanistan (Kabul) and Pakistan. It followed the life of Mirriam from the kolba outside the town of Herat near the border with Iran were she was banished with her mother, through her attempted return to her father, and her subsequent forced marriage to Rasheed in Kabul. Mirriam’s life was filled with tragedy and ended in her execution by the Taliban after she killed her husband in an apparent self defense. She sacrificed her life to save Laila who reunited with Tariq (her childhood sweetheart) after a long separation during the Mujahideen wars. MAIN CHARACTERS The main characters in the ‘Kite Runner’ are Hassan and Amir, but the title of the book is an actual reference to Hassan’s kite running skills. ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’ on the other hand is a reference to a poem about Kabul by the 17th century Persian poet, Saeb Tabrizi. The main characters in ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’ are perhaps Miriam and Laila (co-wives of Rasheed). Like Hassan and Amir, the contrasting backgrounds of Miriam and Laila and their subsequent complicated relationship of love, loyalty and sacrifice reveals the intricate web of hypocrisy and double standard in Afghan society and culture. KEY POINTS: 1. Both books are also equally about parent/child relations, example Amir and Baba in the ‘Kite Runner’, Jalil and Miriam and Laila and Babi in ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’. The friendships between Amir and Hassan, Baba and Rahim Khan, Amir and Rahim Khan (in the Kite Runner) and between Laila and Tariq, Miriam and Laila, Miriam and Jalil, Miriam and Mullah Faizullah and Miriam and Aziza (in the Thousand Splendid Suns) are also very noteworthy. While Baba in the “Kite Runner” lived with his son Amir and Hassan, he was relatively emotionally detached perhaps out of guilt of his secret illegitimate child, Hassan. Jalil, in “Thousand Splendid Suns” on the other hand banished Mirriam and her mother, Nana to a remote kolba out of town but continued to secretly visit with gifts and toys. 2. Political conflict resulting from the Russian invasion, the Mujahedeen wars, and the Taliban reign of terror (public stoning, lashings, cutting of limbs, beheadings, gender segregation, banning of girls education, destruction of arts and literature, historical monuments and artifacts, etc). Women were decreed to wear the burqa and can only go out if accompanied by a male relative. The Taliban, it should be noted also destroyed the statues of the Buddha amid condemnation by UNESCO, and destroyed the writings of Rummy and Hafez as well as the music of Zahir Shah. Museums were burnt down as well. The Taliban tyranny would later be replicated in Timbuktu (Mali) under Tuareg invasion in 2012 and in Mosul (Iraq) under ISIL in 2014. 3. Class divisions in Afghanistan, with the wealthy and educated living a more secular conspicuous lifestyle (luxury cars, western clothes, cigars and whiskey) and the poor living in deprivation and religious conservatism characterized by the daily namas prayer and the burqa (hijab). Hosseini himself narrates from a class perspective, having been raised by a wealthy father in a wealthy suburb of Kabul with servants, nice cars, and frequent lavish parties. Hosseinis' high regard for the statues of Buddha, arts and literature especially by Rummy, Hafez, the paintings of the poet Khaja Abdullah Ansary, and many other fine things that may not mean much to many Afghans reveals his bourgeois traits. Hosseini indeed didn't also miss any opportunity to give the reader a lavish description of Kabul's cascading mountains, its lush vegetation and sparkling water, its beautiful sunsets, and bazaars and winding alleys. There is intense aspiration for nature. Amir and his father (Baba) and Zohrab, as well as Laila, Babi and Mami all aspired to go somewhere near the sea-California. Miriam also told Laila after killing their husband, Rasheed that they will go and live somewhere with lots of trees. Afghanistan’s class divisions also include a sad situation where women are judged by one set of rules and the men another. During the rule of the Shah and the Russian occupation, women fared much better than they did under the Taliban. Both Amir’s late mother and Laila’s father (Babi) were teachers. The notion of “honor and pride’ (nang and namos) is widely used to oppress women, deny their right to employment and movement, and in some cases justify severe punishment up to murder in case she brought shame in the family. In both books, we have seen Hosseini depicts an Afghanistan of powerful men taking advantage of powerless women; Baba and Senuba in the’ Kite Runner’, Jalil and Nana, and Rasheed and Laila in the ‘Thousand Splendid Suns’. Despite cultural sanctions, an underworld of "sin" continued to exist. Soraya General Iqbal's daughter eloped with a man, Tariq and Laila often derided as Laili and Majnoon (an Afghan equivalent of Romeo and Juliet ) had an intimate act in Laila's parents' living room, Baba had an illegitimate child (Hassan) with his servant's wife, and Jalil also had a 'harami' daughter (Miriam) with his female servant Nana. Senuba fled with musicians, an act Hosseini described as “worse than death” by most Afghans. Hassan, Miriam and Aziza are all haramis. The orphanages described in both books tell the horrors of sexual abuse, corruption, and deprivation. Both Zohrab and Laila suffered this fate. Also the Taliban's iron fist rule only fueled the smuggling of contraband goods: televisions, videos, and other clandestine activities banned were indulged privately when Talib officials were not looking. 4. Both books are also about the tragedy of war. Death, murder, rape, honor killings, how Assef (a Talib executioner) bragged about the massacre of Hazaras in Mazar-i-Sharif by going door-to-door executing whole families. The first wave of refugees such as Amir and his father fled the war, and the second wave of refugees such as Rasheed and his family who survived the war had to flee the resulting crumbling economy of the war and Taliban rule. KEY TERMS: 1. Hazaras: a minority tribe of Mongol origins dating back to Genghis Khans. They are mostly Shia Muslims and work as servants. Ali (the servants of Baba) and his son Hassan are Hazaras. 2. Nang and Namos: means ‘honor and pride’. It mostly applies to women’s conduct. 3. Harami: an illegitimate child. Hassan, Mirriam, and Aziza are all haramis. 4. Baba (Babi): means father. Amir calls his father Baba and Laila calls her father Babi. RECOMMENDATION: ‘And The Mountains Echoed’, also by Khaled Hosseini

