Page 1 of 1 pages
Greene’s “The Quiet American” is almost creepy in its applicability to today’s world. It just pretty much proves that history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce.
Posted by boughtmysoul on Feb 14, 2005 at 7:17 AM
“Yes, the world is better without Saddam—but is it better if we also include in the overall picture the ideological and political effects of this very occupation?”
Great question! The answer seems to be yes, if one includes both the damage Saddam did to his country and the fact that his being the Iraqi leader made the removal of sanctions all but impossible. Not to mention his continued ambition to develop weapons that would make him “respected” both in the Middle East and the West. . .
Overall, it seems to me the war was worth it, so far. Of course, i would really like to see how it would have turned out just leaving the Iraqis to die of malnutrition and lack of medicine. Maybe they would have eventually overthrown him themselves, as the situation continued to deteriorate? (At least we know now that the Oil for Food program was really just a Saddam enriching scheme.)
Posted by goodQuestion on Feb 14, 2005 at 11:12 AM
First, the elimination of Saddam was not the justification for the war. The Congress allowed the President to skirt the War Powers Act, under the now obvious pretense of WMDs and a DIRECT threat to national security.
Second, the policy of “pre-emptive invasion” may or may not be justifiable…that is to be determined. BUT, if it were, given the fact that Saddam did NOT pose a direct threat, the use of that policy in this instance was unjustified.
Third, the end result of all this remains to be seen. There is no clear cut indication that the elections have brought long term peace, there is no clear cut indication that civil war won’t still take place, and there is no clear cut indication that this does not represent a policy on the part of this Administration to impose our will further into the region (despite statements by the Secretary of Defense to the contrary…anyone following this administration knows that its talk IS cheap).
What this has done is create a necessity to have a PERMANENT presence in Iraq, similar the one maintained in Saudi Arabia, which will over time only exacerbate the very forces of religious fundamentalism and hatred of the West that led to the tragedy that occurred on 9/11.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 14, 2005 at 12:15 PM
Can we end the tired refrain of Iraq’s lack of WMD? Especially that GWB “lied” about them?
We all *knew* Saddam had WMD. Clinton knew in 1998. Europe knew it. The US knew it. Hell, some Iraqi Generals knew it too, even in 2003. In a funny way Saddam was the boy who cried wolf (maybe we should teach our fairy tales over there?).
Is it a lie to “know” something that later is proven false?
We act on the information we have (we marry then divorce - is that a lie?). We do the best we can. While we are someimes mistaken, we can never know what might have happened if we took the other path. In the case of Iraq, it seems doubtful that the US doing nothing would have been better than the US deposing Saddam. To date i have not seen any alternatives that seem likely to have done better than the war. . . Especially given the Oil for Food fiasco (which was essentially unknown in spring 2003).
Anyway, if the point is “war is bad”, i agree. But in doing so, i also know that doing nothing can be bad. It would be nice if everyone just let others live in peace - if the strong would not attack the weak. But since we live in a world where the weak need protecting, that means sometimes the strong attack the bullies - too bad for Saddam, but very lucky for the rank and file Iraqis.
Posted by goodQuestion on Feb 14, 2005 at 12:37 PM
It is when you send troops over to die for a “mistake”.
The Bush EXCUSE was essentially “bad intelligence”...that the governmental equivalent of “the dog ate my homework”.
Sorry…he doesn’t get a pass for that. Especially when he had OTHER REAL issues to expend military resources on.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 14, 2005 at 1:04 PM
L&P - thanks for chiming in. Obviously, opinions vary. I believe that the ending of sanctions is a very good thing. Further i also think that if the dog *really* did eat the homework, then it did. So what?
Posted by Matt on Feb 14, 2005 at 1:27 PM
So what?? That’s a pretty low standard to apply to an Administration that criticized and continues to criticize the previous Adminstration for actions it took based on GOOD intelligence.
We keep setting the bar lower and lower for this President. And he takes that as acceptance on the part of the American public to execute any policy the he thinks is right.
Then when the stuff hits the fan, its all written off as being “forceful and decisive”, or its someone else’s fault (CIA, FBI, Congress, the Lord).
I thought the sign at the President’s door said..“The buck stops here”?
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 14, 2005 at 1:56 PM
In reference to the “tired refrain” comment about WMDs. Maybe someone should note how the “bad intelligence” that didn’t inform us of impending attacks on 9/11 was derived from the same apparatus that provided intel for the war. Maybe someone should note that it is unlikely that the U.S. will ever get nominally “bad” intelligence again. Perhaps when the U.S. invades Iran (likely with Cub Scouts and pea-shooters—that’s all we got left) those who deign to question the efficacy of such actions will be branded “crypto-terrorists” and be maligned for bringing up that old tired refrain of needing some kind of justification for invading. But, like most institutions, the administration will just generate their own justifications for doing whatever it wants. All criticism will be washed away when the president waves an American flag at a NASCAR event. The nation cheers! Freedom is on the march!
