Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditGeorge W. Bush sure knows a lot more than the experts. He believes intelligent design is a scientific theory on par with evolution--even though his science adviser has said that I.D. has no merit as a scientific theory. He also seems to be more wise in the ways of Iraqi society and politics than leading Iraqis. On Tuesday Bush praised the draft constitution hammered out by Shiites and Kurds without Sunni involvement. He called it an "amazing event." But as the New York Times and other papers have reported, Iraqi secular leaders have warned that this constitution could lead to domination of Iraq by Shiite Islamic clerics.
Most notably, on the same day that Bush was hyping the draft constitution, Ghassan Atiyyah, the director of the Baghdad-based Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, was on NPR explaining why the constitution could be dangerous for secularists, women and others in Iraq. Before sharing some quotes, let me note that Atiyyah has been supported by Bush's closest, pro-war allies. The neoconnish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has hosted him in Washington. The International Republican Institute, the global arm of the GOP, has provided Atiyyah's outfit assistance. Its website notes:
Headed by Ghassan Atiyyah, a respected Iraqi dissident and publisher of the oppositionist periodical The Iraqi File, the IFDD is a regionally based non-governmental organization committed to supporting democracy and development in Iraq by fostering dialogue between decision-makers and citizens on important social, economic, and political issues. A primary goal of the Foundation is to bring together people of diverse ethnic, religious, political and tribal backgrounds to build consensus on finding solutions to the issues most important to the Iraqi people and for assisting in the promotion of freedom and democracy. With the material and advisory assistance provided by IRI's Baghdad staff, the IFDD has convened several conferences of substantial importance.
With that endorsement in mind, let's see what Atiyyah had to say about the draft constitution when he was interviewed by NPR:
ATIYYAH: [The Sunnis] are faced with a constitution on the basis, 'Take it or leave it.' It's very difficult for them to accept that because there are so many items in it which are very difficult for them to stomach, and they will lose credibility even among the moderate Sunnis. So they have the option now to vote against it in a referendum. Could the Arab Sunni muster two-thirds majority in three provinces, the Sunni provinces, veto the constitution and dissolve the parliament and bring a new election? I doubt that. Most of the Sunni boycotted the election. They didn't just throw their names in the electoral list. So it is for them only one week left to register their names. Then you have to mobilize them and to get them to the polling boxes. At the time when al-Zarqawi and the extremists and the jihadists threatened them by killing them if they go to the vote or the referendum, and so they will find themselves between the fire and the blue sea, and this will play into the hands of the extremists.
MELISSA BLOCK: It sounds like what you're saying here is almost two parallel tracks, that a constitution will go through without Sunni approval, that it will pass a referendum in October, that will pave the way for elections in December. But the Sunnis will be out of the process, and extremism will rise as a result.
ATIYYAH: This is the nightmare scenario. I feel the secular and liberal are the victim of what happened during the last two years. Now the ascendancy of religion and even the constitution--there's so many references to Islam, to the extent that it is clearly stipulated that any law that contradicts Islam will be rejected. And who is the judge as whether it is--contradicts Islam or not? It will be a higher court. So in a sense, you are creating another body like the Iranian body, a special body, the Iranian--which is not elected; it's appointed--which has authority to decide this law is Islamic or not. So are we going into the path of Islamic state in Iraq thanks to the American administration? Is that what the American public expected would happen in Iraq, getting rid of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to be replaced by a theocracy?
BLOCK: Is your fear, Mr. Atiyyah, that your country would be devolving toward a theocratic state?
ATIYYAH: This is one of the possibilities, one of the scenarios. Now we are at the crossroad. The fact is the main forces who are drafting the constitution are the Shia Islamists, who have the backing of Iran as well as the Kurds. The deal between the Kurds and the Shia is very simple. It's to have a federal state by allowing the Kurds have their own way in Kurdistan, and in return, the Shia Muslims will have their way in the south.
BLOCK: Is it your sense that ordinary Iraqis are following this process, debating the fine points of the constitution much as we are now? Is this, say, the talk of the town right now?
ATIYYAH: Ma'am, believe me, the man on the street, he has no electricity. He is worrying about how to get gas, he is worrying how to get the water, he is worrying how to bring food to the table to his family. He is worrying about security, when to leave. He has no time to think of this [unintelligible] of the constitution. The constitution only today was published in the press, today. Who will read it? Who will care about it? This doesn't mean that the case is hopeless. Our fate is intertwined with American administration; their failure is our failure. But the United States can survive a failure in Iraq, but we Iraqis, a failure means a catastrophe and mean an end of a country.
Failure in Iraq? That's sure not what Bush has been talking about these past few days, as he tries once more to rally popular support for the war. But Bush must be closer to the real facts than Atiyyah, right? The IRI ought to ask Atiyyah for its money back.
And during his speech on Wednesday to a stacked audience of National Reservists in Idaho, Bush went on and on about the enemy in Iraq, describing the opposition as only a collection of foreign fighters who have amassed in Iraq to fight the United States because they "fear the march of freedom" and "despise our freedom and way of life." Sure, there are jihadists in Iraq. But part--if not most--of the problem comes from Sunni insurgents who did not have to cross any borders to take up arms against US troops (and who don't give a fig about freedoms and ways of living in the United States). Once more, Bush is peddling a comic-book depiction of the conflict in Iraq: us versus the evil terrorists. Many analysts are already describing the war there as a civil war, as militia attacks increase. Bush, though, is immune to reality. I know that's no news flash. But as the gap continues to grow between Bush's "reality" and what's really occurring in Iraq, his warmed-over sales pitch is likely not to have much impact.
Today, Ret. Col. Pat Lang, who once was a top intelligence analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (and who remains one of the sharper analysts of events in Iraq), posted an item on his blog in which he pointed to a sparkle of hope in a recent statement by the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalizad, who acknowledged the issue at hand is indeed dealing with the Sunni-based insurgency (not foreign fighters). Lang writes:
"What they are doing is to go for broader level of support because of political considerations, because of the need to build consensus, because of the need to isolate the insurgency from the Sunni population." -- [Zalmay] Khalilzad
Congratulations, Mr. Ambassador!!
It has been clear from the very beginning of the armed uprising in Iraq that the largely (but not altogether) Sunni Arab revolt could not exist, grow and continue to operate without some level of popular support.
A very simple and basic principle of insurgent warfare is that guerrillas have to have food, shelter, money, weapons, intelligence and a population which accepts their presence and does not report them to the security forces. That support or cooperation can be freely given, coerced, or some combination of the two.
The Bush Administration and the senior leadership of the US Armed forces has maintained throughout the war that the insurgents are:
-Baathist holdouts and "deadenders" who are not more than a handful and who are without popular support.
-Foreign and domestic mercenaries (often criminal) who are also without popular support.
-Iraqi Islamists (a handful) who have no popular support.
-Foreign Islamists smuggled in primarily from Syria (no support).
Right up until yesterday the egregious (but handsome) Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, was saying on the tube that those who are fighting the "progress of Democracy" in Iraq are a "tiny, indeed miniscule" percentage of the "Iraqi people."
In this context, the clear headed realism of Ambassador Khalilzad in telling Gwen Ifill of the Newshour that the new constitution must receive a lot of Sunni Arab support in order to "isolate the insurgency from the Sunni population" is highly significant.
What this tells us is that Khalilzad, and therefor probably the Bush Administration, has a much clearer understanding of the structure and numbers of the insurgencies than we had been led to believe.
Well, if that's the case, Bush is keeping it a secret. He's dishing out the usual rhetoric, linking the invasion of Iraq to 9/11 and refusing to acknowledge the full basis of the bloody conflict in Iraq. Perhaps he also knows better than his own ambassador.
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Poked our heads into the middle of a cultural conflict that is how many centuries old? And we really think that if we go in and say "You can be as wonderful as we are" that they will start builing McDonalds and line up for a new Hummer. Most mideast nations have been theocratic since W-A-AY back when. Trying to get three disparate factions to agree to "play nice" AND change to a new way of life (one that we like) is kind of a stretch...dontcha think?
(Have we learned nothing from the Gaza Strip / West Bank experience?)
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 2:14pm
BTW all: a new spin on the ID issue at: New Yorker [newyorker.com]
and if you haven't seen the far fringe of the ID debate, go to: FSM [venganza.org] Its definitely worth the click!
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 2:25pm
leftofcenter:
No, we haven't learned. We'll never learn, because we are indoctrinated from birth, as Americans, to believe in manifest destiny. If it's good (or at least perceived as good) for Americans, then it must be done.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/24/2005 @ 2:28pm
Leftofcenter, I was just about to post the FSM site. Too funny. I came across it yesterday. :)
Posted by RG at 08/24/2005 @ 2:28pm
I believe the president is looking at this as a starting point. It's going to take decades to see the results of the actions being taken today.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/24/2005 @ 2:52pm
It is indeed frightening that one person (Bush) can be so delusional. After 9/11, the US had the empathy, sympathy and the ears and eyes of the world upon it. Now we are despised and reviled as never before, especially in the middle east. Our illegal and senseless occupation of Iraq has produced an Islamic state modelled after Iran and run by Tehran trained Mullahs (Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of SCIRI [Supreme Counsel for Islamic Revolution in Iraq] and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari were groomed by Ayotollah Khomeni in the '80's). It took Bush to get them into positions of power. If the unstated goal of Bush policy was to create an inreasingly unstable political situation in the middle east, then it may be considered successful. I, for one, am willing to entertain the possibility that the religious right is trying to hasten biblical "end of times" by creating the conditions for armageddon. Nothing seems too far-fetched with this group of murderers and thugs.
Posted by carpenters at 08/24/2005 @ 3:11pm
"But the United States can survive a failure in Iraq, but we Iraqis, a failure means a catastrophe and mean an end of a country."
That this statement is obvious doesn't make it any less poignant. Maybe if more Westerners could use their imaginations for a minute and realize that these are people (even though they look and talk funny) we wouldn't have allowed the casual destruction of the birthplace of civilization.
Then again, maybe the US won't really survive failure in Iraq considering the enormous amount of hatred just waiting for harvest day.
Posted by rain man at 08/24/2005 @ 3:11pm
Well, as Dubya has exclaimed on multiple occasions he doesn't care what other nations think of us, perhaps this is a non-issue for him. I don't know what is more frightening: 1) that he is lying to us and the world full-well knowning what an incredible load of fecal matter it all is, or 2) that he really actually believes it's all true and this is the right thing to do....
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 3:12pm
Bush's speeches of late remind me of William Faulkner's Thomas Sutpen and how Sutpen's post-Civil War return to Sutpen's Hundred is described; ...of the house itself, talking that which sounded like the bombast of a madman who creates within his very coffin walls his fabulous immeasurable Camelots and Carcassonnes.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 3:21pm
I see a lot of anger and loathing towards Bush from the left. I understand it and have felt the same way myself. Now I am starting just to feel sorry for him.
Why? 9/11 happened on his watch. It was a horrible thing, and no one would want to be the president of an event like that. But moreso is the fact that he is in over his head. He was never up to the challenge of being a peacetime president. Being a wartime president is just way beyond anything he could handle.
America, wake up! This is what happens when you elect a drinking-buddy-type guy to be president. This is what happens when you become anti-intellectual and decide to vote for the guy who is most like you. This is why we need to vote policy, not personality. Until a majority of the voters learn this, we will continue to have incompetents like George W Bush lead our country into decline....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 3:24pm
LEFTOFCENTER: I'm sure the president understands how some of the other nations think of us. He just doesn't look at it as a popularity contest. There's a greater calling at work here.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/24/2005 @ 3:26pm
usapride: what is the greater calling that you speak of?
i have a hard time believing that any nation in the world has the right (read: audacity) to police the world in opposition to world opinion. you are correct that it should not be a popularity contest, but at the same time, the will of the global community should not be ignored.
Posted by wordupyo at 08/24/2005 @ 3:56pm
ILOVEPHYSICS: Right on.
I can't feel sorry for Bush, but every time I see him, he seems (and sounds) a little more irrelevant than the last time.
Posted by rain man at 08/24/2005 @ 3:56pm
I certainly understand that the "secularists" both in Iraq and in America, including in the American government would prefer that the Iraq constitution be constructed around ethically correct and "politically correct" standards, and not influenced by Islam.
However, who are we to judge what their constitution should look like?
I know some scorn the idea of a democratic constitution heavily influenced by the Muslim faith, and I see the arguments against it, woman's rights etc. however it's not going to be our country. We are supposed to be liberators not occupiers right? I would think that the U.S. modeling in "how" the Iraq constitution is constructed will make us looked upon as occupiers instead of liberators.
Let them put together their constitution the way they want to, it's their country not ours.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 3:58pm
The meaning that I draw from Bush's actions to meet with his pro-war supporters again (a la his actions regarding Terry Schiavo) and to not meet with Cindy again is:
Bush, in his own cynical, indecent and childish "in your face" way is meeting with all his pro-war supporters in an action that says to Cindy Sheehan "because you don't support the 'noble cause' of my war in Iraq, you and your son's death denotes nothing to me and my ilk".
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 4:02pm
oksportsguy...
i find your comments somewhat hypocrytical if you indeed support the iraq war.
if it is "their country not ours", why did america invade in the first place?
you would probably argue that it was to remove an evil dictator, but if that is the true reason, why was it done without the support of the global community?
that being said, their country is now in shambles because america has been the controlling force since the war. america has pounded their cities into rubble (see: fallujah). america has taken complete control over the funds designated for post war construction (and made Halliburton filthy rich in the process).
so why now, when something so critical as the constitution is being decided, are you washing your hands and sending them at it alone?
Posted by wordupyo at 08/24/2005 @ 4:07pm
OK,
The reason that a constitution based on Islamic law is scorned is that it would create a theocracy. Theocracy & freedom are not two terms that really jive all that well. That's basically forcing someone to obey anothers religion is it not? Instead of cheerleading for the current Constitution, the administration could, at the very least, strongly urge the Shia & the Kurds to include the Sunnis & stop treating them like an insignificant group of people (especially since there are so many of them).
Posted by thejman at 08/24/2005 @ 4:42pm
In a press conferance- before the war- RUMMY was asked if he had considered the likelyhood that free elections might result in a theocratic fundamentalist Muslim government.....
RUMMY said, " Oh, we're not going to let that happen " So much for self determination!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/24/2005 @ 4:56pm
okaysportsguy--
from past comments you've made, you don't seem to know much about Islam. you mentioned that the god of Islam and the god of Christianity are two different gods, when in fact, a cursory reading of the Quran would tell you that this book encompasses much of the same ground as the Bible (same prophets, same events). With little understanding of the basic precepts of Islam, you nevertheless wouldn't want to see Iraq draft a constitution based on Islam. And yet Christians in America urge politicians to integrate more (Christian) religious values into our legal and civic arenas.
Posted by habiba at 08/24/2005 @ 4:58pm
Habiba,
Maybe OBL is working in concert with Pat Robertson. They seem to have the same attitudes regarding church and state.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 5:14pm
USAP....Don't we lay claim to being "Leader of the Free World." How's that going these days? Opinion does count because it engenders the respect (or lack thereof) Howzabout lead by example - how's that for a "greater calling". Looks more like a "Do as I say, not as I do!"
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 5:34pm
Text of the draft Iraqi Constitution
Translated from Arabic by Associated Press
We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic: on our land, the first law put in place by mankind was written; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed, the philosophers and the scientists theorized and the writers and poets created.
Recognizing God's right upon us; obeying the call of our nation and our citizens; responding to the call of our religious and national leaders and the insistence of our great religious authorities and our leaders and our reformers, we went by the millions for the first time in our history to the ballot box, men and women, young and old, on Jan. 30, 2005, remembering the pains of the despotic band's sectarian oppression of the majority; inspired by the suffering of Iraq's martyrs - Sunni and Shiite, Arab, Kurd and Turkomen, and the remaining brethren in all communities - inspired by the injustice against the holy cities in the popular uprising and against the marshes and other places; recalling the agonies of the national oppression in the massacres of Halabja, Barzan, Anfal and against the Faili Kurds; inspired by the tragedies of the Turkomen in Bashir and the suffering of the people of the western region, whom the terrorists and their allies sought to take hostage and prevent from participating in the elections and the establishment of a society of peace and brotherhood and cooperation so we can create a new Iraq, Iraq of the future, without sectarianism, racial strife, regionalism, discrimination or isolation.
Terrorism and "takfir" (declaring someone an infidel) did not divert us from moving forward to build a nation of law. Sectarianism and racism did not stop us from marching together to strengthen our national unity, set ways to peacefully transfer power, adopt a manner to fairly distribute wealth and give equal opportunity to all.
We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined - men and women, old and young - to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.
We are the people of Iraq, who in all our forms and groupings undertake to establish our union freely and by choice, to learn yesterday's lessons for tomorrow, and to write down this permanent constitution from the high values and ideals of the heavenly messages and the developments of science and human civilization, and to adhere to this constitution, which shall preserve for Iraq its free union of people, land and sovereignty.
Part 1 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 2 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 3 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 4 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 5 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 6 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 7 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 8 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 9 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 10 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 11 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Part 12 [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/24/2005 @ 6:08pm
Jack Rabbit,
Thank you for the post on the Iraqi Constitution. It appears that we are well on our way to an Islamci Republic in Iraq.
I smell a civil war brewing too.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 6:50pm
Hey Zero: "Also, necessarily, the "Bush 'doctrine'" and its progenitors, the neoconservatives, will have no credibility at all with much of the US political class and the general population."
The "Bush 'doctrine'" and its progenitors don't have to have credibility at all with much of the US political class and the general population. They only have to have credibility with the "base" i.e. the yahoos who support Bush no matter what, who see him (mistakenly) as one of their own and so circle the wagons around him whenever he looks vulnerable, such as when he screws up big-time like now, or gets flak for making stupid/ignorant remarks (which I suspect are actually calculated to stimulate this chain of response). The rest of Bush's supporters just want their tax cuts; they think they're rich, or will be, and don't want to spend on public programs. As long as Bush & Co. can sucker enough people with the Culture War Bait (e.g. abortion, gays, stem cells, guns prayer, "Intelligent Design"), they can keep getting elected and keep pushing the country back to the "good-ole days" of no government regulation of business and no public spending that helps ordinary people.
Posted by wgilwood at 08/24/2005 @ 6:59pm
To Orabibi:
You're welcome.
I searched the document for what it says about women and found only two references: one that guarantees them "social and health insurance, the basics for a free and honorable life" and another that guarantees that 25% of the seats in Parliament will go to women. Perhaps the notion that women's rights is shorted in this document is based on what is read into Chapter One, Article 2a: "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." That may not bode well. At the same time, Article 2b says: "No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy." That can be interpreted as guaranteeing women equal rights. Let the appellate courts sort that out.
If the concern for women's rights is alarmist (maybe), the Sunni dissatisfaction over the document is real and that has a potential to blow this whole thing wide open with a very loud explosion.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/24/2005 @ 7:18pm
Jack Rabbit,
The Iraqi women, under the new Iraqi constitution, will be up that proverbial creek; and if Bush has his way with the Supreme Court of the United States, the American women will be paddling the boat.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 8:25pm
Sadr, a strident nationalist whose followers deride rival Shi'ite Islamist leaders for their time in exile in Iran, has joined leaders of the Sunni Arab minority in denouncing the draft constitution as a recipe for the break up of the state.
Link: Iraq Shi'ites intra-sectarian clash [news.yahoo.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 8:34pm
To Oraibi:
The Iraqi women, under the new Iraqi constitution, will be up that proverbial creek.
That is a real possibility. Can you show me in that constitution where it says that?