Sidi Sanneh: The Gambia 1994 - 2014 : 20 years of pure unadult...

Sidi Sanneh: The Gambia 1994 - 2014 : 20 years of pure unadult...: How Dr Jamus Jammeh looked in July 1994 Tobacco Road, Banjul compounds The A(F)PRC regime of Alhaji Dr. Professor Yaya Jamus Junku... KAYJATTA

A GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH TO THE ECONOMY: CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

A GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH TO THE ECONOMY: CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS JATTA KEBBA 08/25/13 SUMMARY: This paper is an analysis of the 2005 famine in Niger as well as the financial powerhouse in Wall Street, New York, from an economic geographic perspective as compared to the traditional orthodox economic analysis. It seeks to understand Niger and Wall Street’s unique position in the global (and national) pattern of uneven development, their social structures, and the characteristics and capabilities of their governing institutions. KEY POINTS: 1. Differences between the economist’s and economic geographer’s perspectives on the economy 2. Patterns of uneven development (national, regional, and global) as a necessity of global capitalism 3. Famine as a problem of distribution rather than production 4. Social constructions and representations of poverty and underdevelopment MOST IMPORTANT TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: • Place-refers to the specificity and uniqueness of a particular territory as a result of the interaction of physical features and social processes. • Space-refers to physical distance and area with defined boundaries from other entities. • Scale-refers to the size of the unit in consideration. For example, Niger could be considered at the national, regional or global scale. • Representation-refers to social constructions that describe and create representations of place, space and scale. LINKS: • Masochi to Manhattan versus low wage and high wage earners in the U.S. • Inequality as a product of capitalism • Profiteering versus human worth QUESTIONS: 1. How significant was the 2005 famine to the 2010 military ouster of Niger’s elected President? 2. Niger’s uranium was mentioned in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002. What’s uranium’s contribution to Niger’s economy? 3. Why is so much Wall Street bashing? Is it seen as symbolic of the tyranny of capitalism?