Posted by atmosphere on Feb 14, 2005 at 3:11 PM
What you forget is that the entire war was based on LIES designed to wage an illegal and immoral war against a sovereign nation that happened to have oil. Duh! Let’s not forget the denizens of the LIARS’ DEN who gave us this fiasco…..
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/the_liars__den.html
Posted by Reg on Feb 14, 2005 at 3:45 PM
It is unbelievable to think that the Iraqis are “better off” with Saddam gone. We have totally collapsed their infrastructure, killed their people indiscriminately and unemployed a third of the population!
And this, without even getting at their oil, which, of course, was the real reason we went in there with Halliburton slavering behind the ill-equiped US troops.
I have never seen so much damage done by so few in such a short time. Now, if the North Koreans get frisky, what are we to do? What about China, Iran? Pres. Bush has stuck America’s fist into the tar baby of Iraq.
What I’d like to know is: Where has all the money gone which has been poured into overcoming Iraq? A nation which couldn’t even put an airplne in the sky to defend itself.
Western “liberals” are not silenced on the question of Iraq being better off without Saddam Hussein. It is clear as a bell they were better off WITH him. He was going nowhere. The sanctions took care of that.
Don’t get me started.
Posted by southvalley on Feb 14, 2005 at 4:14 PM
It is true that no one misses Saddam Hussain, but we have caused more damage and killed more people in a couple of years than Saddam did during his entire dictatorship. Just because they don’t report how many Iraqis we have killed, doesn’t make them any less dead. And what of all the children we’ve maimed and starved to death? All the children who have died of dysentery from lack of safe water? We didn’t have to destroy the whole country just to catch Saddam (when we should have been after Osama Bin Laden, anyway… remember him?). We used cluster bombs filled with depleted uranium in the most populated city in the country… the radiation from which will be causing an epidemic of cancers down the road, not only to the populace, but to our own troops deployed there as well. Tens of thousands of innocents have been killed. It didn’t have to be this way.
Posted by Kim on Feb 14, 2005 at 6:10 PM
WMD’s weren’t the only thing we “knew” about, goodQ. We also “knew” Saddam was harboring and aiding Al Quaeda operatives, and that there was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11. This turned out to be dead wrong. In fact, Bush’s overthrow of Saddam likely makes Bin Laden smile.
We also “knew” Saddam was training future terrorists, and that overthrowing him would end this threat. However, the CIA has recently concluded Iraq is NOW a training ground for international terrorists. Meaning, our invasion has made Iraq and the rest of the world less safe from terrorists.
And Barbara Boxer’s statement at Rice’s confirmation contains convincing and clear evidence that the administration *was* either lying about WMDs (specifically, the use of nuclear tubes for making weapons-grade uranium) or lacking responsible leadership. Don’t know which is worse.
You’ll recall that Bush “sold” us the war based on these three reasons - Iraq/Al-Quaeda, WMD, war against terrorism. ALL of which turned out to be wrong. How could a well-intentioned person be so consistently mistaken? Do we want that person in charge? What if Clinton had made these mistakes? How would you feel then?
I thought so.
Posted by trixie on Feb 14, 2005 at 6:49 PM
Rather than overgeneralize the outcomes of all this with easy terms like “better off” or “worse off”, which are a bit misleading and glibly try to predict an uncertain future, it would be more appropriate to look at what we DO know: 1) Saddam and his forces are out of power, 2) the recent elections marginalized his formerly powerful minority constituency (in large part because Sunni clerics advised an election boycott), 3) Iraq’s infrastructure and economic base have been wrecked, 4) conventional and makeshift weapons are in enormous supply throughout the country, 5) occupation forces haven’t been able to preserve law and order since the start of the invasion, 6) insurgents continue to operate virtually unimpeded, 7) the formerly suppressed Kurds and Shias are in the midst of forming a government although they have broadly different priorities, 8) there is intense disagreement across the country regarding the appropriate connections between religion and government, 9) there is increasing disaffection among coalition-country nationals for their troops’ presence in Iraq, and 10) Iraqi authorities and military are completely unable to take over at present. This is no exhaustive list, other “known” factors further complicate the picture. I’m no fan of this war, I really think the resources would have been better used in Afghanistan. It’s entirely too soon to know whether the Iraqis will be generally “better off” in a year, or ten years, too soon for anything but an ill-founded prediction or, worse, a blithe statement of assurance coming out of some sense of “loyalty” to Bush or the troops. I certainly think Americans should not let Bush off the hook, as far as holding him to a strict standard of what “success” means. After all, he initiated this war, even if (granting him the most generous interpretation of events) all he had to go on was intel he thought was valid. The one who initiates a war bears responsibility for the great bulk of its outcomes, credit for what may in time improve and blame for the harm that results in the short and long terms. That’s been the rule of history for much longer than the Bush administration will ever exist, longer than most countries in the world have existed. He (and the country that elected him) shouldn’t get any special breaks as far as accountability.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 14, 2005 at 10:57 PM
I don’t think it’s any great secret that George Bush is a liar and that politics is dirty and politicians are often dishonest. Although it amazes me that those who talk about George Bush’s religiosity always come around to the absurd conclusion that Bush is a true believer. I’m not saying Zizec has done that. (I don’t know what Zizec says about that.) I’m only making observations.