Reading the document as I do, I looks like an ebb and flow as liberals or conservatives come to power, if they're so fortunate as to implement this constitution.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/24/2005 @ 8:48pm
FRANKGRITS, I have been thinking about your comment about sending Laura to Iraq to advocate for women, to go all the way. And I have been reading about all the soldiers and moms that think their son or daughter is fighting for a good cause. So this leads to a suggestion for really going all the way. Let all the soldiers that think it is a good cause keep the fight. Let the ones who think otherwise come home and serve on a base at home. Let the advocates of the war put their all into it.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 9:36pm
FRANKGRITS, Let me take it one step further and suggest that the war be funded by an optional war tax. The pro-war crowd can pay for the war. The anti-war crowd can avoid paying for it checking no. So the government expensive war activities are based on the support of the public. Will folks put their money where their mouth is? Maybe they will.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 9:43pm
JackRabbit,
That is a real possibility. Can you show me in that constitution where it says that?
Reading the document as I do, I looks like an ebb and flow as liberals or conservatives come to power, if they're so fortunate as to implement this constitution.
I don't understand your statements above.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 9:45pm
We live near a military base in the south and can tell you that there will always be young men wanting to fight in a war. Probably does not even matter what the war is about. Most young people desire to be heroes, so soldiering in a war will always be appealing to many young people.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 9:47pm
A different view of the Iraqi constitution.
Iraqi Women's Rights [news.yahoo.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 9:52pm
To Oraibi:
You said in you 8:25pm post that Iraqi women would be up a creek under this constitution. I'd like you to point to a clause in that constitution that specifically says women shall have less rights than men.
I think Zero may have tried to point it out at 9:12pm, but I had already pointed to that clause and noted that the very next one says that no law shall be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. To me, that means all citizens have equal rights; it would mean you couldn't pass a law that says women shall have less rights than men.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/24/2005 @ 9:59pm
Wordupyo,
"if it is "their country not ours", why did america invade in the first place?
you would probably argue that it was to remove an evil dictator, but if that is the true reason, why was it done without the support of the global community? "
Thank you for the response, and I can see how you might consider my response hypocritical.
I have made my justifications and logic for supporting the war on terror in general and specifically in Iraq before. It was a rather long post with a lot of data and references, I would prefer to not have to do it again.
The WMD argument would have been icing on the cake for me.
Call me evil but I don't particularly have a problem with the theory that part of the decision to go to war was to prop up a U.S. friendly democracy that would be more inclined to trade on the fair market with regard to oil.
As far as why it wasn't done with the support of the global community, that part of the question was asked with some bias in the framing of it.
We did and continue to have a coalition (albeit some have left like Spain). It is not only the U.S. forces in Iraq.
Additionally we DID strive to get the U.N. involved as well as the rest of the world, they gave us the proverbial hand, and therefore we had to go kick ass and take names on our own (again albeit that was based on the WMD argument which looks extremely weak if not flat out wrong currently).
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:00pm
FRANKGRITS, It was not meant to make any judgement. It is something that should be taken into account. There will always be people who want to soldier. So how do we deal with that? What if you trained for years to be a fireman or vet, but never got the chance to fight a real fire, or treat a sick animal. Everyone goes to great lengths to call the soldiers heroes, even the anti-war people. But if there were no war they would not be geting much attention at all. Why
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:02pm
To Oraibi (2):
Your link yields the following:
Sorry, the page you requested was not found. The story or page you were trying to access may have expired.
If you are having trouble locating a destination on Yahoo! News, try visiting the Yahoo! News home page or browse through the News site index. Also, you may find what you're looking for if you try searching below.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/24/2005 @ 10:03pm
It would help if soldiering and war fighting were not always discussed as such noble activities. But try to say that in a speech and not get mugged.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:04pm
Maybe we have become a military welfare state. Our economy and self-esteem seems to depend so much on fighting a war and being "winners" in the battle.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:07pm
Yep, A lot of the young people we know that recently joined the military were trying to get a paycheck and some education. But if you are a fighting hero you can probably have more success picking up girls.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:13pm
Unless the war is discredited like Vietnam. Some of those soldiers came back and found they could not pick up girls as easy as they hoped. It was much easier in a Saigon bar. And some of those guys are still bitter even today.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:15pm
Maybe Bush and Cheney forget to factor in that Iraq would not have the easy access to young women as in Vietnam. No wonder some of the troops are getting frustrated.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:17pm
Zero,
"Uh, oksportsguy? I think that we are uh already "viewed as occupiers, not liberators"? That question seems to have uh been answered already ... ? *boggle*"
Yes, from the very biased pictures that you are fed from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS I'm sure we certainly are looked upon as "occupiers" and if that's what you want to continue to believe I certainly won't change your mind.
However, I have seen the "real" pictures, digitally emailed from relatives fighting in Iraq of the Iraqi's having lunch with our soldiers, soldiers playing soccer with the kids with the big smiles on their faces. The kids gathering around the humvees with outstreached hands for the candy being tossed by the troops.
I've seen pictures of the crying mothers and fathers that are watching their kids return to school, to schools that have been refurbished with American money.
such as: U.S. military on mission to rebuild Iraq schools [herald-dispatch.com]
many do see the U.S. as occupiers, however many see us as liberators, you just conveniently won't see those images unless you have someone in your family serving over there.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:17pm
Most 19 yr olds see themselves as immortal.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:18pm
Frank,
"Todd, re your post of 3:58. Once in awhile, you show a flash of brilliance."
Hmm not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious..
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:18pm
Thejman,
"The reason that a constitution based on Islamic law is scorned is that it would create a theocracy. Theocracy & freedom are not two terms that really jive all that well. That's basically forcing someone to obey anothers religion is it not?"
I understand what a theocracy is = )
And yes, you are absolutely right.
The great majority of Iraqi's are Muslim however and that is their tradition and local religion.
I'm simply making a point, that we should let the Iraqi's set up their government the way they see fit. Again it's their country, not ours.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:22pm
You folks are missing the key issue about the foreign troops. The Iraqi women, the culture, and the perceived sexual promiscuity of Americans. That is why they will always be wary of American troops in the Middle East.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:23pm
This yakity-yak about the constitution is silly. They want electricty, fresh water, jobs, safe neighborhoods, and protection of the virtue of their daughters and sisters.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:25pm
Now if Bush arranged marriages for his daughters to Iraqi men it would be a great breakthrough. But I do not see that happening.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:28pm
Habiba,
"And yet Christians in America urge politicians to integrate more (Christian) religious values into our legal and civic arenas."
Number one, my God is Jesus Christ, he most definitely is not the same god that Muslims follow. Don't have the audacity to insinuate that the two are the same.
Specifically on your comments about urging politicians...
No.. we don't urge them...
We just circulate a petition for a ballot initiative, collect enough signatures to get it on the ballot, vote on it, and then put the damn thing into law.
Which is exactly how we amended our state constitution in Oklahoma to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
How "unethical" of us huh?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:29pm
OKLA, If it were not for the "liberal pressure" of the federal government the minorities in OK would probably still be using different restrooms.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:33pm
OKSPORTSGUY,
Don't let your emotions cloud the reality that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all share the same god. Of course, Jesus Christ is merely a 'prophet' to the Jews. That's why I always wonder why the US Christians allow the Jews to control 'The Holy Land'. I bet if the Jews found definitive proof that Jesus Christ is the son of God, they'd destroy the evidence. Wouldn't be the first time evidence has been destroyed to bolster a religion.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/24/2005 @ 10:41pm
Anxioussoul,
"OKLA, If it were not for the "liberal pressure" of the federal government the minorities in OK would probably still be using different restrooms."
Actually most of them still are, but not for the reasons you are thinking based on the "seperate but equal" concept.
Oklahoma is still a fairly racially divided state, based on geography only, not racism.
We have our black churches and our white churches.
We have our black inner cities, and our white suburban neighborhoods.
It's more of a voluntary segregation, certainly not a mandatory one.
Actually, however the racial tension left over from the race tulsa race riot:
"Burned Into Memory." People; 4/14/2003, Vol. 59 Issue 14, p115, 2p, 1c, 2bw
Are for the most part gone. Sure, bigotry does exist among some people, but race relations are much better now.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:46pm
D1oD1o,
"Don't let your emotions cloud the reality that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all share the same god."
Are you a Christian, Muslim or Jew? If you are, you can speak for your God. Don't profess to speak for another group of people in terms of who their God is if you aren't sure.
That was the point I was making earlier. MY GOD is Jesus Christ. Don't tell me who I pray too, you have no idea.
And I have yet to see a Muslim person praise and pray to Jesus, when I do, I'll happily write back and ask for your forgiveness, because then you will be right, we will have the same God.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:50pm
OK: It's a good thing the situation is better than the Tulsa Riot or OU would not be very competitive in their conference.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:51pm
I could be wrong, but I think in OK white people vote overwhelmingly for "conservatives" and black people vote overwhelmingly for "liberals". But of course the voting choices are voluntary.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 10:57pm
"OK: It's a good thing the situation is better than the Tulsa Riot or OU would not be very competitive in their conference."
LOL
True... true..
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:59pm
I just heard Pat Robertson say he was misquoted? The networks must have fabricated his voice the other day.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 11:04pm
Anxioussoul,
"I could be wrong, but I think in OK white people vote overwhelmingly for "conservatives" and black people vote overwhelmingly for "liberals". But of course the voting choices are voluntary."
I think you would be wrong, and here's my argument as to why:
As you can see from the 2004 voter registration statistics, we had 1,022,442 registered democrats, and 720,121 registered republicans:
Yet, Bush won EVERY county in Oklahoma:
Oklahoma President and vice Pres outcome '04 [state.ok.us]
Therefore a TON of democrats must have voted for Bush.
(or the evil Republicans, through voter fraud just "fixed" all the ballots)
Just kidding.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 11:11pm
Frank,
"Yeah, so long as they don't move out to the suburbs huh Todd?"
Please... please... don't make me have to pull out the proverbial "I have some black friends card"
I really don't want to have to do that.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 11:12pm
YEs, same as here in SC/NC. Most conservatives were registered as Democrats since the days of Lincoln until the non-southern Democrats supported some of the civil rights movement. Many are now still registered as Dems, but they vote overwhelmingly conservative.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/24/2005 @ 11:18pm
Todd....I see "up blog" a mite what is a big part of the issue here and abroad. The "my god's better than your god" perspex. As someone who obviously has very strong opinions...I ask you: What is to come of all those various "non Christians" listed when they die? For that matter....are there types of Christians that someone like yourself would consider an "unbeliever"? (Mormons for example, or Christian Science)
I earnestly want to get a feel for where the boundaries are....I will share my own perspectives if you're interested as well...
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 11:40pm
JackRabbit,
Your idea of democracy might be a little different from the idea of democracy under Iraq's Islamic rule.
But then you don't have to worry about Iraq's Islamic style of democracy, or do you?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 11:41pm
Leftofcenter,
"I earnestly want to get a feel for where the boundaries are....I will share my own perspectives if you're interested as well..."
Sure, would love to hear yours.
I don't understand why most progressives get so intimidated about discussing religion, specifically religion interlaced with politics.
Look at what's going on in Iraq with their constitution, the same issues are being dealt with, regarding religion involved with their new constitution. It's a fact of life.
Let's face facts. Whether progressives like it or not, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, like myself, allow their personal religious beliefs (which also include social issues such as abortion and gay marriage) play a large part of their reasoning for who they vote for on election day.
This is just simply a fact, and something those that aren't "religious" must come to accept, whether they agree with allowing personal religious beliefs factor into how one votes or who one votes for.
On to your question of "My God is better than your God".
It's real simple:
Through all of Jesus's teachings, his miracles, the most important thing imparted unto his disciples was NOT adhering to the 10 commandments (hell we are human, prone to sin, that just wasn't going to happen), it was to simply accept him as man's savior. Have a personal relationship with him.
And then he said:
John 14:6
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
My view, belief and salvation are all placed on this scripture. Any and all people, regardless of race, class, geographic location, title, ethnicity, or politics that accept Christ as their savior will be saved and live eternally with the Father.
Period at the end of the above sentence = )
It wasn't Buhda that said, I am the way the truth and the life, nor Muhammad, certainly not L.Ron Hubbard and the scientologists, not Bush, not Kerry, not the Krishna, I think you get the point.
Ok..
Your turn = )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 12:08am
Todd...ok here goes
I went pretty regular to a Christian Science Church when I was small. So that's about as far afield in some ways as Christians get....kind of Buddhistic in some ways I suppose, oddly metaphysical in others. Sang in a Protestant Church sometimes...liked to sing back then. Even have sat through a couple of Catholic services, Temple, and 7th Day Adv worship..oh and a Unitarian church too one day.
Lived in Hawaii for a while, took a class in Eastern Religions (Professor was a Christian clergyman of some decription though...) so got some feel for Hinduism, Zorasterism, Buddhism and such. You know...there are Native Hawaiians, who go to church and consider themselves Christian, but they still leave offerings (flowers and vodka...tradition) for Pele the Fire Goddess at Halemaumau crater on the Big Island - so some animism. Would seem to kinda grate on your perspective? That whole false idols thing. But does this mean they're taking the down elevator?
I also have several good friends who are Hindu, and a few practicing Pagans. So I do have a fairly blanaced perspective I think. I do also have some Islamic friends...but we don't talk politics or religion much these days....I think they're afraid of black SUVs rolling up.
Anyway, across these experiences it is noteworthy that some religions (like Buddhism and Hinduism...Paganism and Animists to a somewhat lesser extent) tend to accept the various "flavors" of spiritualism as aspects of a common thread - the face or faces of some omnipotence. Hindus will evn say something along the line of "Christians are fine Hindus" ...meaning that they consider the Christian god to be another aspect of the Brahma.
Me...I suppose while not terribly religous I do consider myself somewhat spriritual. I cannot, in good faith, fully believe in a religion that holds to the line that most of the world is wrong. Doesn't seem reasonable. I do believe too that religious instruction of whatever flavor assists in the development of personal moral standards through "fable-ish" allegories, etc.
Ok...getting kinda long here. time to truncate and breathe
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 12:45am
Ooops, almost forgot hanging with Mormons for a while. Was kind of weird time in my life...it filled a need for support I suppose. Twenty years later and they still some to the door every now and then...and they know who I am (eeeeek)
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 12:49am
Leftofcenter,
". I do believe too that religious instruction of whatever flavor assists in the development of personal moral standards through "fable-ish" allegories, etc."
We agree very much here.
I believe in the existence of a physical and eternal heaven and hell, I also believe in God's kingdom on earth (which is his people) and the opposite "hell on earth".
I view the whole issue as the ultimate which comes first? the chicken or the egg. You can't "make" people not sin, you can possibly change their core being and heart so that they won't have as much urge to sin.
Jesus preached many times about the only way to get a man to change a lifestyle or to stop living a life of sin was to change his heart (repentance). In the same way that it is so much easier to teach a youngster the value of doing well on homework, to help him do well in school, to help him get into a good college, which will help him get a better education, which will help him get a good job...
Versus just demanding "Do your damn homework!"
You have to change the heart.
In my view that was why Jesus wanted for people to accept him as their savior, if one is totally sold out for Jesus, and puts all of their faith and trust in him, they will want to live a good life, and not want to risk questionable (i.e. sinful) behavior that even science proves can and will shorten ones life, i.e. drugs, alcohol, risky behaviors and lifestyles etc.
Which goes hand in hand with his other teaching "God will not be mocked, you reap what you sew"
If one starts to drink, one risks becoming addicted, and further more risks death. Jesus felt if he could get his people to believe in him as their savior, I mean totally sold out! their hearts would be changed, and although human, and they would sin from time to time, they would not choose to live in a lifestyle of sin.
It's all about risk, which is why he said accept me as your savior, and keep my commandments. He wanted us to remain as innocent as sheep, if one is innocent, one will not "know" about the feel good sins of the flesh, and will then not try them.
Anyway there's Todd theology 101
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 01:20am
Todd..."G'mornin"
Here's the rub. What happens to a ...oh let's say a Hindu (for arguments sake)...who worships regular, is kind to his family, does "good works", gives to the community, etc. etc. All the positive issues that a "good Christian" avails themselves to. He dies: In your world view does this person go to: A) his own heaven (a "Hindu happy hereafter") or B) your hell (because he doesn't believe in the one "true religion")?
Here's an associated item that a colleague pointed out...just for thought. The original Christian sin was eating an apple from the tree of knowldege. Why would the quest for knowledge be something God would not want humans to have? [I am a scientist...my spin on reality is the search for knowledge.]
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 06:48am
Leftofcenter,
The debate is fun and interesting talking about our views on different religions etc.
I'm going to have to draw the line on making judgments about where others will spend eternity, it's not a very Christian thing to do, nor a humanitarian thing to do.
In the end, God is God, all knowing, omnipotent, and will save who he wants to save.
As a mere mortal human, who am I to judge or decide who should be saved?
I do have my beliefs, but it would be very self-righteous to answer your question as you asked it.
On to your question about the original sin, eating the apple from the tree of knowledge.
I think certain knowledge is a great thing. Let's discuss health and modern medicine for instance.
I believe God has healed in the past (through Jesus miracles and testimonies), heals people currently, and will heal people in the future all through supernatural forces.
I also believe that God heals through man's increased knowledge in modern medicine.
Everything man has comes from God, including our intelligence, wisdom, skills and gifts.
I think however that he wants us to remain innocent. Remember the account of the children that were coming up to listen to Jesus and the disciples tried to shun them away, the Mighty Jesus was too busy for childs play right?
What did he tell the disciples?
He told them to let the children through "for the kingdom of heaven will be inherited by the likes of these"
Most Christians interpret that to not mean that only little children will be saved, but that those with innocence comparable to the innocence of a child are the ones that will inherit the kingdom of Heaven.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 07:55am
Muslims, Christians and Jews share the same God, which is the God of Abraham, the father of all 3 religions.
Posted by bobalot at 08/25/2005 @ 09:25am
I'm going to have to draw the line on making judgments about where others will spend eternity, it's not a very Christian thing to do, nor a humanitarian thing to do.
Todd I agree that this is a meaningful debate. However, I must disagree with the above. In fact, it is perhaps the most important (or at least politically relevant) portion of the conversation. I'm sorry if the thought makes you uncomfrotable and the intent is not to impale you with your words. What is the point is that a religion that deeply believes that the end of "non-believers" goes badly is self-righteous by definition. That is not a bad thing per se...it just is. What is disturbing is that it appears that people like yourself will not defend the ultimate end-point of their own belief structure. (This is not the first time I've had this conversation you understand.) I could accept "Well, they're all going to hell if they don't repent...and I feel really bad about it." My question does not ask you to judge...but what you personally believe about your chosen belief. "He'll do what he wants to" is kind of a non-answer / cop-out. "I don't want to discuss it" seems like a more "un-Christian" thing to do as it denies integral beliefs in your faith.
As to innocence...I see your point, it would be nice if there were more innocence left. However, the parable of the apple is bad opening for such an impactuous (is that even a word I wonder...) book. To start by saying...well, everything was great but when they actually wanted to start knowing things and using their God-given curiousity it was a bad thing.
Bobalot I kind of agree...follow this thread back a bit. I lean a bit toward the Hindu concept that all deities must eventually lead back to a single "point source." That each person ultimately is judged by who they are, what they do, their actual acts...and not which particular club they are a member of. What I have found across the years, that sects of both Islam and Christianity are "exclusive" and certain other faiths are "inclusive"..I gotta lean towards the latter epistemically.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 09:58am
To Oraibi (response to your 11:41 post last night):
Your idea of democracy might be a little different from the idea of democracy under Iraq's Islamic rule.
The word democracy is not defined in this document.
Some people use it to mean that the voters get a pass at who governs them. If that's all one means by democracy, then the Islamic Republic of Iran is a democratic state and so was South Africa under Apartheid regimes.