JULY 22: NO REVOLUTION IN THE GAMBIA (Revised). Kayjatta Kansas City INTRODUCTION   Today July 22, 2013 marked 19 years of military rule in the Gambia. In the summer of 1994, disgruntled junior officers of the Gambia National Army (GNA) toppled the democratically elected PPP government of Alhagie Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara that ruled the Gambia for thirty years, since independence from Britain in 1965. Jammeh’s role in that coup still remains unclear despite his repeated claim that he led it. Many Gambians believe that he was selected to leadership only because of his seniority. President Jammeh has since retired from the army after promoting himself to colonel and has transformed his military council (AFPRC) into the ruling APRC political party that has won four consecutive presidential elections widely condemned by independent observers as not free and fair. Despite his civilian façade, President Jammeh continues to rule as a military dictator, assuming enormous national security powers, and in the process destroying all the democratic institutions of the country. The legislature, the judiciary, opposition parties, labor unions, student organizations, the media, business associations, NGOs, religious groups, etc have all been reduced to the ground through various tactics of intimidation – including detentions, torture, and executions of perceived enemies. At the time of the July 22 military coup, the Gambia was enjoying relative peace and stability in a very unstable West African sub-region. The fall of Jawara’s PPP (peoples’ Progressive Party) government was considered “…sad times“for African democracy. At the time of the coup, the Gambia was considered to have the “longest functioning democracy in Africa”. The coup of July 1994 in the Gambia was part of a larger trend in Africa since January 1963 when soldiers brought down the elected government of Silvanus Olympio in Togo. This military intervention in Togo was quickly followed by Congo (DRC) and Benin in August and October respectively, when civilian governments in both countries were toppled. Many other African countries experienced military interventions, some repeatedly since then. Nigerian (January 1966, July 1966, 1975, 1976, 1983, 1985, 1990 and 1993). Ghana (1975, 1978, and 1979).  Gabon (1964), Angola (1977), Kenya (1982), Mali (1968, 1991, and 2012), Sierra Leone (1968, 1992, 1996, and 1997) Liberia (1980, 1989), Senegal (1962), Gambia (1981, 1994), Uganda (1971, 1986). The military have either toppled or attempted to topple governments in other countries including Ethiopia, Somalia, Egypt, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau and Guinea Conakry. Jammeh came to power against this backdrop. The civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone were  still raging; and political sentiments about the military regimes of Valentine Strasser (Sierra Leone), General Sani Abacha (Nigeria), Ft. Lt. JJ Rawlings Ghana), and Col. Qaddaffi (Libya) were still fever high. However, this was also a time when military coups have been tapering off in African and around the world for some time. Many military regimes have or are beginning to return to democracy; hence the so-called "third wave democratization' in Africa. Therefore, the coup of 1994 in the Gambia could be considered a setback to the 'third wave democratization' in Africa. JULY 1994 REVOLUTION, OR IS IT? The aftermath of the military takeover of 1994 is still very controversial.  Jammeh’s ardent supporters often refer to it as “The Revolution”, while many other Gambians consider it to have fallen far short of its revolutionary promise. There is a huge gulf between ‘pretention and reality’. The AFPRC/APRC government, despite its rhetoric and lofty development ambition, barely qualify as a reformist regime much more a revolutionary one. It has to be admitted however, that Jammeh; considering his socio-economic background, could have been the ideal voice and hope for the struggling masses of Gambians. Part of the explanation for the initial support for the coup is that many Gambians were able to identify with him after decades of PPP squander and arrogance. But since coming to power, despite its rhetoric, the AFPRC/APRC has no radical economic or cultural vision. ‘July 22’, for nineteen years now, has not gotten rid of old ideas and structures in favor of new economic and social relationships. Vision 2020, the government's blueprint for socio-economic change has failed. Both economic and political power remains concentrated in the hands of a few army officers and their civilian cronies in the private sector. The masses of Gambians remain even poorer than they were under the civilian government that was toppled on July 22, 1994. There is no political education or actual re-orientation of the masses, partly because the coup makers on July 22 have no political education themselves. There is also no ideological underpinning to differentiate AFPRC/APRC from the civilian government of Jawara’s PPP. Instead of mass political education and re-orientation, decentralizing power into the hands of the people, and increased economic efficiency; widespread abuse of power and corruption continues to be the order of the day. Therefore, Jammeh is not even a “reluctant revolutionary” as in the case of Saikou Toure (Guinea Conakry) - his latest idol. And certainly there were no “Arusha Declaration” as in the case of Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. Through his poor governance and human rights violations, President Jammeh has alienated Gambia’s development partners around the world. Jammeh himself has not been officially welcomed in Europe or the United States-Gambia's traditional allies- for almost all of his entire two decades in office. The European Union further suspended much needed development funds to the Gambia following the recent standoff over the Jammeh-regime’s human rights obligations under the ‘Cotonou Agreement’. Fear and uncertainty continues to grip the nation. Creativity and self-expression are stifled. As a result, economic development (which goes hand-in-hand with good governance) remains an illusion. Also Jammeh’s “Back to the Land” call (a central tenet of ‘The Revolution’) which takes away productive land from the ordinary people and give them to the rich few is not helping his alleged revolutionary standing. The “Back to the Land” call by the APRC is no semblance to the “Green Revolution” of the Indian Punjab. CONCLUSION: A revolution, in order to succeed, must radically transform the economic, social, cultural, and political existence of a given people. The military regime of Yahya Jammeh, for nearly two decades from July 22, 1994 to July 22, 2013 has not succeeded, as it promised, in seriously transforming the Gambian economic and social structures in any profound way. Poverty and inequality remains high and continues to increase. Jammeh’s rule continues to be remembered for its human rights abuses more than anything else. And the socio-economic condition of Gambians is worse than ever. Therefore, the call for another struggle for independence still remains valid in the Gambia. This is well captured in the words of Alexander Hamilton (a United States founding father): "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit...".