You’d have to extract Bush’s brain for him to not know that mass murder, and big time lying that leads to mass murder, gets you in God’s bad book. However stupid Bush is, he knows that a real God would have nothing to do with him. Bush is not a Christian, in fact. And he knows he’s not a Christian. That, of course, doesn’t stop him, and others like him, from claiming to be a Christian. Even Jesus pointed out that many would claim to be Christian who are not.
But this is Bush’s (noisy) world. He’s not alone. Bush might be singled out by an establishment Left that wants to crown it’s own national savior (who is not much different than the current one), but for a fact Bush was elected twice. Also, So
many who voted for Kerry were still voting for Bush, as Nader rightly pointed out. Bush is a man, not an idea or a collection of ideas. And any man or woman can be selected to champion the ideas that Bush embraces.
The worst states and the despots who run them still rely on the legitimacy afforded to them by the people.
People (a lot of them) are willing to stick with the clownish Bush (and other contenders for the presidential crown who come from Bush’s Darwinian, capitalist camp) because they understand him. They speak the same language. They come from the same god and religion. They come from Satan, aka Gog and their religion is democracy, which means humankind’s rule over humankind, without God’s involvement in it, from which we get capitalism, a demonic system of things if ever there was one. Yes, People also believe (and have been helped to believe) that man is God. This confusion of beliefs is easy in a democracy in which man makes the rules and can break them. It’s also easy when the true God allows people to believe as they wish. In order to allow people to believe what they wish, you must to a great extent allow people to behave as they wish, unfortunately. Then judgment can be carried out.
Once it’s clear, irrefutably, that democracy is a mistake, then democracy will never again have any way of returning from it’s adverse judgment. The trick is to not disappear with it.
People believe in (actively and conveniently only, rather than actively ‘and’ passively, or ‘fully’) capitalism. They believe fiercely and Bush, who will protect and respect their religion, if he does anything, makes believers proud.
People value moral support as much as anything. When they’ve chosen, freely or under compulsion (it makes no difference), a certain course that they feel is wrong, then unless they find the humility to admit that they are wrong, a rare ability evidently, they will rationalize their error and justify their course and they will do so more easily when they have the moral support of similar thinking folks.
Are Liberals the solution? Or are they true believers and part of the problem? And can this be honestly discussed?
Posted by Arby on Feb 15, 2005 at 12:24 AM
Arby, your ideas intrigue me.
I also think Bush’s rhetoric, like that of so many aspirants to power, becomes more hollow with every reference to righteousness and holiness. It’s frankly disgusting. All that blood, so much deception…
But I have to question, for all democracy’s possible perversions, what alternative? If people can’t choose the way they want to live, how to spend their hard-earned dollars, where to apply their efforts and imagination so as to feed their loved ones and have a life worth living, how else can these things be decided? I would agree wholeheartedly that an economic or personal choice based on a desire to elevate oneself and one’s neighbors is a better choice, certainly better than the delusions that drive the ruthless world. But if it’s not a freely made choice, in pursuit of one’s own happiness, doesn’t that imply compulsion from another? Isn’t it just an expectation of pervasive obedience, as the alternative to a democratic model?
If it were only a matter of following scripture, well, honestly the historical record is not good. So many attackers against learning, all those blood-drenched tyrants, so many hoarders and wasters, refusing to invest in the welfare of the people whose work sustains them. How many claim the Bible or God as inspiration, as their sponsor no less. How are we to know which of you Christians to emulate? Especially when there are so many who (may falsely) claim affiliation with Jesus but who bully and connive, trying to seize the law and work unethical advantages, who try to force us into conformity or at least into marginalized and unhappy obscurity. Some of whom have proved they will attack us, if we don’t obey. They actually think they can set a plan for our lives better than we can do ourselves? Where does that hubris come from?
You shouldn’t see anti-Christian or anti-worship in these words. They aren’t there. It’s a aincere question: if the Lord isn’t here to actually offer direction to the human race (not just attempts to apply biblical verses to modern problems), aren’t we on our own to decide? Us, to decide? It’s not smearing Jesus to see that our daily decisions and plans for the future are in our own hands, is it?