Others, your humble servant included, define democracy in a more substantive way. I define it as a state where citizenship is universal, equal and inalienable.
If I were to write a constitution for a democratic state, I would not use the word democracy at all, except perhaps in the preamble. I would then simply write democratic features into the document: universal citizenship, a bill of rights designed to facilitate free and open discourse on civic affairs, equal rights, limits on the government's police powers, free and fair elections in which each citizen over a certain age gets one and only one vote, etc.
This document enshrines some of that, but we should be concerned about weasel words like the principles of democracy and the undisputed rules of Islam. Those words can mean anything and consequently mean nothing.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 10:15am
The cofusion and chaos in Iraq was predicted by the peace movement - and by anyone familiar with the artificial stability of Iraq - maintained ONLY by the strength of a brutal dictatorship. The greater problem here was articulated by Gary Hart in an article in the Washington Post yesterday, in which he condemns the Democrats for not having the guts to do anything but virtually support Bush's war.
With a handful of exceptions, the Cowards in Congress need to hear from every one of us. Here's a great editorial that can be printed out and sent to the wimp who purports to represent YOU! Maybe, just maybe, soomeone will get the message.
The article, from TvNewsLIES.org, begins this way:
"What shameful toads you are! Yes you, our elected lawmakers. Yes you, the folks we sent to Washington in our names. Yes you, the most spineless, cowardly and craven Congress people in history. Yes you, the most bullied, gutless and shameful herd of legislators ever elected. And you know exactly who you are."
For the full article: CLICK HERE [tvnewslies.org]
Posted by Reg at 08/25/2005 @ 10:30am
Leftof center,
"My question does not ask you to judge...but what you personally believe about your chosen belief."
I'm certainly not scared to support my faith, and if you really want to push it. And as long as you understand, I'm not other people's judge.
Then yes, going back to John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one gets to the father but through me."
With an emphasis on the "no one" portion of the above scripture.
Therefore my beliefs, and salvation are solely in Jesus Christ as my savior, and all those of the world that accept Christ as their savior will live eternally with the father, those that don't go to Hell, and as you said… I feel sorry for them.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 11:47am
Todd
thanks...clears that up...albeit somewhat indirectly
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/25/2005 @ 11:56am
JackRabbit,
If I were to write a constitution for a democratic state, I would not use the word democracy at all, except perhaps in the preamble. I would then simply write democratic features into the document: universal citizenship, a bill of rights designed to facilitate free and open discourse on civic affairs, equal rights, limits on the government's police powers, free and fair elections in which each citizen over a certain age gets one and only one vote, etc. JackRabbit.
I think we agree philosophically on what democracy means, but we differ fundamentally on the implementation of democracy. Your approach seems to be similar to that of the right-wing in America; that is they argue, as strict constructionists, that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution of the U.S. then it doesn't exist. You seem to be saying the same thing when you say that rights would be clearly defined in a constitution that you would write; thus, it could be argued that if it a right isn't listed in your constitution then it doesn't exist. I would take a different approach.
My approach would be like that of America's founding fathers, as put forth in the Preamble of the Constitution of the U.S., the Declaration of Independence, and the Ninth Amendment. Their approach seem to be that the people held all the rights and that the Constitution insured those rights, whether they were enumerated or not; thus the Ninth Amendment. Please note that the Constitution and The Bill of Rights are primarily restraints on the powers of the government. The documents do not enumerate all the rights of the people, and the Ninth Amendment seems to make this point very clear.
In summary, the U.S. Constitution seems to have been written to restrain the government from infringing on the rights of the citizens; whether those rights were enumerated or not. This is just opposite of the views that seem to be held by Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts; the members of The Federalist Society; Justices Scalia and Thomas; the Bush Administration; and other radical, right-wing types (a la Delay, Pat Robertson, evangelicals, etc.).
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 12:12pm
To Oraibi:
No, I don't believe every right has to be clearly defined or enumerated. I think you read too much into my remarks.
At the same time, I don't think it is adequate to say "we're going to be a democratic state" as if everybody is agreed on what that means.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 1:06pm
Iraq delayed indefinitely parliament session on the new constitution.
Iraq cancels parliament session on charter [news.yahoo.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 1:17pm
Spot boy;
I consider myself to be a Christian but I'll be damned if I am going to sit next to a guy like Bush in heaven. I can't accept that a guy that is responbible for the loss of thousands of lives has the same shot as me - a guy who has never killed anything but a trout!........
I can't reconsile the just God with the God that would forgive a warmonger.
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/25/2005 @ 1:22pm
Jack Rabbit,
I'm not sure the Iraqis have agreed on what is the purpose of their constitution. The major parties seem to have different views of what purpose the document will serve; to instill Islamic Law or to protect the rights and freedoms of the people as in a western democracy sense.
At the same time, I don't think it is adequate to say "we're going to be a democratic state" as if everybody is agreed on what that means. Jack Rabbit.
I agree totally with your statement quoted immediately above. For that reason, the Iraqi constitution is a non-starter as a nation's founding document; and I blame the Bush Administration more than the Iraqis for this failure to produce a constitution.
The Bush Administration is holding the proverbial "gun" to the heads of the Iraqis, and they are doing this in order "to cut the Gordian Knot"; the Gordian Knot that Iraq has become for them.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 1:29pm
Excerpt from Rawstory exclusive article, "Downing Street reporter dissects pre-war Iraq intelligence":
LONDON -- "The [U.S. WMD] Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessment of Iraq's weapons programs."
That is only one of a number of strange conclusions by those charged with investigating the way flaky intelligence was used to justify the 2003 Iraq War.
The most vociferous advocates of an attack on Iraq were Dick Cheney, the vice-president, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz. They needed Congressional support and set about obtaining it in an aggressive fashion, insisting that not only did Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction threaten America and its allies but that the dictator was closely linked to al-Qa'eda.
This was a bit of a problem for the CIA, and in particular CIA director George Tenet. The CIA's 2001 annual assessment of 'worldwide threats' had played down any immediate threat from Iraq while the Agency had repeatedly dismissed the ludicrous idea that Saddam was in league with Osama bin Laden, a claim that was also strenuously denied in private by British intelligence officials.
By early 2002, US media reported the CIA had come under intense political pressure to back up the neo-cons' claims on Iraq with Rumsfeld's Pentagon even setting up an office of special plans which looked back through all the previous intelligence, hyping up any reports linking al-Qa'eda with Iraq in order to prove the CIA wrong.
Meanwhile, Dick Cheney took to visiting CIA headquarters in Langley and discussing the threat from Iraq with analysts. According to former CIA officials, the visits created a "chill factor" among those working on Iraq. There was "a kind of radical pressure" throughout 2002 and on into 2003, one said.
Tenet eventually agreed to put out a special National Intelligence Estimate. Published in October 2002, shortly after the first British dossier, it was this document that was quite rightly pulled to pieces by the presidential commission. There is no doubt that Tenet buckled under political pressure. The classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate did contain caveats, although they were heavily buried. The unclassified version had no caveats whatsoever. It was far harder than anything produced in Britain.
*************************End of Excerpt***************************
Click on link below to read entire article.
Downing Street Reporter Dissects Pre-War Iraq Intelligence [rawstory.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/25/2005 @ 1:58pm
To Oraibi:
I'm not sure the Iraqis have agreed on what is the purpose of their constitution. The major parties seem to have different views of what purpose the document will serve; to instill Islamic Law or to protect the rights and freedoms of the people as in a western democracy sense.
It seems the purpose of the document is to give Mr. Bush a feather in cap. He has a lot of feathers in his cap -- all of which are fake plumage. This isn't for Iraqis. This is for Bush.
This is just another attempt to make it look like Bush and the neocons have accomplished something. Like invading in the first place, killing Saddam's sons, capturing Saddam, the "transfer of power" and the elections in January were each supposed to be the corner we had finally turned in Iraq that would end the violence. Now this.
Last night, there was more fighting over the document and the ink isn't even dry.
How can see these corners they keep turning? By the light at the end of the tunnel?
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 2:32pm
No-Nonsense,
"I can't reconsile the just God with the God that would forgive a warmonger."
Well… I guess that just proves that there are different definitions of "Christianity"
My bible says that all people, including Saddam and certainly Bush can be saved by the blood scarified by Jesus on the Cross. His sacrifice forgives all men of their sins, if they accept the gift.
That's the Christ that I know anyway.
Are you saying, his sacrifice wouldn't cover Bush's sins?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 3:15pm
Regular posters to the Comments section of Nation blogs will notice a new feature: "Ignore this person," a simple function that allows participants in online discussions to render invisible posts that they find offensive or off-topic.
How best to moderate a free-wheeling online discussion is a question which has bedeviled scores of webmasters. At The Nation, we're particularly disinclined to ever censor anyone based on political perspectives, especially those we abhor. But it can be disruptive when, as happened recently, someone decides to paste dozens of versions of the same Ann Coulter piece to all five of our weblogs in an obvious effort to disrupt the conversation. Or when someone simply unleashes an obscene tirade with no argument being made.
So what we've come up with is a way for readers to create their own realities by offering the option of "ignoring" a given poster.
We hope that everyone will employ this option sparingly and will use it only as a last-resort to rid themselves of those few posters explicitly trying to prevent the free and feisty exchange of ideas. We strongly discourage anyone using it to shield themselves from unwelcome points of view.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 08/25/2005 @ 4:30pm
The Most PEACE-FUL BUTTON On Earth
ECs Greet Each Other Around Planet Earth
With
The Most Peaceful Button On Earth
THE EARTH CITIZEN ( EC ) Hand-Shake / Hand-Sign
It Is Made by...
Connecting the Middle Finger with the Thumb…
The Resulting Circle Signifies...
OUR SHARED PLANET EARTH
.
The Raised Index Finger -
Is A Reminder that...
WE Are ALL ONE PEOPLE .
SEE... The Most Peaceful Button On Earth @
http://www.RogerART.com
Posted by RogerARTcom at 08/25/2005 @ 4:37pm
If I am to have a comperable amount of sin -as Bush - to be forgiven, man I am going to have to get busy. First , I'll have to figure out how many hot Babes I have to fornicate with to eqaul killing one young soldier. I figure that ratio has got to be at least 20 to 1. I could start doing a little blow and become an alcoholic but I don't think self destuctive behaviour counts for much! Damn, I'm going to have make Wilt Chamberlain look like eunich! I'm getting old man , I don't think I will ever be able to do it. 2000 dead soldiers ( so far ) times 20 babes. Looks like I'll never make it. I'll have to become a mass murderer if I'm going to catch up with Bush. Hell, I'm not going to sit next to that son of a bitch in heaven unless I have a comparable track record to be forgiven for!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/25/2005 @ 4:50pm
To No-Nonsense:
I should let Todd answer this, but since I'm a freethinker, I'll chime in here if it helps.
There are many Christians, especially Protestants, who believe that God forgives those who accept Jesus as their Savior. Otherwise, even in this belief system, Christians are as fallible as anybody else.
If one accepts Jesus, one's sins may be forgiven and, if they are, he will go to Heaven; if he does not accept Jesus, his virtues go for naught.
That does not have to make sense to you and no one is asking you to believe it. However, in a nutshell, that is what they believe.
Todd can tell you exactly what he believes if he likes.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 5:12pm
Jack Rabbit,
" I should let Todd answer this, but since I'm a freethinker, I'll chime in here if it helps. "
what is your definition of a "free thinker"?
Just curious, the way that sentence is constructed seems to infer that someone like (Todd) who is a devout Christian, can't be a "freethinker".
Is that your suggestion, that Christians aren't free thinkers? " That does not have to make sense to you and no one is asking you to believe it. However, in a nutshell, that is what they believe. "
yep, you pretty much nailed traditional Christian theology 101. Man is doomed trying to get to heaven on one's own, as we are mere humans, prone to sin.
Through the saving Grace of God, by giving the sacrifice of his only Son Jesus, those that accept his gift of salvation through Christ are forgiven of their sins and will live eternally in Heaven after physical death on Earth.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 5:24pm
Rabbit:
Thanks, I was being sarcastic! I've read the Bible cover to cover and my brother is a minister. I'm pretty sure God doesn't keep a sin score card! Having said that, If I get to heaven and I see that son of a bitch -BUSH - I'm gonna kick his ass before they can kick me out! HA-HA!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/25/2005 @ 5:25pm
SPORT BOY"
I would like to ask the big guy if he was taking a nap when BUSH was praying for advise
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/25/2005 @ 5:35pm
"I would like to ask the big guy if he was taking a nap when BUSH was praying for advise"
Doubt it, more than likely, Bush simply is acting according to his own will.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/25/2005 @ 6:28pm
Zero- very cogent analysis in sum.
'This situation itself will, in turn, produce both pressure from the US population to pull out of Iraq, and at the same time, create pressure on the starters of the war in the US to "stay the course" as the pragmatists in this group will realize that a US pullout means true civil war in Iraq."
It is questionable, however, whether continued US presence inhibits civil war or ultimately inflames it and is engulfed by it. Perhaps the following lyrics might apply to out unwinnable situation... Should I stay or should I go now? Should I stay or should I go now? If I go there will be trouble An' if I stay it will be double So come on and let me know
Posted by byteme at 08/25/2005 @ 6:55pm
To Todd:
A freethinker is one who accepts no religious authority or dogma. I think in order to call oneself a Christian, one would have to embrace some authority or dogma.
An atheist would be a more gray area. Some atheists can be obnoxiously dogmatic. I would not consider the late Madeleine Murray O'Hare to have been a freethinker by any means. She was as bound to a disbelief in God that was as firm as Billy Graham's belief. Mrs. O'Hare could be as narrow minded as the worst sectarian bigot. Frankly, if given a choice between an afternoon in the company of Mrs. O'Hare or Dr. Graham, I would choose Dr. Graham without hesitation.
On the other hand, my late sister did not believe in God, either, but it was perfectly all right with her if the next person did. Her disbelief was a way of liberating herself from dogma. She was more of a freethinker.
Personally, I profess no definite belief in God or an afterlife. That doesn't keep from thinking about man's relationship with the cosmos, which is broadly what religion is. However, those thoughts do not fall into any organized creed.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/25/2005 @ 7:31pm
Demockery is on the march.
Posted by Peggy at 08/25/2005 @ 7:55pm
Constitution , what constitution? Whatever they decide or vote on has no bearing on the true government. It will be someone that the Bushies can run. That we are building concrete barracks and permanent bases is the hint. We came for domination of the oil. If someone gets elected that doesn't tow the U.S. party line they may get blown up by "insurgents". There is no pullout plan. The Neocons have no intention of leaving. That is why we came! Get used to it!
Posted by mikeinvail at 08/25/2005 @ 8:44pm
Mr. Bush told a 2000 pre-election Tennessee audience, You know what scares me? What scares me is a candidate talking about nation-building and the military in the same sentence.... The results that followed this major flipflop and the devastation wreaked is now history.
Posted by Taan at 08/25/2005 @ 8:45pm
If it was all really about the oil (and it was), then we are not leaving Iraq without it. The money to rebuild Iraq was used to build US bases instead. Haliburton built lots of them, and big ones, too. Some catastrophe will occur before it's time to leave, and we will be "forced" to stay "in the name of freedom".
The freedom referred to therein is the freedom not to downsize American S.U.V.s.
No one seems to recall that it was the hatred US bases in Saudi Arabia that Bush the First installed which caused bin Lauden to attack on 9/11. If we occupy bases in Iraq for any reason, all bets are off as to what will befall us...
Posted by motamanx at 08/25/2005 @ 8:52pm
Obviously Jesus's sacrifice would not even come close to covering Bush's sins! All Jesus did was get tortured and die. Honestly, get real. Many Iraqis in the last couple of years accomplished that easily! The biggest problem with mixing religion and politics is the 'My God is better than your God' mentality. I know this is just Religion 101, but obviously religions are regional. Not to invalidate anybody's faith, but as I always say, if the pope had been born in Iran he would have been an Ayatollah. He is simply a man of great faith. As they say, 'you don't practice in the religion you want, but in the religion you have'. Every religion, that has any lasting power, is full of circular arguments and warnings that invalidate all other religions. It is so obvious that they are man-made constructs that it isn't funny even joking about it. Look, if there really is a heaven and hell, which is very unlikely, then all people who respect others and try to minimize hypocrisy in their lives will probably wind up in a good place. If not, then you'd better wonder what your God is smoking. Most likely, the 'after life' is just like the 'before life'. Was it so awful before you were born? You didn't exist and you certainly weren't in heaven and you were probably like that for an infinity. It'll be just like that when you die. Just a part of the universe like every other Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever. Honestly, the real miracle is that anything exists at all. Life and who knows what else sprung from that. Try to enjoy your life while you're here. Never stop searching for 'the truth' and respect all other humans and all other life within the boundaries of your humanity and that is as close to heaven as you're probably going to get. Religion should be between you and your God because everybody's relationship with God is a little bit different from everybody else's. I know I'm just ‘preaching' in the wind, because there is so much social pressure to believe in the current ‘regional religion' of wherever you live that all this will go in one ear and out the other. At a time like this when religious wars are brewing, it is so important to openly discuss religion as a two-way flow of ideas without any attempt to convert, judge, or condemn unless those religious beliefs impose on human rights.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/25/2005 @ 9:52pm
The dilemma of US foreign policy toward Iraq is dissimiliar in one important, a tragically regretable, respect:
In Vietnam, the US intervened when the country was in civil war. In Iraq, the civil war began after, and as a result of, the US forces came to Iraq.
Bush has wrecked a worse catastrophe, for the US and for its adversary.
Posted by jkrogman at 08/25/2005 @ 10:04pm
I would like to make a few predictions based on recent infromation:
1. The Iraqi "Constitution" will pass, the will of Iraqi people be damned.
2. The ongoing Iraqi occupation resistance will continue along with the Iraq Civil war escalating until the country breaks apart into 3 or 4 pieces. The widespread usage of Depleated Uranium will make major portions of the country virtually uninhabitable (new twist on the old Roman "salting the earth". Those unfortunate unable top escape the contaminated areas will eventually die of radiation induced cancers and their children will be horrificly deformed.
3. Meanwhile the US will detonate a nuclear device somewhere in America (around September-October / probably on the Eastern Seaboard - maybe Charlston) and use it as a "falseflag" to blame Iran. This will bring around a new US "Crisis"
4. Martial Law will be imposed on the US by the Bushite fear mongers and the Internet will be "shut down" (due to its supposed use by "terrorists to plan the nuclear attack on the US Homeland"). The US Constitution (whats left of it) will be "suspended" and "agitators" and "seditionists" will be rounded up. Kent State will look like a day in the park as protestors take to the street and be confronted by "Iraq hardend" troups (rotated from Iraq), mexican and filipino "greencard" soldiers. After several months the "new" Internet server "nodes" (already in place - ready for activation) will be introduced to the population with its carefully "filtered" content (the Chinese model). Thus there will be no more "unfiltered" or "unrestrained" communication by the citizens of the US and the world. Only government imprimatur sanctioned media will be allowed. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ - I seriously doubt if sites like The Nation, Buzzflash, CorpWatch, TomPaine, DemocracyNow, etc. will be allowed to operate. Already (2003) the US FBI siezed 2 servers from IndyMedia (operating in England). Download everything you can get your hands on and burn it to CD's while you can - you are warned!
5. While this is going on in the US, subsequently to the "false flag" attack either Israel (or less likely the US directly) will use a US supplied tactical nuke (bunker buster) and attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. Bolton will make sure the UN is kept in turmoil.
6. Iran will respond by attacking (and sinking) the US Persian Gulf task forces with its recently acquired Sunburn missles. The US will respond with submirine launched cruise missles and Iraq based stealth bombers. The task forces assigned to the pacific will be "retasked" to the Persian Gulf to replace the decimated US navel forces.