Alioune Mbaye NDER - Aladji

KAYJATTA
An evening with Mbai Nderr. I particularly like the soft melody of this piece, led by the guitars and the keyboard. And you can hear the supporting percussions (a crucial element of Senegambian music) in those sputtering melancholic notes in the background. Great instrumentation and very relaxing !

IS MORALITY RELATIVE?

KEBBA JATTA

The question of morality touches on the broader question of ethics. In this paper, I will examine moral relativity within that broad context of ethics but often referring to justice as an example of a moral act. I will argue in favor of moral relativism, relying mainly on Aristotle’s moral theory as oppose to Emmanuel Kant’s Universalist theory. I use Kant largely because he appears to stand on a similar philosophical ground as Plato. Kant and Plato share a Universalist view of morality. They both believe that morality is absolute for all people at all times. This is perhaps the Newtonian view (after the British physicist, Isaac Newton) of morality as opposed to the Aristotelian moral relatively similar to Einstein’s (Relativity) theory of the universe.

Moral relativity is the philosophical theory that there is no objective standard to measure or judge what is right or wrong. This concept perhaps developed from the ‘social contract theory’ as explained in Plato’s Republic. The ‘social contract theory’ states that human beings are naturally unjust (immoral). Everybody acts on their desires and personal interest somewhat similar to John Locke’s political theory of the ’State of Nature’, which ultimately is bad for everyone in the society. This realization that extreme individual selfish acts ultimately undermine society’s wellbeing then prompts people to agree among themselves not to harm one another. This agreement then becomes the ‘social contract’ that forms the moral code leading to a peaceful, beneficial and a happy society for all, Glaucon stated in the Republic. Therefore, according to moral relativism, what is moral or ethical depends on what is generally accepted by each society. Morality therefore cannot be constant over time and space. In short, there is no such thing as absolute morality.

Critics of moral relativism argue that it makes excuse for horrible acts such as slavery and Nazism for example, which could then be considered by moral relativist as morally right in the past even though it is now considered by the majority of people as wrong. Professor Nam raised this issue in his lecture series by asking “what if the majority of the people come to consider slavery as morally right again in 2052?” These are valid questions that need to be adequately addressed by moral relativists. However, slavery (except chattel capitalistic slavery that existed in the United States and Europe) in some form existed in every society at some point. It is often a response to the prevailing economic conditions and labor relations that sometimes works for both slave and slave owner.