7. The Chinese will probably use the ensuing chaos as the opportunity to attack and overrun Tiawan. Nuclear "Chicken" will keep the US from honoring its treaty obligations and come to Tiawans aid (Bush has long since proved he doesn't give a rats ass about any previous treaties). The US dollar will probably collapse as the Chinese "cash out".
8. Meanwhile the US mercenary forces backed by US Troops based in Panama, Columbia, Uragauy, and Guyana will attack Venezula and depose Chavez, securing the Venezualian oil fields for "privitization" (piratetazation).
WWIII will be well underway and the Pat Robertson "Christians" will have their Armageddon. The PNAC will continue towards the "New World Order".
Posted by Argon at 08/25/2005 @ 10:57pm
Argon, Your scenario is within the realm of possibility, although, more likely, the greedy will steal more of the nation's increasingly limited resources, and the middle class will pay the majority of the taxes while become less educated and more sickly. The educated working class will become indistinguishable from the uneducated working class as even knowledge jobs become hostage to the lowest bidders. Symbols of patriotism will become increasingly more protected than the actual citizens and country they were created to represent. Everything about this administration is about transferring wealth from the middle class to the upper class including the current illegal war in Iraq. Even though we've lost this war in Iraq because of our incompetent leadership, there is no doubt in my mind that the US can defeat any future adversary in a conventional war. I can't imagine that China would want to test that theory. A country of 1.3 billion people will always live on the edge of prosperity and starvation. They can't risk a war over an island that will eventually be absorbed naturally if their economy keeps growing at the current rate.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/25/2005 @ 11:42pm
Looks as though Bush & his cohorts are once again demonstrating the lack of integrity they have regarding truly freeing the Iraqi people from their despair & helping to establish an egalitarian Government with at least a semblance of Democracy that supports equal rights for women. Seems they're so concerned about pulling out of there - & yet typically posturing in the opposite fashion – that they're willing to allow the Women, Secularists & Liberals in Iraq to be fed to the fires of religious extremism.
Similar, me thinks, to how his Government treats those of the same ideological persuasion in the USA – G.W. doesn't pay the slightest of lip service to those from the Left…I sincerely doubt he's ever considered governing as a moderate who represents the diverse interests of the US public as a whole, as did Clinton…understandably his favorability rating has gone into meltdown…some survey groups report a 36% favorability rating (http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/)…whereas the moderate Clinton was secure at 72% even on the day of his impeachment).
I can imagine the Bush admin. is mighty desirous to extricate the bulk of their forces from this Iraqi nightmare in order to free up their propagandized & too often ‘gung-ho' military for an invasion of Syria &/or Iran…then perhaps Pakistan & Indonesia…more common enemies to be savaged, more ‘fear' to spread to control the ‘Neanderthals' & the ignorant who support them regardless of how many instances the Bush admin. demonstrate an intense desire to undermine the security of the Republic & diminish the civil rights of the citizenry within it's borders, more money to be made by those associated w/ the ‘War Machine' (i.e.: Halliburton, Boeing, oil companies)…the ‘China Encirclement Plan' continues on it's merry way…ahhh…a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).
Go Cindy Sheehan!...time is running out.
Posted by nasking at 08/26/2005 @ 12:58am
Mr. Corn,
I am happy to see that at least someone on the left puts it all the right way... Bush "IGNORES" reality.
I write this because soooo many left-of-center idiots keep saying that Bush is not in tune with reality or he is dumm and he cant admit that he has made mistakes.
Why admit a mistake when no-one makes you? All admitting a mistake would do would give fuel to your political enemies. So, what does Bush do... he admits NOTHING and keeps on going with his plans for busting the US economy so the Republican Party can take the nation back to the year 1901.
Why do I say that thats what the Republican party wants? Because that is what they have been saying they want for over 60 years.
Time Line...
1930s - 1940s New Deal: Republicans hated it! 1950s Multinational Diplomacy: Republicans hated it! 1950s - 60s Civil Rights Movement: Republicans hated it! 1960s The Great Society: Republicans hated it! 1970s Womens Rights Movement: Republicans hated it!
Then suddenly god came down and gave us Ronald Reagan and Trickle-Down economics.
Now, we have Trickle-Down economics on crack!
Bye bye New Deal! Bye bye All the rest!
I am sure you have noticed that with the Wimpocrats in Congress Bush gets pretty much everything that he wants.
Do you ever notice how everything Bush wants comes with a really expensive price-tag?
Mr. Corn, please spread the word... Bush is no moron. He may be radical and he is VERY dangerous but he knows what he is doing... Defunding the left so that the Republican party can take us back to 1901.
Posted by BrownSound at 08/26/2005 @ 01:40am
OKSPORTSGUY, a post which has nothing to do with the subject but i would like to know if you're christian and if yes what followers are you do prey Jesus has God... Jesus is God's son and considered as God on earth. Now if you know some of the bible, you may consider Abram story. "Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam" (Luke 3:34-38 RSV) I hope you believe in Adam.. and may consider even more Abram sons, Ishmael (who brought Islam) and Isaac who had a son Jacob later renamed Israel (Do i have to point which nation he built?). Much better explained here : http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/abraham.htm Both Jews and Arabs are equally descended from Abraham. And both judaism and islamism descend from Him. Just like christians.
Posted by Fabrice at 08/26/2005 @ 02:38am
OKSPORTSGUY, just want to clarify the issue as to what God Christians and Muslims worship. The God of the Qur'an is the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The Qur'an identifies Jesus as the Messiah, born of the Virgin Mary, and acknowledges Jesus performed many miracles, including raising the dead. Muslims also believe Jesus will return at the end of time and restore justice and peace on earth. Muslims revere Jesus so much that every time a Muslim mentions Christ's name, he or she is required to add the blessing "Peace be upon him." The Virgin Mary is mentioned more in the Qur'an than she is in the New Testatement, and the Qur'an even has a chapter entitled after Mary.
Where Muslims and Christians differ is that Muslims do not believe that Jesus ever claimed to be anything more than a mortal human being, that early Christians deified him under the the influence of Greek and Roman paganism. The verses in the Gospels that call Jesus "Son of God" are believed to be falsifications of Jesus true words. Muslims believe that God sent Muhammad as his last Prophet to clear up the errors and mistakes that had been incorporated into the New Testatment. Muslims see themselves as restoring the true religion of Jesus, which was pure monotheism, that had been corrupted by the early Christian community.
You don't have to agree with any of that. But you have to understand that Christians and Muslims both worship the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. If you accept the New Testament as a true record of Christ's life and teachings, then you are a Christian. If you accept the Qur'an as a true record of Christ's life and teachings, then you are a Muslim. That is the difference.
Peace and God bless, Kamran
Posted by Kamran at 08/26/2005 @ 05:30am
KAMRAN-> I already pointed that out before. He was careful to ignore it.
Posted by bobalot at 08/26/2005 @ 07:23am
Hmmm, I wouldn't mind seeing how Todd (OKS), LL, or any of the other deeply Christian that post weigh in on this. We(Todd and I) had a bit of theologic discourse in this very thread (above) and it has been informative. This indeed parallels points I have made relating other religous beliefs system towards a single deity.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 07:33am
OKSPORTSGUY, i wouldn't call you evil as it is fair for you to use American Forces to push the American interests regarding to the Fair Market of Oil but i would love to hear your opinion about chinese Company CNOOC Ltd. bids to take over american Unocal Corp. But it seems that senators (both democratic and republican) don't believe the world is such a Free and Fair market (well they do as long as american companies buy foreign ones.. but are more protectionnist when it comes the opposite.)
Posted by Fabrice at 08/26/2005 @ 08:09am
Fabrice, Kamran, and Leftofcenter,
I have a background in Christian Theology from Phillips University. I'm very familiar with the lineage from Adam and Eve, through Abram (who became Abraham), Isaac and Ishmael and the branch off at that point.
"The God of the Qur'an is the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus."
God surely did create all man (which happened during the old covenant). As all man has descended from the original Adam and Eve (secularists even admit to a common ancestral heritage regarding the "out of Africa" theory).
The difference however for me (I certainly don't profess to speak for all Christians), is this:
The God that I serve created the new covenant with the sacrifice on Calvary, of his Son Jesus as the sacrificial lamb that cleanses ALL of Mankind of their sins, IF man accepts the gift.
God sent his son to give the world the new covenant, and therefore as is stated in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father, but through me."
So please don't tell me that ALL Christians serve the same God as Muslims, because My God is Jesus Christ, so when Muslims start praising Jesus, then we will be serving the same God, until then, we don't.
"The verses in the Gospels that call Jesus "Son of God" are believed to be falsifications of Jesus true words."
Perhaps the above is your opinion. It certainly is not mine. Jesus is the Son of God, sent to this earth to save man from his sins.
There for we most definitely do NOT serve the same God, unless your saying your God is Jesus Christ.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 09:58am
There is no such thing as a "free market" anymore then there is such a thing as "true Democracy" or "true Communism": it is a concept, an Ideal. We saw (heard) the "hidden hand" in the form of Enron energy traders (traitors) telling California power plants to "go dark" for "maintenance" and boasting to each other how they were raping the public! We have more in common with the Russian Oligarchy form of "capitalism" then Adam Smith's.
"What we have now is democracy without citizens. No one is on the public's side. All the buyers are on the corporation's side. And the bureaucrats in the administration don't think the government belongs to the people." Ralph Nader
When Gov Bush flew up with Ken Lay in 1999 to meet with Oneok, Williams, El Paso Energy, Dynergy and Chesapeake it wasn't just to play golf at Southernhills! "Unbundling" (gas deregulation) is currently raping the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas consumers. Check out the SEC filings for these companies 1998-2000 and where the stock went (while you still can).
"In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." (Hunter S. Thompson)
The US Government is directly manipulating the Stock Market (think of the defense contractors and the pharmaceutical industry) and has increasingly kept this country on a "war economy" to the point that just about all-economic activity is in some way connected to the "defense" industries. These are the people Eisenhower, Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, Adam(s), and Washington warned us about!
http://ecolanguage.net/movieBush.html (its long but worth it)
D10D10, the Chinese have a million-man active duty standing Army and a whole lot of "surplus" population. All the "free market" happy talk aside - China is still a totalitarian Nation - the oldest continuously existing Nation in the World. China and the Soviets have been conducting "joint exercises" over the last couple of years – now who do you suppose is their "hypothetical" foe?
If you delve into the depths of the "New World Order" you will find (as I have) that the elites consider the vast majority of the world population as "surplus" and are more or less counting on a rapid depopulation - both natural and man made, to solve the dwindling resource (man made) "problem". That's why genocide in places like Dufar does not generate the response that Saddam received.
OKSPORTSGUY, I too live in Oklahoma, land of delusion (Woody Guthrie and Will Rogers are spinning in their graves). The thing to keep in mind about these people is they are not "Christians" for their works reveal them as worshipers of Mammon.
UNDERSHAFT. Not at all. The more destructive war becomes the more fascinating we find it. No, Mr. Lomax: I am obliged to you for making the usual excuse for my trade - but I am not ashamed of it. I am not one of those men who keep their morals and their business in watertight compartments. All the spare money my trade rivals spend on hospitals, cathedrals and other receptacles for conscience money, I devote to experiments and researches in improved methods of destroying life and property. I have always done so - and I always shall. Therefore your Christmas card moralities of peace on earth and goodwill among men are of no use to me. Your Christianity, which enjoins you to resist not evil, and to turn the other cheek, would make me a bankrupt. My morality - my religion - must have a place for cannons and torpedoes in it.
STEPHEN (coldly - almost sullenly). You speak as if there were half a dozen moralities and religions to choose from, instead of one true morality and one true religion.
UNDERSHAFT. For me there is only one true morality - but it might not fit you, as you do not manufacture aerial battleships. There is only one true morality for every man - but every man has not the same true morality. -George Bernard Shaw, Major Barbara
Posted by Argon at 08/26/2005 @ 10:30am
TODD Fabrice, Kamran SO...important distinction amongst Christian sects here - some believe Jesus = God AND IS GOD too? (Todd says both: "Jesus is the Son of God" AND "My God is Jesus Christ), while others (I think) believe Jesus is the Son of God, and of course the Catholics have the Father/Son/Holy Ghost 3-way thing. I must admit at being perplexed. Perhaps Todd (or someone else devout and more up on this) could address...
Anyway its a pretty big diff I suppose so I could see the divide OK purports. Not that I entirely agree or understand...but I think I see where his head is at...kind of.
btw: I looked up Phillips U which went under in 1998...but the records transferred to Phillips Theological Seminary, which does operate. However, its classes are ONLY on Christian Religion, which while having value does not necessarily reflect a rounded education. Apparently PU was more liberal arts oriented (from info I've gleaned), so hopefully it had more "standard" classes. As you seem literate Todd, I must assume so.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 10:49am
ARGON
"I devote to experiments and researches in improved methods of destroying life and property. & my religion - must have a place for cannons and torpedoes in it. Are you for real here, or being sarcastic?
If its a real perspective, I would inquire....as Argon is a noble gas, why do your words sound more like a greasy fart?
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 10:54am
Center,
"btw: I looked up Phillips U which went under in 1998...but the records transferred to Phillips Theological Seminary, which does operate. However, its classes are ONLY on Christian Religion, which while having value does not necessarily reflect a rounded education. Apparently PU was more liberal arts oriented (from info I've gleaned), so hopefully it had more "standard" classes. As you seem literate Todd, I must assume so."
That is a pretty good summation of my educational background, with the exception that it was 1988, not 1998, actually, I'm working on a business degree now with the University of Phoenix as well (17 years later). To become more "well rounded" since you brought it up.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 11:00am
Leftofcenter,
"as Argon is a noble gas, why do your words sound more like a greasy fart?
Please... stop...
I'm rolling...
YOU MUST WARN ME from now on, when you are going to lay down lines like that, I need to prepare myself at work better so as to not make such a commotion with my laughter.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 11:02am
Todd
"1988" Oops, my bad. Am not the best typist....glad to see you too are continuing to improve your knowledge base.
the Argon quip was too easy....can't resist an easy pun!
Hope it didn't get you in trouble! :-)
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 11:33am
LeftfCenter, That was George Bernard Shaw's words (not mine - I wish I was that eloquent) in his famous play Major Barber which was an inditement of the Arms industry, Governments, and the role of the Krupp's in WWI. I included this quote to show that the hypocrisy; the "Christmas Card Morallity" of the Pat Robertson's: pulled out on Sundays and religious holidays is still alive and well! That was the set up for Shaw's main point: "There is only one true morality for every man - but every man has not the same true morality". Nothing new under the sun here.
A large part of the problem(s) we have today is the pervasive anti-intellectualism that forms so much of the basis for the self-proclaimed "Christians" and "conservatives". More magical thinking on the part of "Ivory Tower" conservatives who constantly accuse their opposition as "Ivory Tower Liberals". This "faith based" Iraq "War on Terrorism" only shows the moral bankruptcy of our US 'leadership'.
When I was in gradeschool we had 3 alarms: Fire, Tornado, and Nuclear Holocaust - you could kill our people, blow up our buildings, flatten our cities: what made our country great was the Constitution. The demagoging fear mongers have taken Roosevelts "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" and twisted it into "be afraid, be very afraid" only we (the Government) can save you! Where is our American backbone? In the trash along with the US Constitution!
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear": Harry S Truman
BTW Argon, besides being used as an insulator in thermal windows; in an excited state, forms a laser that cuts through steel.
Posted by Argon at 08/26/2005 @ 11:56am
Argon,
"A large part of the problem(s) we have today is the pervasive anti-intellectualism that forms so much of the basis for the self-proclaimed "Christians" and "conservatives".
uh-oh, there's the stereotypical "Christians are anti-intellectuals", i.e. anyone who actually believes in an ultimate truth is a moron argument.
How exactly do you explain this Argon?
For added insight into what the population of those who attend church looks like we segmented the population of "church-goers" across a number of different categories. The results are as follows: (2000)
Education · 37% have a high school degree or less (42% nat'l) · 26% have some college education (28% nat'l) · 36% are college graduates (29% nat'l) [barna.org]
Therefore among church goers, 36% are college graduates compared to the national average of college graduates which is 29%.
Therefore, one could make an arguement that somehow going to church actually makes one more intelligent, or at least somehow helps one attain a college level education.
If you are going to make ludicrous arguments like "anti-intellectualism that forms so much of the basis for self-proclaimed Christians"
You might want to do some research first to make sure your stereotype, assumptions and biased statement is factually right before you state it.
Because… in reality, it's flat out wrong.
Todd (the dum kristian)
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 12:10pm
I did not make an flat statement that "All Christians are anti-intellectuals" You are putting words in my mouth. Nor did I say that there are not "intellectual Christians" quite contrary many of our great scientific discoveries have been made by Christians (and other deeply religious people).
That said - a great deal of the Creationist view IS anti-intellectual and "magic thinking" - everything unexplained is a "mystery of god" - NOT to be explored. More over I wish to point out my emphesis on "self proclaimed" "Christians" (or Xian's if you will) who's works do not follow their professed beliefs.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Posted by Argon at 08/26/2005 @ 12:46pm
ARGON:
Sorry....didn't recognize the quote...(do your references boy...otherwise its plagiarism!) Oops...been in school too, too long, so don't get excited and start burning us all with your laser-eyes.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 1:02pm
ARGON:
You should add as Exhibit 1 the Intelligent Design as science nonsense.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/26/2005 @ 1:09pm
""Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)"
"What does the above statement have to do with Christians and anti-intellectualism?" Todd Hale (2005)
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 1:35pm
Meanwhile, back on the topic . . .
From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, dated Friday August 26
Iraq: No rational course to stay [seattlepi.nwsource.com]
By James Maynard
President Bush's recent statement about needing to "stay the course" in Iraq gives pause for reflection and concern. To "stay the course" implies that there is a charted course to follow, a defined course objective, navigational tools to guide the progress and an expected time of arrival.
None of these appear to be the case in our Iraq adventure, and the president's statement rings hollow. Broader analysis may cause us to question the entire "course" laid out by a neo-conservative philosophy grounded in a belief that the United States is a divinely inspired empiric instrument for global transformation whose immediate goal is the creation of a democratic Iraq to usher in a new era of peace and freedom in the Middle East.
On the face of it, this course is not a course at all, but a naïve ephemeral projection of individuals who do not value the lessons of history and have no real understanding of the complexities of the Middle East.
History tells us that nations rise and fall, empires are made and unmade, and that devolution is a companion of evolution. Much of this occurs in a fashion unpredictable to the protagonists of the moment and only much later understandable by historians. The British Empire is no more and no amount of British riding on U.S. coattails can change that fact.
Read more.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/26/2005 @ 1:44pm
Those who protest that evolution is a theory miss a serious point. There is a very wide consensus to the effect that evolution is simply a fact. Natural selection (Darwin) is a theory to explain evolution. It is probably the best we have as theories go. Intelligent design is an eighteenth-century form of teleology. cochala
Posted by mcleave at 08/26/2005 @ 2:16pm
Therefore, one could make an arguement that somehow going to church actually makes one more intelligent, or at least somehow helps one attain a college level education. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 08/26/2005 @ 12:10am
A college degree doesn't mean anything. Some of the dumbest, most uninformed people I've ever met were college graduates. Since 29% of Americans are college graduates one would have to believe that 29% of Americans are significantly smarter than all the rest. There just aren't that many who are significantly smarter. It doesn't take much brains these days to graduate from college.