However, the question still remains: why do we act morally? Or to use justice as a specific example, why do we act justly? Before addressing this question, I have to point out that, as Professor Nam stated; this question assumes that morality actually exists? If so, then the question of whether morality is absolute or relative and the motive(s) for it arises. Morality is indeed real, by all indications, and according to Aristotle, it exists in relative terms. That is to say that morality varies from society to society across time and space. Professor McGowan cited the example of the Eskimo culture in his lecture series on YouTube. According McGowan, Eskimo parents kill their young ones especially female ones at their own discretion, and they also freely share their wives with visitors as a show of hospitality. These acts by Western standards are horrible acts, but there appears to be a number of environmental and cultural rationales for these practices by Eskimos. Aristotle argued that people act morally or justly because of their natural desire to do the “highest good” which is to achieve the state of happiness. This, in the Aristotelian sense is a natural urge to fulfill human nature rather than an abstract mysterious purpose that both Plato and Kant suggested. In the painting of the two philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) shown together in Dr. Nam’s lecture, Plato could be seen pointing his finger upwards while Aristotle directed his hand to the ground.  This depiction of the two philosophers, in a subtle way, illustrates their different philosophical stands. While Plato looked upwards to the sky for heavenly reasons why humans act morally or justly, a view shared by Kant; Aristotle looked for earthly reasons within human beings themselves for the motives. It is relevant to note this Aristotelian departure from his teacher, Plato’s transcendentalist motives for morality.

Aristotle viewed happiness as the use of reason and wisdom to perform virtuous acts.  Emmanuel Kant in contrast trusted that instinct more than reason results in actions that produce happiness. Therefore, according to Aristotle, virtue is the criterion for evaluating whether an action is morally good or not. These inward, naturalistic ways of explaining human motives for acting morally are referred to as the “Aristotelian Circle”. It stands in sharp contrast to the supernatural, abstract and mysterious ways of Plato which are now called the “Platonic Forms”. While Plato didn’t elaborate on these transcendental motives, Aristotle went to some length to explain his theory. According to Aristotle, two forces determine whether humans act morally or not. They are “character” and “action”, and both are not absolute but rather they depend on each other. “Character” determines an action to be virtuous. However, “character” is in turn formed by virtuous “acts” (actions). Aristotle believed that this two way interaction between “character” and “action” results in the state of “happiness” (Eudaimonia), which is the ultimate goal of human nature. “Happiness above all else is what we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else”, Aristotle said (Andrew Bailey, 2011).

Critics of Aristotle’s theory points out that his argument could not be right because it runs in circles. They are quick to note that, it is a circular argument to say that “character determines action, and that action in turn determines character” as the “Aristotelian Circle” appears to indicate. For this reason, they argue that we have to accept Plato’s argument in the “Platonic Forms” because it does not have the circular problem that Aristotle’s theory has. My problem with the “Platonic Forms” is that we do not know what it is. Plato did not tell us what these forms are. Plato’s theory therefore may not have a circular problem, but it does have an epistemic one.

Professor McGowan also cited the examples of free speech in the United States versus China, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and the U.S. Founding Fathers as representing moral acts at one point in time and space and at another, representing immoral acts. This illustrates that moral relativism is self-defeating, according to Professor McGowan. However, McGowan warns us to be open-minded because our preferences may not after all be rooted in some absolute rational standards, and cited monogamy in Mormonism as well as modesty of dress and Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction”.

In his “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant also identified ‘character’ as a precedent for moral acts, but unlike Aristotle, he added ‘good will’ as an indispensable constituent of ‘character’. Kant’s ‘good will’ is similar to Plato’s transcendental motives in that he (Kant) views ‘good will’ as the highest good, even worthy of happiness by itself. Kant’s view is problematic with regards to actions that are just and moral, for he believes that the mere act of doing something just and moral does not necessarily result in its moral worth. The ‘good will’ or the inclination to do the just and moral act must be present in order for the action to be morally worthy. This Kantian ‘good will’ is the mental disposition that Kant himself referred to as the “categorical imperative” (Bailey, pg. 659). Therefore an action accompanied by good will has moral worth, and an action not accompanied by good will has no moral worth, according to Kant (Bailey, pg. 650). In his ‘Third Formulation’, Kant urged one to act as if his actions should serve as a universal law of all rational beings (Bailey, pg. 662). But there is no universal law of all rational beings. Besides the physical laws of nature, much of the laws governing human actions are human constructs reflecting human interaction with one another and the environment through time and space. Kant in effect ascribed a fixed reference point for moral behavior, pretty much like Plato did. This is not consistent with human experience.

Human history itself is a testimony to the credibility of moral relativity. Human beings, as evolutionary beings, are in all respects non-static. Human character and action are in a constant flux as variables of time and space. Our changing values on some of today’s hot-button issues such as military conflict, assisted suicide, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc are very instructive in this respect.