I think both sides of the arguement, as you presented it here, are misplaced. Someone could be highly intelligent and extremely narrowminded. There's probably better data available comparing believers to non-believers which have more relevant comparisons.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/26/2005 @ 2:45pm
Iraq: No rational course to stay [seattlepi.nwsource.com] By James Maynard
President Bush's recent statement about needing to "stay the course" in Iraq gives pause for reflection and concern. To "stay the course" implies that there is a charted course to follow, a defined course objective, navigational tools to guide the progress and an expected time of arrival.
None of these appear to be the case in our Iraq adventure, and the president's statement rings hollow.
Posted by JACK RABBIT 08/26/2005 @ 1:44pm
Some of the posters on this board are trumpeting the recent meagre activity toward greater democracy in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia as a beneficial result of Bush's Iraq debacle. We could have achieved that much just through public criticism. We could have achieved much more than that very quickly by threatening to cut off the billions in US foreign aid that the ruling elite of Egypt is lining it's pockets with. All without throwing away 1,860+ American lives or running up a $500,000,000,000 budget deficit.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/26/2005 @ 2:55pm
Those who protest that evolution is a theory miss a serious point. There is a very wide consensus to the effect that evolution is simply a fact. Natural selection (Darwin) is a theory to explain evolution. It is probably the best we have as theories go. Intelligent design is an eighteenth-century form of teleology. cochala
Posted by MCLEAVE 08/26/2005 @ 2:16pm
Permit me to bore everyone with a little bit of clarification. People who are not scientists generally have a different definition in their heads for the word "theory". They general use "speculation" or "a possible but unproven explanation for something" as their definition.
When a scientist says the word theory, he/she means "a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" or even "a predictive model". For example, Einstein's special relativity is a theory. This doesn't mean that it is unproven. On the contrary, it is so well established as true that it can be used to predict the outcome of experiments, such as what will be the extent of time dialation on an accelerated clock, just to name one.
So everyone who thinks that the "theory" of evolution is only a guess or is only speculation is just plain wrong.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 3:30pm
To FromRedBird:
The slogan "Democracy is on the march" in the Middle East is a lot of hooey.
While the withdrawal of Syrian troops and agents from Lebanon is welcome, it is coincidental to anything Mr. Bush has done, unless some conspiracy theorist wants to suggest Bush ordered the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri, which was the catalyst for present events there. Actually, in spite of her problems, Lebanon has had democratic institutions in place for decades, such as a freely elected Parliament with a functioning opposition to the government and a free press considered among the best in the region. Mr. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Lebanon.
In Egypt, criminal charges have been filed by government against the only candidate with a prayer of defeating Mubarak. Many believe charges of election fraud against Ayman Nour are trumped up. Expect Mubarak to win, by hook or crook.
In Saudi Arabia, an election for local offices in which only men are permitted to vote is hardly a great advance for democracy. We should be more impressed if members of the House of Saud left town with their tails between their legs.
Meanwhile, how are things going in Iraq?
From the BBC Online, dated Friday August 26 15:46 GMT (8:46 am PDT)
Sunnis rally against Iraq charter [news.bbc.co.uk]
Thousands of Sunni Muslims have demonstrated in the Iraqi city of Baquba to protest against the draft constitution being debated in Baghdad.
Some carried pictures of Iraq's Sunni former leader, Saddam Hussein.
The Sunnis object to several parts of the draft text agreed by Shia and Kurdish parties. But Shia leaders have said they will compromise no further.
It has emerged that US President George Bush phoned a Shia leader earlier this week urging him to seek consensus.
Read more.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/26/2005 @ 3:31pm
Fromredbird,
"Someone could be highly intelligent and extremely narrowminded."
A pretty good description of me = )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 3:37pm
Physics,
" So everyone who thinks that the "theory" of evolution is only a guess or is only speculation is just plain wrong. "
Hi my friend,
So you know where I'm coming from, I don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible in terms of how the world came to be. As you know, I do however believe in God and that he created everything, including you and me.
I'm just curious, are you familiar with the First Causecosmological argument?
And what your thoughts are on the argument?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 3:49pm
OKSG, Sorry to say I am not familiar with the phrase "first cause" but I may possibly be familiar with the argument to which it refers. But since I don't know to which argument it refers, I can't say for sure if I am familiar with it... How's that for gobbledeegook?
And believe me, you are right! I do indeed know where you're coming from because I was there myself. I was a Christian for 13 years, the right-wing evangelical "moron" kind :-) Went to church Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday (or Thursday) evening, plus Sunday School and special prayer warrior meetings... Now I am apostate =)
(But please don't waste your time "praying for me". I'd rather you spend it "drinking a beer" for me. If you feel "moved by the spirit" to do anything, do that.)
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 4:22pm
OKSG, I went out and got myself "edumucated" and can answer, yes indeed I am familiar with the First Cause argument, I just didn't know it was called that.
It is a worthwhile argument, but I am inclined to reject it. (Notice I didn't say I categorically reject it out of hand!) Non-causation is a difficult premise to get off the ground. What is even worse is that it doesn't really answer the question that cosmologists want answered, namely that of origin. It's sort of like taking me to the movie theater and then not letting me in to see the movie.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 4:36pm
Physics,
"What is even worse is that it doesn't really answer the question that cosmologists want answered, namely that of origin."
I agree, it doesn't answer that all important question.
Nobody can, not with current technology.
My logic though tells me that when and if we do, which I doubt we will, we will have finally "proven" God exists.
The argument does however make a logical argument that something had to cause the initial "big bang" in the big bang theory, that just didn't "happen" for the heck of it.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 4:48pm
Todd, Physics, and whomever else...
You might check out the Stephen Hawking public lectures at: Hawking [hawking.org.uk] especially "The Beginning of Time" one.
re: " So everyone who thinks that the "theory" of evolution is only a guess or is only speculation is just plain wrong."
Well, uh...YES actually.
I will paraphrase the late Stephen J. Gould (and hopefully do him justice)when he spoke before the Alabama Supreme Court over the ridiculous "sticker" they had placed in Biology texts (visible at the last link) "Evolution is fact....what Darwin said was a theory. The evidence to support evolution are overwhelming and have never been discounted."
To view some reflection of the misperception re: "the Cambrian Explosion" see: Evolution [pandasthumb.org]
try this for a read as well:http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.shtml
(hmmm..hotlink doesn't want to play nice with this one...)
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 6:04pm
Dammit,
Leftofcenter...
Things would just be so much easier if you guys would just admit, even though there is no physical proof that God exists, and even though evidence does support the theory of evolution, and even though the most highly educated men and women in America in general support the theory of evolution over creation...
nevermind...
You're just all wrong!
(that was a more than likely poor attempt at humor)
= )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 6:23pm
The slogan "Democracy is on the march" in the Middle East is a lot of hooey.
Posted by JACK RABBIT 08/26/2005 @ 3:31pm
And the same with Libya's Gaddafi "giving up" his nuclear weapons development. He had been trying for over a decade to establish better relations with the US with no success. If we had done so sooner he probably never would have acquired what he did have and he most likely was willing to hand it over because he didn't have the expertise to utilize it.
At the same time, Bush's Iraq policy and resumption of US nuclear weapons development encouraged North Korea to resume nuclear weapons development. And lots of other countries are thinking the same thing. That isn't success, that's resounding failure.
Posted by fromredbird at 08/26/2005 @ 6:26pm
Todd
lol
;-)
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/26/2005 @ 6:27pm
Thank you, Kamran, for your post at 5:30AM about the similarities between Christian and Moslem beliefs. For a secular stoner guitarist, I learned a lot!
Posted by philbq at 08/26/2005 @ 6:44pm
OKSG,
You wrote The argument does however make a logical argument that something had to cause the initial "big bang" in the big bang theory, that just didn't "happen" for the heck of it.
But I am not interested in "logical arguments" for an explanation of the physical universe. I am interested in rigorous research and testable theories. After all, logic says that a particle cannot escape a potential well unless the particle has enough energy to get over the potential barrier. But logic is wrong in that case, as is well-known from quantum mechanics.
Logic says that two identical twins remain the same age all of their lives, but logic is wrong as is proven by special relativity.
Logic is great for philosophy, law, politics, ethics, morals and lots of other stuff. It is also frequently usefull for science. It is, however, not always right.
Logic cannot sate my curiousity over what happened before, during and after the big bang. I have but one hope for that...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 7:58pm
"Logic is great for philosophy, law, politics, ethics, morals and lots of other stuff. It is also frequently useful for science. It is, however, not always right.
Well good, that statement might mean there is hope after all in your mind FOR the existence of a God, because there is not a good logical argument to prove the existence of God, but as you said, logic isn't always right.
Todd = )
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/26/2005 @ 8:05pm
OKSG, Actually at this point if I am going to hope for something I better hope there is no god, at least according to Christian theology, because I don't believe in the deity of Christ and you know what that means..............man, it's getting hot in here...and is that burning sulfur I smell? Hey, I was promised lakefront property....Oh, I do get lakefront property, you say? Good.....Huh? What's that you say? WHAT KIND OF LAKE???? oh shi* I'm screwed...I don't even have an asbestos boat...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/26/2005 @ 8:23pm
Okay, so let's see how many here really would love to see democracy in Iraq fall on its butt? Let's see a show of hands. I mean, god, wouldn't it be great? I mean, if it succeeds we all going to just look like idiots! If we believed in the power of prayer I sure know what we'd be praying for. If we work really hard, though, I'm sure we can all pitch in and help kill this thing in the crib with our negative waves, man. Then they can put all those new schools and crap we're building over there to good use: training the next generation of terrorists. Groovy, dude. Man, wouldn't you just love to say you wuz right all along? (PS. make absolutely sure you don't do or say anything that might make things better over there cuz if there's one thing we can't do it's be constructive in any way. Remember this is America's fight, not ours.)
Posted by jeck at 08/26/2005 @ 8:31pm
ILOVEPHYSICS, I think when you use the word 'logic', you mean 'common sense' which is very different from logic. Common Sense is what we, as humans, have developed to survive in this world. Of course, since our ancestors never needed general relativity or quantum mechanics to survive, these were never incorporated into our 'common sense'.
Also, it's amusing that religious people will reason things like ‘something had to cause the initial "big bang" in the big bang theory, that just didn't "happen" for the heck of it' and then turn right around and say ‘Oh, but God has always existed.' If something has to have always existed, it is much simpler to postulate that the universe has always existed without having to create an artificial construct like ‘God' to turn around and create it. Can't you see that this type of reasoning solves nothing! It is a circular argument. The kind that books like the bible, by the way, are full of. Also, current ‘theories' also make ‘time' an integral part of the universe along with space. In other words, our concept that something can't be created out of nothing is flawed because our ‘common sense' makes the assumption that time has always existed. This is not necessarily so.
Also, to respond to JECK, I don't believe that any American ever wants our troops to be defeated, but in a narrower sense, if one of our fighter pilots is shot down, we expect him to eject and not go down with his plane. I think it's time to eject out of Iraq for the sake of our troops.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/26/2005 @ 11:57pm
I know that I am gonna get flamed here, but I think this needs to be said. When you are talking about religion, there is no logic. Having religious faith is based on something that by its very definition cannot be proven. Hence, there is never an incontrovertible basis of fact. For example, in Christianity, the fundamental basis of that religion is, again by definition, the acceptance of Jeshua ben Josseph (Jesus to all you guys) as the only son of God, saviour of the world. Now, while many Christians will try to argue that his existence is aon incontrovertible fact, what they absolutely cannot argue is the existence of his divinity, insofar as it exceeds the divinity of anyone else who has ever existed. Hence, it is not based on logic. Instead, it is based on an article of faith. Therefore, while Christianity may be completely logicall internally, looking in on it from the outside to a non-believe, it looks like circular logic... which it is. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Who ever said that perfect logic is the goal of humanity? If it were, art probably wouldn't exist, because it is so difficult to make money at it in your own lifetime. That's not to devalue the arguments for logic... but please don't devalue the views of Christians just because their faith isn't logical.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 12:11am
However, if their political views don't make sense based on the real world, flame them into oblivion...
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 12:19am
Jorcheim, I don't think anyone is arguing that Christianity and the massive resourse that it has at its disposal hasn't been good for art. What I am arguing is that there is no place for it in politics. Of course, they want to have it both ways. 'Don't take away my tax-exempt status, but let me force my circular arguments into the laws of this nation to force everyone including 'those who don't have faith' to have to live by my faith'.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/27/2005 @ 12:25am
The main thing that has seriously corrupted religion in this country is money. Funny that ministers who don't believe in getting taxed still want you to pay your tithe. All 10 percent of it, before taxes! No coincidence that money is also what has corrupted politics in this country. Put them both together and you have a two front assault on our freedoms!
Posted by D1od1o at 08/27/2005 @ 12:31am
D1OD1O I think you misunderstood what I was saying... And that's probably my fault for not being more specific about what I meant. I am in full agreement that Christians should NOT try to ram their narrow weltanschauung down everyones' throats. I was simply commenting on the way ALL Christians get lumped in with the homocidally inclined religious right. I happen to be an EXTREMELY progressive Christin, but oftentimes ALMOST find myself hesitant to proclaim my faith. What I am ALWAYS loathe to do, however, is get the stigma of Bush, Reed, Robertson et al attached to me. And you are right, the Church has allowed for some great art, but I was referring to the way human life and existence is enriched by people who choose NOT to follow a logical life path, I was not defending the Church as a wellspring of great art. Point taken, though. Cheers.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 12:31am
JORCHEIM, Sorry if I'm coming across as if I don't want people to have faith in anything that is not based on ‘facts' as we currently know them. I personally believe that if there is a god, God would want us to use our limited lifetimes to search for the ‘truth'. Sharing your ideas is extremely important in this pursuit. Legislating your ideas and forcing them on others under penalty of our justice system is not. What seriously angers me is the attempt of the Christian ‘right' to stop debate and simply attempt to impose their beliefs into law as if they are some form of natural law that needs no argument. It is obvious that Christians interpret the bible in many ways. Many of these interpretations contradict each other. God loves you. God will punish you. God hates gays. God loves you, but will punish you if you use his name in vain. Etc. What concerns me the most is the concept of ‘The Rapture.' It's OK to use up the Earth's resources with no consequence to the future generations, because Jesus is coming back soon to end it all and judge us all. Sure, not all Christians believe this, but that's my point. The bible is clearly not a document that can be used for governing a nation that values consistent treatment of ALL its citizens.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/27/2005 @ 01:27am
There are many things that bother me about Bush, but there is one special one that i have. I have an undergraduate degree in history. Bush has also has a degree in history from Yale. If he was any kind of student of history he would know better than to think an army could exist without popular support, or that Islamic folks take kindly to people invading their lands. I dislike Bush about as much as anyone, but i do not think he's stupid. Deep down i believe he knows better, he just doesn't care.
Posted by jakesteed98 at 08/27/2005 @ 08:29am
D1OD1O,
"What I am arguing is that there is no place for it in politics"
Well, that's certainly your opinion. Now let me fill you in on the reality of your and my situation.
Many millions of Americans DO factor in their religious beliefs into who they vote for and what issues they vote on, on election day.
Show me the law anywhere that states that one may not vote for politicians or issues based on personal religious influence?
Rhetorical question..
It doesn't exist.
People WILL factor religion into their politics whether you like it or not bro.
I suggest you learn to live with that fact.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 1:08pm
Comment on David Corn's remarks
"Fantasy" is the right word for Bush's world, alright. "Sure knows more than the experts on ...." is DC's nice way of getting at the same point.
But I, as professional academic (emeritus Assoc. Prof. of Philosophy) may perhaps be excused for insisting this be taken seriously.
I have already posted in the Rove Scandal and Sheehan threads that the particular mentality is A. actually shared by all, in the manner of a Jungian Archetype (model: his "Wotan possession" diagnosis of Hitler's Germany); B. consists in the unconscious delegation, by the group fixated Terror Threat of anal male rape -- afflicting the flatulent baby boomer generation (cf. Nick Nolte in fine move "Afflicted")-- of G.W. Bush to Do It to Saddam Hussein (and all manly good-looking hot blooded Arab-type men Dixie Chicks seem to prefer) before he gets a chance to DO It to them.
Further confirmation of this analysis comes from the comments on Pat Robertson's shameful, shameful remarks on the http://www.alternet.org/story/24541/?cID=28467#c28467 website"
Horny old Christians Posted by: pjrsullivan on Aug 25, 2005 1:22 PM
If you take the word "Assassinate," and break it up it looks something like, "Ass," "Ass," "in" "Ate."
A psychiatrist might find a latent sexual predator in someone who likes to "Assassinate" other people.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
As for that, here is an extension of the same analysis to Crawford:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050827/2005-08-27T141401Z_01_SCH670855_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-USA-PROTEST-BUSH-DC.html
?Bush braces U.S. for sacrifice as protesters gather
I submit this is an odd construction, explained by what we are talking about.
By Jeremy Pelofsky
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) (GWB), assailed by sagging poll numbers and criticism from anti-war protesters camped outside his ranch, called on Saturday for Americans to show resolve and brace for additional sacrifice in Iraq.
*****
"sacrifice" is the unconscious group-fantasy token of War-as-Birth. It always stands for the archaic ritual of child sacrifice -- to be re-born (actual children are projectively seen as the rebellious, 'evil' child-in-ourselves, merged with the placenta in the severly regressed group-unconscious state, who have to be "sacrificed to God" (=poisonous placenta/super-ego demanding Its (supra-human) due from sinful humans)... in order for it (the group) to be delivered from birth trauma.) All wars are re-birth rituals, and "Iraq" as token of external sacrifice, is also "America", token of internal sacrifice. The situation at Crawford is saturated with Kent State flashback death portent, may it thankfully remain at the unconscious level.
Since, as also previously noted, such events as brings the pro- and anti-Bush factions together are hugely over-determined, we also get the spectacle of:
BITCH FIGHT METAPHYSICS
Bush praises families of troops in Iraq By Joseph Curl THE WASHINGTON TIMES August 25, 2005 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050825-120635-3669r.htm
NAMPA, Idaho -- President Bush yesterday paid glowing tribute to family members of soldiers serving in Iraq, telling hundreds of Idaho National Guardsmen that America owes them a debt of gratitude.
The president singled out Tammy Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho, who now has four sons in Iraq and whose husband and another son returned from war last year.
"Tammy says this -- and I want you to hear this -- 'I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country,' " Mr. Bush said.
"And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in. America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts." The crowd, made up mostly of military family members, broke into cheers and "USA" chants.
*****/ Now it's Tammy, from Pocatello, Id. vrs. Cindy, from Valparaiso, Ca. Let ‘em skinny wrestle in the mud. Pound for pound, who packs most blood? The weakness of this man can only be illustrated; no words for it exist, yet.
*****/
This is the theme of "gaynxiety" – (mostly) unconscious male anal rape rantasy – delegated to the "bitches" to act out. I have already noted that Cindy Sheehan ("menapausal valley girl" – D. Horowitz) was the neocon's ‘killer mommy' – a group-fantasy content nurtured from the time of the Poltergeist movies, tokened by Hillary Clinton, Grandmother Bush, Mary Matlyn (Medusa, Madonna, Dr. Phil, Larry King and, above all, Oprah. Among others.). Their war-for-Israel agenda calls, not for this kind of second or third post 60's generation Calofornia hype, but – ironically, as the lit. ones say – pious, dutiful, self-sacrificing security Moms. The kind that stayed at home and lit the candles for the German Nazi youth going forth to defend their country in WWII.
These be two distinct anima types (crystalized in the collective unconscious of anal rape-challenged males, aka America conservative manhood group-fantasizers). The inner war within and between these two deficient types of anima opposites, using Carl Jung's analytic, is delegated to two actual women to symbolically "square off" and "have it out". Squirm, scratch, bite and pull hair in a stinky cell-pool. Another battle in their externalized war on terror. Cindy speaks for her dead son. Tammy speaks for her kin. Bush flaunts one mother's bond to their sons over another – the one whose sentiment favors him. It is for the sake of their blood shed, he is now saying, that "we" must "stay the course." The final twist: the justification for shedding more blood devolves to having previously shed it, by choice ("war of choice, not necessity", it is admitted).
Maybe Tammy is so big, strong, powerful, sexy, beautiful as a woman that she can do whatever she likes, and comes naturally, to pathetic little Cindy in the moshpit. If she can't, they'll find one who can. Because she isn't really being counted as a person; "she" is a collective content, an archetype ("stereotype" they say in referring the trait to others), and they are fungible ("tokens"). Ms. Sheehan is not. Though that is the level to which the CNN/Fox One-eyed One would fane reduce her.
The lesson to be derived from seeing this? (killer-mommy wars as displacements of Big Daddy BAD DOG Dictator War safe aathole sanctuary) –
…too soon for you to get to. Try to absorb what is going on at a metaphysical level, first. What you learn will be commensurate to the amount of time you spend in the classroom.
Posted by jones at 08/27/2005 @ 2:16pm
OKSPORTSGUY, It's OK to factor in your beliefs when you vote for anything from dog catcher to president. I have absolutely zero problems with that. I am cautioning people to think twice before voting for someone who governs by listening to God (GW) or astrologers (Reagan). By now, I don't have to list the kinds of problems we can run into when that happens.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/27/2005 @ 3:27pm
Jor, D10, OK (etc.)
Just as there are progressives, moderates and conservatives in a given faith there are fanatical adherents as well. However, it appears (from the "Robertson review" to the Islamic jihadists) they all hold something in common - that it is accetpable to slaughter unbelievers in the name of their God.
Ironic too, that has been pointed out by others, if you track Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (the root theology - lets not get into "sect differentials"), the supreme deity is purportedly the same.
"We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us" Walt Kelly, 1970
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 4:05pm
leftofcenter,
"that it is accetpable to slaughter unbelievers in the name of their God."
Right..
And I know you are very intelligent and have a great deal of knowledge in regards to both the Quran and the Christian Bible.
The Muslims are fighting not against America, they are fighting against the "infidels", they are fighting to bring us to fruition into the "Holy War".
This is the key issue that those who are agnostic or atheists must understand.
Albeit Christians did there fair share of "righteous cleansing" with the Spanish Inquisition etc. in the past. I make no excuses for the Christian religions sins both in the past nor present.
Most Christians now are civilized and do not think that it is morally right or acceptable to kill another person because he/she does not accept your religion.
I'm proof, I haven't once threatened to kill you Leftofcenter = )
However the fact of the matter is Muslims have not come through this enlightenment yet.
Just ask Nick Berg or Eugene Armstrong. Wait, you can't, they have already been beheaded by Muslim extremists who were quoted as saying "your Angels will soon come to carry you away" as they beheaded the two individuals as was video taped and sent to multiple news outlets.
I viewed the events personally.
What I'm suggesting is that if progressives want to get a better understanding of what is REALLY going on in the world in terms of terrorists, the war on terror and Iraq, you need to look much deeper for the root of the problem, and the root is not Halliburton or the oil. The Oil issues is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 4:35pm
D1OD1O,
Reagan.
You can't make assumptions that all people felt that Reagan was a problem as you put in your post.
I liked the direction our Country was going when Reagan was in office.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 4:36pm
Todd
Good points above. There is indeed a wide schism in culture, so why Dubya thought we would be greeted like the army in WWII Europe is beyond me. Is his head that far up his derrierre?
However, one could also argue that Dubya is using the schism to incite Christians in a fashion not unlike the call to jihad. Around election time he did a lot of drum-beating and use of terror / Saddaam / 9-11 up until the war and after. See GOP2004 [geodude.home.mchsi.com] Sure, we haven't started cutting off heads on camera. But there have been some incidents (not just the Abu Graihb) of killing the wounded and disarmed, etc. Its war, it happens....although the Islamic extremeists are much more calculated about it.
As to Reagan....it was "OK" but he did spend us into quite a fiscal hole. One that took Bill Clinton to pull us out of.
Folks, say what you like about Bill's morals (OK...so the man had a penchant for fat-bottomed gilrs and cigars. Whoopee) but as a politician he had both savvy and finesse.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 4:53pm
"Folks, say what you like about Bill's morals (OK...so the man had a penchant for fat-bottomed gilrs and cigars. Whoopee) but as a politician he had both savvy and finesse."
I think from a fiscal, foreign and domestic policy standpoint, Bill did well. I did however have a problem with his lack of respect for his wife, he didn't seem to understand that whole "till death do us part" thing.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 5:02pm
OKSPORTSGUY,
I didn't make an assumption about anything. I stated a fact, as I know it. If I was aware of any other recent former presidents that also employed an astrologer, I would have listed them too. As I stated previously, the bible or astrology (as two examples) are interpreted inconsistently and are thus used to support a priori conclusions. That was very bad during the Inquisition and it is very bad now.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/27/2005 @ 5:02pm
D101D10,
I was merely making the point that many Americans loved, respected and felt comfortable with the way Reagan was running the country.
They didn't all feel like you do.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 5:04pm
OKSPORTSGUY, As far as I'm aware, the Clintons are still married. That can't be said for Reagan and his first wife, Jane Wyman. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I mention Christianity and hypocrisy in the same sentence. Those politicians who rail against homosexuality and then turn out to be gay themselves or Christians like Dan Quayle who was for banning choice but was willing to let his daughter choose if she had wanted an abortion. I'm not judging private actions. I'm judging those that chose to have different 'laws' for 'us' and 'them'. Hypocrisy is obviously not a strictly Christian problem, but when you mix a dominant religion and political opportunists, you get people in power who are willing to legislate morality while secretly expecting to have a lifestyle that goes against that morality. It is also a problem with our justice system. Unless all laws are enforced equally, you will always have bad laws in the books because those in power or those who are wealthy or those who are of the right color will think that those laws are just the for ‘bad' people. They shouldn't apply to us because we're Christians, or whatever and we are really good people with good intentions. That happens with our drug laws. I still haven't seen Rush in jail yet. Someone poor from an inner city would have been in jail a long time ago. Ultimately, I guess my real point is hypocrisy and politics do not mix and we should not tolerate it or encourage it whether Christian or otherwise.
Posted by D1od1o at 08/27/2005 @ 5:23pm
"Ultimately, I guess my real point is hypocrisy and politics do not mix and we should not tolerate it or encourage it whether Christian or otherwise."
I couldn't agree with you more here.
Nothing worse than a hypocritical Christian, and believe you me, I have seen and known a few of them.
I guess my point would be, not all Christians are hypocrites = )
Just like not all progressives are yellow belly cowards, that think communism would be a good thing for America.
We all need to be careful about stereotypes.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 5:26pm
D10D10... Sorry it has taken a while to respond. I took no offense whatsoever, by your comments, I just wanted to clarify myself. And honestly, I agree with you totally. While the BIBLE shouldn't be the basis for a modern (or ancient, for that matter) nation-state, it would be wonderful is the actual teachings of Christ were. Whether you think he was the son of God or just a really cook anarchist revolutionary (I personally think it was both), either way, Jesus was awesome. It is everyone else who has taken his teachings and corrupted them and used them to somehow support war or murder or anything that isn't loving and respectful of EVERYONE, who poop-screwed the whole deal.
And OKSPORTSGUY...just because someone disagrees with the very idea of war doesn't make them a "yellow bellied coward". In fact, most people who are first to bellow for war are precisely the ones who are sitting back at home allowing other people to do the killing for them. Secondly, just as a history lesson, communism was never actually tried. Stalin was a petty tyrant, as was Lenin. Question... have you ever actually read Das Kapital? I have, in both English and the original German. And honestly, I would be willing to bet you have NO CLUE what Marx actually wrote. But that's just a guess... care to prove me wrong?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 6:13pm
By the way, I am in no way saying I agree totally with what Marx wrote. I do, however agree with much of Das Kapital. See, Das Kapital was written as a philosophically based economic critique. And in that, it was extremely on point. What has happened is precisely what happens when people latch onto the written word. They place it upon a pedestal, presuming it to be beyond reproach. Well, Marx was a very astute guy, and as I mentioned before, his critiques of modern capitalism are spot-on. His work starts to get a little off point when he delves into prognostication, as is the case with most (all?) political/economic/social commentators. We ascribe much more importance to Marx's works than Marx himself did. He meant it as an intellectual exercise, not the groundwork of a new religion, as what passed for communism certainly became. The revolution always eats its young. Remember this... the more beautiful the dream, the more horrible the reality.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 6:58pm
"And honestly, I would be willing to bet you have NO CLUE what Marx actually wrote. But that's just a guess... care to prove me wrong?"
Nope, never read it, what's your point?
Communism = "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." according to dictionary.com
If you are inferring that the former U.S.S.R. never was dominated by a communistic form of government, then you HAVE NO CLUE what you are talking about and I would propose you are the one that might want to catch up on some reading.
"Focuses on communism in literature. 'History of the Civil War in the USSR,' edited by Gorky, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kirov, Zhdanov and Stalin; G.V. Plekhanov's 'Materialist Conception of History'; V.I. Lenin's 'Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'."
from: "Up from communism." New Criterion; May2003, Vol. 21 Issue 9, p28, 8p
"Presents an overview of the history and development of communism. Role of communism in the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR); Karl Marx's theory of class struggle; Impact of capitalism on the exploitation of workers;"
from: "Communism." Political & World Affairs: WWI; 2002, p1, 2p
"Examines the history of communism in the Union Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) and German Democratic Republic (GDR). Uniqueness of the two countries; Discussion on Stalinism; Elaboration on USSR-GDR relations."
from: Historicizing everyday life under Communism: the USSR and the GDR', Potsdam, 8–10 June 2000.Social History; Jan2001, Vol. 26 Issue 1, p72, 8p
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 8:19pm
OKSPORTSGUY... if you have to ask what my point is, I think you just made my point.
At any rate, to respond to you yet again, I never said that there weren't basic aspects of the late Soviet Union that were communistic in principle. What I WAS saying (again, nuance...) was that the former Soviet Union, ESPECIALLY the post-Lenin era was marked in its LACK of pure communism. True communism is a system of joint ownership by all, a reversion to an almost tribal existence, at least with respect to ownership. The Soviet Union was, in fact, a police state, a system of totalitarianism in which the state was the owner of all assets and modes of production. And in such models, whoever is in charge of said system is almost invariably the beneficiary of the the system. Remember how I said there were some major problems with Marx? Well, one place where he wasn't wrong was in his assertion that the former Russian Empire was absolutely the LAST place communism should be attempted, due to the lack of proletariatization of the population. The Tsarist regime had only managed to abolish feudalism in name only in the late 1800s, and in practice it never had. In fact, fuedalism in practice didn't end until the sovietization of the lands under Stalin. Again, not saying there weren't ASPECTS of the Soviet Union that resembled communism. But that is like saying that just because we here in the US of A go to the polls every so often, we are a democracy. Getting back to Marx, he forsaw the "communist revolution" occurring in the much more industrialized and commercialized states of western Europe, specifically Germany and England... hence Rosa Luxembourg's activities in Berlin, and Friedrich Engels' activities in London. The problem with Marx's proposed system is, he never sufficiently dealth with the corruptive element of command and control of the system. While I have my own ideas about how to circumvent those issues, the Soviet Union WAS NOT COMMUNIST. Period.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 8:54pm
Wow I was rambling on that last post... Sorry everyone. Sleep dep is catching up with me. :(
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 9:02pm
Communism = "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." according to dictionary.com
By the way... I want you to read that definition a few times, and then try to tell me it isn't loaded. First off, it deviates from Marx's definition of communism drastically. Secondly, it makes the statement that the regime is "claiming" to do something. The implication of that is simple. That it isn't. Again, to go back to the example of the US, it would be like saying that when we vote for our representatives, the representatives "claim" to represent our best interests and desires. And we all know that's just a false implication... right? Right?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 9:10pm
Trivia question for everyone... did either the United States or the Soviet Union ever actually invade the other?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 9:13pm
Trivia question for everyone. Did either the United States or the Soviet Union ever invade the other?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 9:16pm
Oops... sorry... double post... Damned internet burp.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 9:16pm
ILOVEPHYSICS You hit the nail on the head with your post on the 24th. Bush is in over his head and could not even begin to grasp the politics of Iraq when he launched his war. Our country has been lucky to have the right man at the right time through our history. On 9/11 our luck ran out.
Posted by Salunga at 08/27/2005 @ 9:26pm
Hmmmm Jorcheim have to say no but I have a feeling its not that easy. :)
Posted by Salunga at 08/27/2005 @ 9:29pm
Salunga... well, I wish I could say you are correct... but sadly, I cannot. On September 4th, 1918 American marines landed at Archangel, in northern Russia as part of an allied force under British command. They took the city of Archangel and pushed the Red Army (Bolshevik troops) south. At the request of the British, the United States had sent their regiment of marines to join the campaign. The allied force suffered approximately 400 casualties, ostensibly due to force deployment mismanagement and the brutally cold weather and deep snowfall. This invasion was designed to secure both the port of Archangel and Murmansk.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 9:41pm
Good one! I'll read up on it. Had a feeling I missed something.
Posted by Salunga at 08/27/2005 @ 9:44pm
"he problem with Marx's proposed system is, he never sufficiently dealth with the corruptive element of command and control of the system. While I have my own ideas about how to circumvent those issues, the Soviet Union WAS NOT COMMUNIST. Period."
Ya, what ever, take a valium dude, your getting way over excited.
LOL
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 10:11pm
"By the way... I want you to read that definition a few times, and then try to tell me it isn't loaded. First off, it deviates from Marx's definition of communism drastically."
I don't give one flying crap about what Marx's definition of Communism is. I care about what the rest of the world's and what current political science teaches is the definition of Communism.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 10:13pm
OKSPORTSGUY... perhaps instead of making snide comments, you could learn to respond to the points at hand...
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:16pm
And as far as the world's current definition of what communism is, well, that depends on who you ask. See, perspectives are different depending on where you live. For example... in Moscow, there is a common saying. This I heard, by the way, when I was living in Berlin, back in 1997. It goes something like this. It too capitalism only 7 years to do what communism couldn't do in 70... make communism look good.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:18pm
Jorcheim,
"And as far as the world's current definition of what communism is, well, that depends on who you ask. See, perspectives are different depending on where you live. For example... in Moscow, there is a common saying. This I heard, by the way, when I was living in Berlin, back in 1997. It goes something like this. It too capitalism only 7 years to do what communism couldn't do in 70... make communism look good."
If you are in a very bad round-about-way trying to make an argument that Marx's version of Communism is somehow a "good idea", then move to a country where you might actually have a chance of finding out.
I can assure you Marx's version of communism WILL NOT HAPPEN here in the U.S.
Capitalism is the bomb like it or not.
Now, when can I start buying cheap gas from Iraq, I need to fill up my Dodge Durango?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 10:22pm
Cheap gas, Amen!
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:26pm
OKSPORTSGUY... you are right that capitalism is the bomb... if by bomb you mean that it is going to leave this planet depleted of resources. And your advice that I should move to a different country if I find Marx's form of communism to be a "good idea" is the most immature thing I have seen posted on here since Aludra left. If the founding fathers had taken the advice given them by royalists that if they felt that their ideas about freedom were a good idea, then they should go to a country where they could try to bring those views into reality, we wouldn't have the USA which you so love.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:27pm
Maybe Pat Robertson was on the right track. It might have been wiser to launch the war against Venezuela instead of Iraq. Save Iraq for when we had more experience at this sort of thimg.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:29pm
ANXIOUSSOUL I hope you are being sarcastic.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:30pm
Well, I am not sure. I sometimes wonder if Iraq is just the prep for the big one. The "big one" being our conquest of Saudi Arabia. The royal kingdom does not meet our current democracy criteria.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:33pm
Some might argue we owe it to the women of Saudi Arabia. I can picture Laura Bush giving that speech.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:36pm
Why are you folks debating communism?
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:38pm
While I would agree that we should be putting diplomatic pressure on Saudi Arabia to amend its ways with regards to (among other things) its treatment of women, I don't believe war is the answer. However, your point is well taken, for I believe you may well be right, that the neo-con junta has precisely that planned... after we deal with Libya (no it isn't over) and Venezuela.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:39pm
Maybe you folks can help me with something. I heard a news program the other day playing a taped interview with Dick Cheney in 1990 where he said the US did not want to march on to Baghdad since that was sure to result in a quagmire.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:44pm
Was that the same Dick Cheney who is now the VP? What happened to him?
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:45pm
That wouldn't surprise me. And now that you mention it, I think I remember something about that as well, although I can't remember if it was Cheney or some other neo-con in Bush I's administration.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:46pm
He sounded very wise in that 1990 interview.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:46pm
I think Cheney was just being realistic. He probably knew that back then, Americans would not have stood for an extended occupation.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:48pm
What in the world happened? He has seemed to be the main force behind Bush pushing this Iraq adventure.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:49pm
I think the ping-pong match between JOR and TODD is just pointing out the ideal of communism, (a benevolent central government controlling an equitable sharing of resources) versus the variability in communist governemts we have seen "on the ground". The reality is that it never lives up to the ideal because as we all know "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton, 1887.) They all seem to go from the "commune" experience into the hands of the strongest and/or best armed despot in town....
So can we agree if the involved parties WERE fair, that equitable sharing of things is good? Or is diffential resource acquisition and consumption truly synonymous with "highest and best use?"
BTW TODD: In this day and age is an SUV a needful thing? I see too many soccer moms tooling about with 40 lbs. of groceries and a 90 lb. kid in a behemoth that could tow 6 VWs behind it. Seems remarkably inefficient? (I seem to remember the term "Durango" several times...)
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 10:50pm
He is from Wyoming and has always been very conservative. He and his wife are very tight with conservatives throught the country.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:51pm
LEFTOFCENTER as usual you do well to boil things down to brass tacks. Very astute way of phrasing my point. Thank you.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:51pm
At the risk of making some people angry, when he and his wife realized they were not going to be able to convert their daughter to being straight, did they feel a strong need to prove to conservatives they were still one of them. Prove they were not getting soft and liberal?
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 10:54pm
I honestly don't think they had to worry too much about that. I think they were probably getting tons of sympathy from people on the religious right, for their daughtr was a fallen one.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 10:56pm
But if Cheney opposed an invasion when all the conservatives were clamoring for one that would seem to show he was backing away from that crowd, maybe softened by the Mary experience. These conservatives have been their closest friends, that has been their life for many years. What a dilemna.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:00pm
Cheney may have been the one person who could have talked Bush ouy of this adventure. But he did not do it, and it seems he pushed hard to make it happen.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:02pm
Honestly, I can only offer conjecture. But if I remember correctly, he wasn't he only one urging for us not to take Baghdad. Powell was as well...
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:03pm
Woops, sorry if I broke up the flow. I tend to think the "more vs less government" argument is mostly baloney. Everyone likes more government if it helps them, and less govt if they think it will not. Some prefer the gun spending, some prefer the butter spending.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:06pm
true... very true
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:06pm
JOR
De nada...all this college has to be good for SOMETHING after all!
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/27/2005 @ 11:10pm
Males seem to be more into guns, females seem to be more into butter. White southern males practically make love with their guns.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:11pm
LEFTOFCENTER... I know how you feel... my 2 best friends are both phds... and I get stuck working every day for myself... oh joy
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:16pm
btw, what are you studying?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:17pm
ANXIOUSSOUL they make love to their guns, not with... they wouldn't want to get anything on their guns that might affect the burnishing...
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:19pm
Once we complete the conquest of Saudi Arabia we can fire up more disputes with China. Listening to some folks, the war with China is only 10 or 20 years away. With control of Middle East oil we have them by the ba---.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:24pm
Haven't you ever heard that you shouldn't fight a land war in Asia?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:26pm
Why?
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:29pm
"Maybe Pat Robertson was on the right track. It might have been wiser to launch the war against Venezuela instead of Iraq. Save Iraq for when we had more experience at this sort of thimg."
Very interesting thought...
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 11:33pm
"The royal kingdom does not meet our current democracy criteria."
LOL
Picture this, the Uncle Sam picture, you know the one where he's pointing the finger and the slogan says "Uncle Sam wants YOU"
But instead, picture it with the slogan "If your country has oil, we will bring democracy to your country as well!"
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 11:35pm
With respect to Iraq, most of the insurgents are young males. The only way to truly shut down the insurgency is send more US troops and pretty much capture or kill all young males. This would produce a shortage of men and our soldiers could begin dating and marrying Iraqi women. We could set up bars in heavily protected zones where the women could live with out troops. So we don't need to "steal" their oil. We will marry ourselves into legitimate control of the oil.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:37pm
The same can be done with Saudi Arabia. The war significantly changes the female-male ratio. We offer the young Saudi women money, western culture, and mini-skirts.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:40pm
ANXIOUSSOUL... you have been reading WAY too much Swift... rotflmao.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:44pm
Todd, Yes, and we did not need democracy in Vietnam. For what, rice?? No we needed a place to practice with our new weapons, in addition to experimenting with drugs and knockin up Vietnames girls. (Credit to Todd for the verb in the last sentence.)
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:45pm
OKSPORTSGUY... a better caption to that poster would be... "Uncle Sam... bringing 'democracy' to the third world, one bombing sortie at a time"
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:45pm
Leftofcenter,
"So can we agree if the involved parties WERE fair, that equitable sharing of things is good? Or is diffential resource acquisition and consumption truly synonymous with "highest and best use?""
no, no, no, we can NOT agree that equitable sharing of things is good EVEN if we could guarentee that the people in power would truly distribute things equally.
Here's why...
Studies where done (you can look them up, I don't have time right now) where two plots of land where given to the participants in the study.
both plots of land were the EXACT same size on the EXACT same type of soil, both plots of land had the EXACT same fruits and veggies planted in them, you get the picture.
Now... to the experiment..
The participants where told that on ONE plot of land, what ever they reaped they could keep for themselves.
On the OTHER plot of land what ever they reaped would be evenly divided among the other participants in the study.
Can you guess what the outcome was?
In almost every single case, the people worked their own personal land much more diligently than the communal ones.
This resulted in much more harvest from the personal land than was harvested from the identical communal plot of land.
What's the moral of the story?
People WILL be more productive in what ever they do if they know the benefit will benefit THEMSELVES.
You may say that's selfish, so be it.
If the people are MOST productive making/harvesting/developing thier own product then selling what is left over, that still is more beneficial to the OVERAL economy than everyone working half ass for social redistribution of the wealth.
Get the picture?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 11:47pm
JORCHEIM: Do I sound like I have "jumped the couch"? (M.Dowd explains that is essentially losing touch with reality.)
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:47pm
"BTW TODD: In this day and age is an SUV a needful thing?"
If you can suggest something else that can fit my family of 6 in it (me, wife and 4 kiddos), tow my boat and have room for our camping gear, I would be happy to hear your suggestions.
Pretty much ya we have to have some type of SUV.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/27/2005 @ 11:48pm
OKSPORTSGUY... as the Native Americans would tell you (if there were any left that we hadn't killed), maximizing harvest is not necessarily a good thing. Oftentimes it is only sustainable in the short term. What you might find if those same studies were taken out longer is that, after a while, the people who worked their lands so diligently were sitting on a barren plot, that family having left the plot bereft of nutrients in the soil to sustain continued growing. Hence the advent of super-fertilizers... I grew up on a farm, in a very rural part of NC. The land there is getting so acidic from the use of these destructive compounds that in the long term, there will be little immediately arable land left. So... my point is... individual short term self-interest usually leads to system failure. Look at oil production.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:54pm
OKSPORTSGUY... no, I don't think you have jumped the couch. I just think you represent the absolute worst of American culture, meaning the overvaluing of conspicuous consumption to the detriment of society at large, and the unshakable belief that your success in life is a product of only your own personal choices and effort, as opposed to an aggregate of the actions, decisions, assistance, and investments of untold many people.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2005 @ 11:57pm
One of Ronald Reagan's better lines was that communism is an aberration of history, since the industrial revolution resulted in many people working in filthy factories at slave wages and hours. So today treat people fairly and Pat Robertson won't need to worry constantly about communism or revolutionary movements that might come to power and burn some ministers like him at the stake.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/27/2005 @ 11:58pm
Jorcheim,
"m. What you might find if those same studies "
I'll take what WAS found in the studies, not what you infer that might have been found based on your bias towards socialism or "redistributionism" or what ever you call it.
Thank you very much.
Todd (the dum welthy kapitalistik konservative)
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:01am
ANXIOUSSOUL... capitalism is based on the concept of commodifying labor, and squeezing every last bit of utility out of each unit of labor. Hence, in a capitalist system, that isn't a possibility, without some seriously intervening force. The reason the US workforce experienced the largest growth of the middle class of any country in history is due mostly to the fact that the soviet system was promising (albeit not delivering) a different path. Hence, capitalists and industrialists had to essentially buy off and co-opt the labor movement. Hence, look what has happened since the Soviet Union fell... the complete disintegration of worker protections, the social welfare net, etc. Par for the course.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:02am
The most interesting thing about Pat Robertson's comments a few days ago is that implied that the Iraq war is fouled up. He said something about spending 200 billion dollars just to remove a dictator.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 12:05am
TODD...OK, I'll buy that. There are those who have the need. (Just checkin - as mentioned, many folks tend to be much more wasteful than needed) Thats why we (US...5% of Earths population) use 25% of its energy output. I actually have a full-size car,[leSabre] but all 4 of us are like close to 6 feet tall (well, my daughter is 5-6. but she IS only 12.)
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 12:07am
JOCHEIM, OK, i see your point. No competition from another super power to keep us on our toes. I have heard the same point made about why the civil rights movement did well in the 1960s. We were in a struggle with the Soviet Union for the support of "third world" countries so we had to show some progress on that issue. Especially with TVs to show images around the world. If it were not for that, we could have handled "MLK types" as we always had before the cold war, shoot them and then describe them as mere "rioters". (Thanks to Todd again for the Tulsa riot reference.)
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 12:14am
OKSPORTSGUY... it's called distributivism. I realize that's a big word for you. but do try to get it right. And honestly, you are just making assertions about how great you think capitalism is, without actually backing it up with facts. Could you please attempt to apply some semblance of reason and rationality to your points, as opposed to meaningless non sequiturs?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:24am
Quote from topic article: (above)
MELISSA BLOCK: It sounds like what you're saying here is almost two parallel tracks, that a constitution will go through without Sunni approval, that it will pass a referendum in October, that will pave the way for elections in December. But the Sunnis will be out of the process, and extremism will rise as a result.
ATIYYAH: This is the nightmare scenario
And it has come to pass: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/international/middleeast/28iraq.html?pagewanted=print
Assailing Draft, Sunnis Still Seek Charter Changes
By ROBERT F. WORTH and JAMES GLANZ BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 27 -
"Sunni Arab political leaders condemned a draft of Iraq's proposed constitution handed to them on Saturday and made last-ditch efforts to revise the document even as Shiite and Kurdish leaders insisted that it would be published without substantial changes.
"The Shiite leaders said late Saturday night that they were already planning the details of the ceremony where the final document will be received by the National Assembly on Sunday afternoon."
The latest draft includes only slightly revised language on two critical issues - proposals to create autonomous regions within Iraq, and the status of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party - that have infuriated many Sunnis. If this last chance for consensus is missed, some Sunni leaders say, the document that was meant to unify Iraq could instead provoke more sectarian violence."
While the band for The Man played on:
"In his radio address on Saturday, President Bush expressed confidence that differences among Iraq's main factions on the constitutional committee would be overcome, saying a new democratic constitution "will be a landmark event" in the Middle East.
"Like our own nation's founders over two centuries ago, the Iraqis are grappling with difficult issues, such as the role of the federal government," he said. "What is important is that Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion not at the barrel of a gun."
Notwithstanding this reality (his unreal fantasy-projection), The New York Post had it this way: http://www.nypost.com/
IRAQ DEAL Bush Call sets up Constitution
BREAKTHROUGH FOR IRAQI CONSTITUTION
BAGHDAD -- Prodded by President Bush, Iraqi leaders have reached a "deal in principle" on a draft constitution, the speaker of parliament said yesterday.
"Hajim al-Hassani, a Sunni, said that negotiators from the Shiite majority had proposed a number of amendments to an existing draft to meet Sunni demands."
It perhaps looks innocent, this little NYPost Murdochism to pump up Herr Bush's balloon, but it isn't. Another Yahoo headline had "Duelling Protesters" converging on his Crawford, Tex. 'ranch', connecting it with (Iraq) "sacrifice" (=in America) and posing grave threat of violence for which he, and those who "pulled the lever for him" would be responsible.
"Get used to it," al Sadr said to the Sunni's, and the fundies said to Cindy. "I don't think so," said the people, and you could hear the sound of old, rusted Confederate uniforms strapping on. Let 'em say "bring it on", just once. That Pat Robertson religio-sadism threat will provoke, and be responsible for, whatever happens, if it goes violent. I am not for it and will not participate, but will sure as hell document it.
It's Hitler's brownshirts, who also showed up at the Florida vote recount, including Supreme Court Nominee Roberts.
Bush's brownskirts. Rush Limbaugh's real feminazis. I'm trying to tell you. The external and the internal sacrifice motifs are playing out simultaneously.
(note: the "take it or leave" basis noted by ATIYYAH as how the constitution written by the Kurds andd Shiites was presented to the Sunni's, leaving them no choice but submit to their demands or walk away -- neither of which options had been considered in their agreeing to participate -- was essentially the same situation Arafat faced in '99, confronted by Clinton and Barak's "take it or leave it -- 5 minutes to decide" settlement of the Israeli/Palestinian differences. I mention this because the point is regularly used to place the blame on Arafat for the lost opportunity, as by Alan Dershowitz in "The Case for Israel". It just isn't the way diplomatic business gets done, in good faith. )
Posted by jones at 08/28/2005 @ 12:24am
"The most interesting thing about Pat Robertson's comments a few days ago is that implied that the Iraq war is fouled up. He said something about spending 200 billion dollars just to remove a dictator."
His argument was actually very logically sound.
It was in his explanation and delivery where he really faultered.
The U.S. could have removed Saddam through an assasination with covert opps
And we could do the same thing with Chavez.
OOPS.. did I say that?
How "unethically" and "unpolitically" correct of me!
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:32am
JORCHEIM, Do not knock Todd's vocabulary. He is the one that suggested the term "knockin up" in our earlier discussion of soldiers and bar girls.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 12:32am
leftofcenter,
"my daughter is 5-6. but she IS only 12.)"
My oldest son is 14, we need to get together.
Wait...
14 year old boy entering teenage years and your 12 year old daughter..
nevermind, let's revisit this idea when he's 35 and she's 33
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:34am
". it's called distributivism. I realize that's a big word for you. but do try to get it right"
The condescending remarks, really make you look much more rediculous than me bro, just so you know.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:36am
Maybe we should protect Chavez. To keep us on our toes. It shows what can happen when people are not treated fairly. A scary thing for Pat Roberston, lots of folks might want to add gasoline to his burning stake. Or would they rather add a little water to make sure he burns very slowly?
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 12:37am
OKSPORTSGUY... explain to me please why it's a good idea to assassinate Chavez... other than the fact that he refuses to kowtow to the US's demands. Just curious.
And, how do you feel about other countries exercising their prerogative to assassinate our head of state?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:38am
OKSPORTSGUY... should I go back through the 3 comment pages and cull every example of your condescension and disrespect? I am willing to bet, it would be a pretty long post.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:39am
"Could you please attempt to apply some semblance of reason and rationality to your points, as opposed to meaningless non sequiturs?"
I don't know GDP of the U.S. compared to like the GDP of the next three closest rivals combined?
Number of dollars given out by the u.s. both government and charities to other needy countries compared to your beloved sweden and other countries
Number of billionaires in the U.S. compared to the number in other countries
Number of fortune 500 companies in the u.s. compared to the number in other countries.
How many more ways do you want me to prove capitalism is the best financial/government system in place currently?
Number of ENTREPRENEUR business's started and profitable in the U.S. compared to the number in other countries?
Standard of living in the U.S. compared to other Countries?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:41am
Put those weapons away for the moment. The Chavez quesion is an interesting one.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 12:41am
ANXIOUSSOUL... you wrote:
"Maybe we should protect Chavez. To keep us on our toes. It shows what can happen when people are not treated fairly."
Curious. What do you mean by, "it shows what can happen when people are not treated fairly." From what I have seen and read, Chavez has done a great job of providing land reform to the people of Venezuela, not to mention health care via the oil for care deal with Cuba. Seems to me that Chavez, despite his history of being a petty military leader, he is really trying to do right by the majority of his people.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:42am
"And, how do you feel about other countries exercising their prerogative to assassinate our head of state?"
They have tried, remember the Reagan attempt?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:42am
I think both sides benefit from protecting Chavez. One side benefits by retaining the person (Chavez) that could be used to jusify an invasion. As indicated before, this would make good practice for the conquest of Saudi Arabia. For the other side, Chavez keeps us on our toes. Treat workers fairly, don't view South American countries as mere US puppets, etc. ...... Yes, this is an issue that can bring both sides together!
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 12:48am
OKSPORTSGUY... How about:
Infant mortality
Cost of basic health care
Coverage rate for basic health care
Difference between the richest 5 percent and the poorest 50% of the population
Per capita earning power
Home ownership rate
Average household debt
Average household savings
Gov't debt per capita
Trade balance
Percent of unionized workforce
Size of the middle class
Amount of population beneath the poverty level
Deaths from malnutrition per year
Average maternity leave
Life expectancy
Murder rate
Violent crime rate...
Just to name a few...
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:48am
OKSPORTSGUY I am not asking whether they have tried... I am asking you how you feel about it. Again, you are taking the point and deflecting it to something not germane to the argument. Please stay on point.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:50am
Oh, I just found Sweden's abortion rate per 1000 live births... and the US rate...
US rate: 44.4
Sweden's rate: 19.6
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 12:51am
Jorcheim,
You're argument is flawed, in that how can you make an argument with data such as Murder being a result of our capitalistic financial system?
Stick to the facts.
You can't prove our murder rate is because of capitilism.
That's a faulty argument.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 12:51am
I can't figure out this pissing contest betwwen you two?
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 12:53am
You conflated a different argument with the one I was making with that post you referenced. And I am sticking to the facts. I was making a point that the US is not necessarily the best place in the world to live, based on the measures I quoted. It was not an argument about capitalism per se. Although I reckon that could be extrapolated accordingly. And no, it isn;t a faulty argument. When wealth is distributed more evenly among a population, there is less need for people in that society to go out and forcably take from others.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 01:02am
Well, let's just argue which state in the US has the best quality of life. No, never mind, that really screws Todd since he is from Oklahoma.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 01:06am
However, it does look like OU will have good football team this year. What else is Oklahoma known for? Oil, but my understanding is that most of the oil is gone.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 01:10am
rotflmao... yeah, Oklahoma really sucks...
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 01:10am
That, and tornados...
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 01:11am
Yes, the tornado capitol of the world! But they never seem to use that in their tourism literature.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 01:13am
TODD, JOR:
I would think that a significant number of homocides are indeed linked to a profit motive. Is this not capitalism gone awry via an anarchistic bent?
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 01:14am
LOC: Well, the biggest profit motive of all rears its ugly head in times of war. So is it not prudent to add all the deaths associated with the Iraq War to the homocide deaths in the US?
*tongue planted firmly in cheek*
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 01:17am
BTW all...a good place to fact surf for these lively discourses...
http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php [nationmaster.com]
"The United Kingdom and United States are both in the top ten for GDP and child poverty."
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 01:18am
I am no expert, but I sometimes wonder if homicides are linked to testosterone, since the vast majority are committed by young males.
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 01:18am
Interstingly...the Nationmaster site shows the US has about the highest murder rate of any "civilized" country...and is easily bested by most any european nation.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 01:24am
LOC that is a GREAT site... tyvm... never seen it before
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2005 @ 01:25am
De nada JOR...
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 01:27am
"
Well, let's just argue which state in the US has the best quality of life. No, never mind, that really screws Todd since he is from Oklahoma."
Heh, ya, OK is definitely messed up from a financial standpoint. Very low cost of living but because there are very few good job.
Economic indicators for OK are LOW..
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:13am
"I was making a point that the US is not necessarily the best place in the world to live, based on the measures I quoted"
Ok now we are changing the argument, which country is the "best" place to live.
That's a subjective question. It's not objective, and you can't make an argument for a subjective question as fact.
Best compared to who on what criteria?
That's like saying "Let's decide which color is the best"
Different people will like different things colors, there is no "best".
I personally like living in the U.S. the "best" because of the following:
Best military defence highest per capita income most technologically advanced freedom of religion the concept of entrepreneurship unlimited personal income (capitalism)
I'm sure you will like other countries better but for very different reasons.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:19am
"Yes, the tornado capitol of the world! But they never seem to use that in their tourism literature."
Hey, speaking of capitalism, now that's an idea....
We all know how successful reality TV has become, and how everyone always likes to watch a car wreck or a train wreck.
Maybe I should start a company, and sell tickets to a live and personal tornado event!
Ya, people would pay say $500.00 per event for me to bring them live and close enough to get a good view but far enough away to remain safe and watch the tornado destroy some poor persons trailer home (we do have a lot of those here in OK as well).
That's a great idea!
Thanks Jorcheim!
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:22am
sorry, that should have been thank you anxious!
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:23am
Hey from that nationmaster, I did see this for the U.S.
"Economy - Commitment to foreign aid"
Bad, that means that from the GOVERNMENT, we don't officially give very much foreign aid.
I wonder what that number would be once non-profit aid is factored in, i.e. salvation army, red cross, churches etc.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:28am
sorry in my post above it should have said "U.S. ranks last in commitment to foreign aid"
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/28/2005 @ 09:28am
[re: Nationmaster data...]
As self-proclaimed "leader of the free world" you'd think our general stats would be a bit better.... Kind of like a baseball team where the manager talks big, but the ERA is only so-so.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 10:32am
HOT OFF THE WIRES....ATTENTION THREAD
If you didn't see "Meet the Press" this morning, it was basically the title of this thread.
Guests: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.); Gen. Wayne Downing (Ret.); Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.); & Gen. Montgomery Meigs (Ret.)
Here's an excerpt between Russert and Gen. Wesley Clark (ret)
MR. RUSSERT: Was it a mistake to go into Iraq?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think it was a strategic blunder. First it wasn't connected to the war on terror, at least not to the people that struck us. Secondly, it has proved a huge recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. It's a feed lot for terrorists who want to learn how to fight Americans. We put our American soldiers at risk there. And we're producing terrorists out there.
see the entire transcript at: HERE [msnbc.msn.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 1:21pm
TODD: I'm glad you have a sense of humor. I was also poking fun at myself. (Both of my parents grew up in Chickasaw and I was born in Norman.)
Posted by AnxiousSoul at 08/28/2005 @ 2:40pm
How can America allow this obscenity in the White House?
Posted by rob.olywa at 08/28/2005 @ 6:02pm
Hmmm
I have always been a bit amused by the bit about Iraq not attacking on 9/11.
It is like saying of WWII:
Why are we at war with Germany? They didn't attack us a Pearl Harbor!
I realize the historical parallels are not terribly strong.
I just find it amusing is all.
Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 9:40pm
You have to understand that the President was not elected because of the war, but in spite of it.
As far as this disaterous constitution (and it appears to be a disaster for the Sunnis, that is for sure)
I think it plays out this way:
The Sunnis never were nice to us.
They made a big stinking mess out of a nice little war.
So they don't get what they want? Oh well.
The Shiites and the Kurds get what they want, and we get what we want.
And the Sunnis have nobody but themselves to blame.
In the long run, with no source of revenue, trapped between the Shiites and the Kurds, they will be pacified.
(What we want, by the way, is an Iraq which produces oil, and is no significant threat to the USA or to Israel. A nice big Air Force Base would be OK too.)
Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 9:45pm
I suspect the real issue for the Sunnis is they are being cut out of the Oil Money.
They talk about Womens Rights, only because they know Jezebel rules over the USA.
Trying to get support, is all.
Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 9:47pm
The previous posts are how I read what is going on. Not what I personally want to see, but what appears to me to be the bottom line for all parties.
And if I recall correctly, The President has said from when he started talking about Democracy in Iraq, that Democracy there might not look quite the same as it does in other places. (rough paraphrase)
But just imagine! A Middle eastern country (Other than Israel) where the leaders are selected by the people in a real vote.
I am not absolutely sure, but if it actually happens, I think it will be the first time in 6000 years that it has happened.
Egypt, perhaps? But do they really count?
Posted by jonb at 08/28/2005 @ 10:08pm
JonB
Why of course Egypt doesn't count...they don't have any oil!
The WWII parallel is weak I agree. You should read the transcript (scroll up) if you didn't watch the show.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/28/2005 @ 11:17pm
Leftofcenter I watched Meet the Press but don't think I heard anyone come up with a withdrawal plan that brings troops home any time soon.I agree with so many of the bloggers that we did king George's good deed(got rid of Saddam)and now it's time to go home.It was time as soon as he was captured.But "good deeds"were not on the kings mind when he went into Iraq,oil was.We have no business dictating to the people of Iraq what kind of government they should have.Before you know it the political powers that be here will be telling the powers that be in Iraq how to rig elections.The insurgents that threatened the Sunnis to keep them from voting might have been trained by our own Karl Rove.He did a number on the people in Fla. during the re-count in 2000.The state of Ohio is still trying to figure out what happened there in 2004.Who the hell are we to try to teach another country about elections??????
Posted by BusyHands at 08/29/2005 @ 03:24am
BUSY..
re: elections...I wholeheartedly agree. There were indeed funny things going on this 2004 election - especially in OH. Their Gov. is under scrutiny for other things at present, but obviously goes in general to his character. GOP folks can say what they like, but vote in OH this past fall was very flawed. And the Diebold guy (a vocal GOP supporter) saying "he'd deliver the OH vote" should have been cause alone to NOT use Diebold hardware. There were also reports (from press - not wing-nuts) of "repairmen" working on machines in between end of vote and official tally. How the hell did that happen? But the one I like best was the town that had 10x GOP votes as they had registered voters. Ooops. Well, it was only a small town, so who cares right. Heck maybe they fudged a few here and there in EVERY town? As the electronic vote systems leaves no paper trail, we will never know.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/29/2005 @ 10:48am
JONES, No offense, but your writing style is a bit disjointed and your posts would be more readable if they weren't so long.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/29/2005 @ 12:05pm
Was Iraq worth it?
Paul Hackett and Robert Merry answer that question in a discussion with Chris Matthews.
Excerpt from the transcript of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: After all the bloodshed--and you have been over there and you had bullets shooting at you--do you believe that, if we get out of there in a year, and there is this sectarian sorting out, as you put it, and there‘s still going to be some fighting going on among the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds...
HACKETT: Sure.
MATTHEWS: ... is that less of a danger to us than Saddam Hussein was or more?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: In other words, have we made a matter--the whole thing, after all is considered, all the blood and treasure spent on this war and all the amputees we have met on this program, and people are going to be living this the rest of their lives, after all that cost, is the benefit of having gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and replaced him with this confused mess over there worth it? I want an answer.
HACKETT: Well, I have been asked that question before here. And I said no.
MATTHEWS: Is it worth it?
MERRY: Absolutely not.
And the fact of the matter is that the most significant development that emanated from all of this is the transformation of the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran is far stronger today than it was before this invasion. And that‘s probably the most significant development.
MATTHEWS: And that‘s a pretty modern country. Anyway, it could be a danger. It certainly is a danger to Israel right now.
Link: Was Iraq worth it? [msnbc.msn.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/29/2005 @ 12:25pm
LeftofCenter
We're talking middle east geographically.
Egypt is nominally a democracy, but as a practical reality, they are a "1 party" democracy.
The point was, other than Israel, which doesn't count, there is no nation in the middle east which has leaders selected by the people of that nation through a vote.
IF that happens in Iraq, it will be the first time in 6000 years that it has happened, I think.
After all, that is what a democracy is. DEMO = people; -cracy = rule.
It would be pretty remarkable.
That was my only point.
What on earth has that got to do with oil?
Posted by jonb at 08/29/2005 @ 1:14pm
JonB:
There has been a lot of talk (here on thread, as well as in general) that the Iraq War is related to stabilization of US petroleum interests. That is where that came from...
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/29/2005 @ 3:27pm
OKSG, Do the same with Hugo Chavez, you say? Do you realize that he was democratically elected? So now you want to go around the world taking out democratically elected leaders of countries?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/29/2005 @ 5:13pm
ANXIOUS, We won't be invading Saudi Arabia any time soon, so don't hold your breath for that...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/29/2005 @ 5:19pm
Iraqi women better off under Saddam than American Republicans. You tell me there's no Al-Qaeda/Bush relationship. Is there not between them a common desire to return to the backward past?
Back in February, with blue ink on her finger symbolising the recent Iraqi election in which she had just voted, Safia Taleb al-Souhail was invited to sit with the first lady, Laura Bush, and listen to the President claim in his state of the union address that success was being achieved in Iraq. Her picture went round the world after she turned to hug Janet Norwood, a Texas woman whose son had been killed in Iraq.
"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened: we have lost all the gains we made over the past 30 years. It's a big disappointment. Human rights should not be linked to Islamic sharia law at all. They should be listed separately in the constitution." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article308604.ece
Posted by fromredbird at 08/30/2005 @ 12:23am
"Todd" (why does OKSG credit a third person?) in re Robertson
"The most interesting thing about Pat Robertson's comments a few days ago is that implied that the Iraq war is fouled up. sic He said something about spending 200 billion dollars just to remove a dictator."
His argument was actually very logically sound.
It was in his explanation and delivery where he...
*****/
Comment. His argument, apart from predicating on a flat lie (Chavez is not a dictator), follows a maxim which, if reversed, would justify assassinating him, or anyone who thinks like him. "Assassinate anyone who thinks they might be threatened;" or "After spending 200 billion dollars on one greed-driven fiasco and failing to assassinate one dictator, set up another target enemy and go again on the cheap this time." Or, "Whenever you need to get rid of an obstacle between yourself and what you want, and can get away with doing so, hire killers to remover them (use the CIA, FBI, ATF, Mossad, Opus Dei, Mafia, whoever as cover)."
These maxims not only cannot be willed to be universal law (the minimal rational criterion for judging all such actions as cannot be so willed immoral, Kant argued); merely to consider them sinks below the level of civilized human behavior.
And this is remarkable.
In fact, it is the historical unfolding of a classical textbook pathology. As I keep posting. Regretting, but unable to apologize for, the lengthiness. (regarde, ILP.) Some tales can't be told while you stand on one foot, so it comes down to whether you are going to say a lot or nothing.
So remarkable is the twistedness of Robertson's statement, in the total communication situation, I am driven to compare it with another, perhaps unexpected, juxtaposition: Alan Dershowitz's thesis in The Case For Israel. He stands accused of the same fundamental pathology. Leading to the question of who corrupted whom by the abhorrent logic based on self-contradiction.
That will be argued in a following post, after I trim it down.
Posted by jones at 08/30/2005 @ 02:13am
(See preceding for connection with the Iraq group-fantasy psychosis)
Deconstructing Jewishness -Refutation of Alan Dershowitz' Case for Israel
Overview: from on-line review (right-wing Jewish) http://www.freeman.org/m_online/sep03/shapiro.htm
Reviewed by Bernard J. Shapiro Excerpt Alan Dershowitz is widely respected as one our nation's most brilliant Professors of Law (Harvard University) and defense attorney. His has a resolute and unshakable belief in the liberties granted to Americans in the Bill of Rights and is ready to defend them. These qualities make him an ideal defender of Israel. **** "Dershowitz concludes with a concept that the Israel is "the Jew among the nations." In other words the anti-Semites look at Israel as a macrocosm of "the Jews" they hate, fear and wish to destroy. Other writers have used this analogy, but Dershowitz carries it much further with his astute analysis and historical presentation.
Part II Analysis
The statement "Israel is the Jew among the nations", as a sign-use construction is a "doubling" of references to "the Jew", taken once from its (background, pre-conscious) use as the extreme Nazi-hate perjorative ("What the Jew was in Hitler's Germany"); then taken again, by stretching its application to the ‘nation.' What is carried over is re-application of the Nazi-hate background, thus staging a communication situation in which the reader is brought to observe themselves predicating whatever they personally associate with "the Jew" from the earlier context, to the contrived (by word and deed) refuge. That is Dershowitz' "Case" in a nutshell.
Why shouldn't it be called "the Jew among nations"? It is officially called "the Jewish state". Why should dropping the "-ish" and changing "state" to "nation" raise such hackles?
Because the other grammatical vesion evokes the revulsion that all right-minded men, especially including all WWII America vegterans whose families fought Hitler's Germany, are assumed to feel – with REACTION FORMATION "No!" "Not!","Never!" Waves of revulsion evoked by stacks of starving, emaciated humanity outside Aushwitz aroused. "No self-respecting person could accept that!"
Reaction-formation, Freud found, is the reversal of a strongly cathected instinctual impulse when it is mechanically turned back (repressed) by the person's own ego-ideal. This ego-ideal, later called "super-ego", is acquired during the Oedipal stage of psychosexual development when the child learns to say "No! NO! I don't hate him! I love Him" – in reaction to felt revenge impulses toward an abusive father, when instinctual expression invites severe punishment. But this ‘love of father', based on reaction-formation, is actually driven by hate, the quasi-quality that replaces cathexis of libido (spontaneous love) toward the Father in conditions of abuse. This comes through in sadistic-compulsive behavior (cf. picture of the facial expression of a masochist enjoying himself; or Pat Robertson's face as he says the words "assassinate", or "take him out" in re Venezuelan President Chavez.)
And THAT – reaction-formation toward hatred of Jews -- is the emotional basis of Dershowitz' case for Israel. "Don't even think (It*) (*killing the Children of Israel; killing God the Father Himself… not supporting Israel …wishing the final solution). The effect is to elicit, then turn back, death wishes toward Jews.
Note: John Lennon singing "Women are the niggers of the world" compares with this analysis of "Israel is the Jew of nations." Use of the Southern perjorative, "The ‘N-‘ word" became a token of the wish-impulse to lynch blacks men who were fantasized as wanting to screw white girls; as such, since this entire CS evokes a feeling-tone complex all its own, it* (*the sign-use "nigger") was suppressed, then repressed to the point of evoking a reaction-formation of its own; at which juncture it is fit to be used in a secondary manner, the way Dershowitz uses "the Jew", as a reversal mechanism. Wouldn't want to be thinking of our women as black folks themselves, now would we.
Dershowitz' representation, then, on this interpretation, says: "Look, here's how it is. If you are among its prejudiced, one-sided critics, then how you feel about Israel as a nation is the way Germans felt about the Jews. That is who and what you are." His "case", carried out to 32 points, consists in correcting the starting point of any who show bias measuring ‘Israel' by one stardard, as if it were different, and other (real) nations by another standard. Leaving it up to the jury of his peers and public opinion, to weight his facts and arguments, and add the hate component.
*****/
Part 3. Generalization
It is my contention here that: 1. The case Dershowitz makes is ‘loaded' – first, by stacking tokens of uniquely powerful particular associations in sentences ("Israel", "the Jew"), then extracting token-tautologies from the posited S* by appeal to the latent passions they invoke. Insisting, all the while, on playing the language games (inference, argument, entreaty, etc.) as if the dice were not loaded. 2. Israel is NOT a "nation" except by generous extension of that term to entities with the unique historical particularity it's name carries. It is not "a" nation among the "set" of nations, because it is named for a particular people with a particular history. This figures into the logic of the question "Does Israel have the right to exist?" (And ungenerous critic might see in this Dershowitz' cunning manipulation of equating a "No" answer to this to signing on to Hitler's "final solution", whereas, in fact, it might be a point of sign-use insisted upon.).
A common trait marked "Jewishness" emerges from consideration of Dershowitz's "case."
Roughly: Preaching the Universal (as theory), while hewing to the particular (in practice).
*****/
They represent themselves as BOTH the Same – as you or I, individually; or as any other group, as nation – and Different: individuals and nation with a very unique historical narrative (shaping the inner as well as manifest outer particularity). The assumed unity of both appears in different points in their rhetoric, the universal or inclusive "we defenders of Free Speech Americans", above, coming in at one real-politic juncture; the other, exclusive, "minority rights" rhetoric kicks in when Menorahs and Hannakuh fade the Christmas season celebration, or "anti-semitic hate laws" are passed in order to chill criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel. A psychodynamic whip-saw effect is achieved, wherein a context calling for identification-with-empathy, as the human response toward Jews suffering in the holocaust, is followed by an anti-cathectic, "them-only; you* only if approving" marker. What must be recognized is that BOTH POSITIONS, SIDE BY SIDE YET LOGICALLY DISTICT, IS AN ESSENTIAL TRAIT OF THEIR RHETORIC (Jewishness).
However, the claim of both (two) as a unity (one) is self-contradictory.
The Same and the Different are categorical distinctions, resoluble into a single unity only through consciousness itself as the ground of transcendental unity: that which is the Same in the Many of all S* given to individuals (the sum of a Kantian "I think", under a single memory-connected set of sign-uses). This cannot be identical with Jewishness as a particularity, because as a particularity, Jewishness is only one among other strain of individual conscious life.
Reply to Dershowitz' central contention:
Excerpts: from Introduction to The Case for Israel: http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8461
"Thomas Friedman of the New York Times got it right when he said, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." A good working definition of anti-Semitism is taking a trait or an action that is widespread, if not universal, and blaming only the Jews for it ****/
"This book will prove not only that Israel is innocent of the charges being leveled against it but that no other nation in history faced with comparable challenges has ever adhered to a higher standard of human rights, been more sensitive to the safety of innocent civilians, tried harder to operate under the rule of law, or been willing to take more risks for peace. This is a bold claim, and I support it with facts and figures, some of which will surprise those who get their information from biased sources. For example, Israel is the only nation in the world whose judiciary actively enforces the rule of law against its military even during wartime. It is the only country in modern history to have returned disputed territory captured in a defensive war and crucial to its own self-defense in exchange for peace. And Israel has killed fewer innocent civilians in proportion to the number of its own civilians killed than any country engaged in a comparable war. I challenge Israel's accusers to produce . ****/
Comment: this demonstrates the grammar of persistently subsuming "Israel" under the general heading of "a nation". To be favorably predicated on -- one of the best, objectively considered. He has the comparative data to prove it. But – the point cannot be repeated enough – this ignores What Israel IS: i.e., = what Israel* communicates. (see footnote) He thinks he can intellectually master control over that? It is using him, not vice versa. He can't even predicate with any assurance on what Israel, the nation, is predicating of itself these days. Some official and many pundits now speak openly of it as a "Zionist state". Rudolf Giuliani has declared to Europe, summer of '04, that there has been an escalation of anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionism, telling those dudes to get off their asses and combat it. Dershowitz avoids the term, and skirts the unconscious associations the eliciting of which largely neutralizes any serious emotive content his text so meticulously summons up. Based on facts and arguments, you understand. (And: particular sign-uses, we are obliged to add.)
******/
Further remarks show consciousness of being on the other side of twisted, pernicious reversal:
"I prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that a pernicious double standard has been applied to judging Israel's actions: that even when Israel has been the best or among the best in the world, it has often been accused of being the worst or among the worst in the world. I also prove that this double standard has not only been unfair to the Jewish state but that it has damaged the rule of law, wounded the credibility of international organizations such as the United Nations, and encouraged Palestinian terrorists to commit acts of violence in order to provoke overreaction by Israel and secure one-sided condemnation of Israel by the international community."
This passage brings together the two sides of the "twist" most succinctly. "Even when Israel has been the best or among the best in the world, it has often been accused of being the worst or among the worst in the world."
How can that be? – one is obliged to wonder. The answer here is: because there is a self-contradiction in what "Israel"'s existence stands for: as a nation that is both the Same and Different from others.
That draws a logical line of total exclusion or inclusion. Which side one comes down on depends, I think, on the way the reaction-formation is cathected. That is why Dershowitz' formula "Israel is the Jew among nations" is so apt. It focuses clearly where the seam splits.
Perhaps if it were to be called something else?
************/
Footnote: What Israel* is . (=*What the word "Israel" communicates, divided accorded to 7 Metaphysical Categories – where the seventh reverts to the first as textual connection of conscious content):
1. The name of a historeical person – the Biblical Patriarch Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. Abram/Abraham (Sumerian-cum-Semitic form). The narrative of the man to which it applies.
2. The children of Jacob ("Father Israel" he became known as). Descendents of the 12 sons according to Mosaic law, through the mother's line (of DNA)
3. The tribes dispersed in the later parts of the 1st millennium B.C., then after 70 A.D., known to each other across boundaries as "people of the book"; that is, followers of texts written long, long ago on scrolls about the remarkable history of Israel's tribes.
4. The name of what is currently regarded as the "nation of Israel" , as above.
5. In addition: "Israel" is a token of the theological idea uniting those who are members of its recognized citizenry: the state as a mental content communicated among them as a group. In this use it is mainly a political token.
6. Further: It is synonymous with the inner side of the group life of those who follow religious observances in rituals tracing back through the texts to early times. They can perhaps feel, with some justification, as if they are "Israel", or are instrumental in "keeping Israel alive."
7. Finally: "Israel" can be used, or misused, in the sense of a blood-based metaphysic : As the title of strain of congenital Jewish supremacy, as if it were an essential being-ointment that flowed directly from The One into Head through bodily fluids.
This last is the most hard-core esoteric use, mostly encountered only among scholars of the Talmud, and should be succinctly addressed as a bogus fall-back, default position in case others fail.
It can be refuted from the standpoint of the Christian John Calvin, and the ‘atheistic' existentialist John Paul Sartre.
According to Calvin, each man stands under judgment by God responsible for what he chooses to be, to do, to become. These result from free will, not because God or anything else ordained it in advance.
Sartre's doctrine of freedom goes further and says the denial of that – Calvin's creed, refusing to lay the blame for one's destiny on outside, occult sources – is false consciousness. Calvin says "You have to decide for yourself". The philosopher adds: "To deny this is to lie to oneself, in the act of denial ."
To which a third voice, Freudian psychoanalysis, might well add: "The denial of responsibility, if mechanical and compulsive, is the result of the psychodynamics of repression; the refusal of entry to consciousness of an instinctual wish.
This argument applies to claims by (some) homosexuals that their sexual orientation is genetically determined (perhaps for some it is).
Posted by jones at 08/30/2005 @ 02:32am