And regarding capitalism, people need incentives to work, and that means profit. A generous and well-heeled society means that wealth has to be created; it’s easy to forget how squalorous past times were. People need to be able to figure out how to live their lives, perhaps with guidance from morally advanced teachers, but essentially as free agents who live among other free agents, who live among people who are their neighbors.
If democratic processes are unrighteous, if we must always take another’s lead, whose? We’ll be stuck with a minister’s interpretation of the Gospels and a ruler’s authority. In combination, they’ve been malignant so many times before.
Perhaps prayer, for those who think there’s Someone listening, is enough. Prayer asking for divine influence to make the right choices and do the right things in life, yes? The Real God knows the sincerity or bogusness of any such request, don’t you agree? And would take the opportunity, if asked, to inspire toward righteousness as the supplicant had requested?
With that providence, you could still negotiate a labor contract, he could still compete in an election, she could still own stock, I could still advocate marriage rights for gays…
But until Jesus actually does incarnate and rule, there’s daily life, there’s work, the law, decisions about who to trade with, what to teach your kids, who to obey and who to never obey. Unless we can do those from the basis of free choice, and that implies democracy (inshallah in its more enlightened forms), then unconditional obedience, to someone, will be the standard. We’ll just be subject to the agendas, values, and whims of the powerful and influential. We have enough of that now.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 15, 2005 at 7:05 AM
Kuya, your post with the ten points was very good, opinionated, certainly, but rational and very much more light than heat. This type of post which is critical, but not rabidly anti Bush (I mean the Bush is Hitler stuff) is getting rarer and rarer. It was a good read. Thanks
Posted by Clark Nitrate on Feb 15, 2005 at 7:12 AM
“We have enough of that now.” Indeed. It’s called democracy.
It’s fair to say that you don’t know enough of my views for me to think that you’ve been terribly critical of them. Which isn’t to say that what I did post was unintelligible.
I don’t believe in democracy, and nothing that has come from man’s rule over man inspires me to think that this is the way. I think that folks who think that they, collectively, are God, represents the greatest hubris. (See Luke 14:7-11 and 22:14-27 to get an idea what Jesus’s thoughts on hubris are. There are many, many instances in the Christian Bible where humility is taught.)
Good people can be antichristian, my friend. Things are a little more complex than what Hollywood, and those who have not studied the subject, would have you think. The Bible even speaks of a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous, whereas there are those who, when they die, die completely, body and soul. (Incidentally, As a former Jehovah’s Witness, I’m not supposed to believe in an insubstantial soul that survives the death of a human being. However, I do. But I also believe in death, which, unless you’re cursed, is simply a special, dreamless, perfectly peaceful deep sleep from which you are awakened at the appropriate time, by God’s power, via resurrection.)
If you ‘know’ that you fight against God, and willingly do so, say for what you believe is survival here and now, then you are cursed/damned. That doesn’t mean that you go to hell. There is no hell in the Christian Bible. It means that when you die physically in this hell we call our world, that’s it. You die completely, body and soul. Pharaoh, of the time of the Hebrews’ escape from Egypt, was imperfect and no doubt limited in his knowledge of Jehovah. It didn’t matter. You needn’t be fully informed and perfect in order to cross that line. Pharaoh crossed the line, like George Bush today.
Take note: Once you cross that line, then God can foreknow all that you will do, without injustice. There’s nothing left to lose in such an individual’s case. Whereas, God does not foreknow all that individuals who have not crossed that line will do, for that would make him responsible for great sins which they may choose to commit. God uses selective foreknowledge, which I don’t think you’ll find any experts on.
In the short term (again, Jehovah’s Witnesses would never be heard, at the doorstep anyway, saying stuff like this), I think we need a new socialism, namely one that’s bottom up, along the lines of what Karl Polyani envisioned when he wrote the seminal THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, which looks at the rise of modern day capitalism. (I’ve got the book, but I find it ponderous. I’ve only tried to read it. I actually read another book which it inspired, namely ALL YOU CAN EAT, by a Canadian author, Linda McQuaig, for which reason I can talk a little about Polanyi’s ideas.) Unlike Stalinism, The new socialism would have as it’s central tenet, not centralization (which is practiced eagerly by capitalists today), but freedom.
In the long term, humankind will get theocracy. That’s simply reality. But we won’t, in my view, get the kind of oppression that comes from the democratic hierarchy of the present system of things. We will get theocratic hierarchy, which will present us with all but complete freedom for how we manage ourselves on earth. There are ‘no’ theocracies on earth right now. Theocracies that spring from godless men are simply more democracies, the religiosity they exhibit notwithstanding.
Knowing that this destructive, antigod, inhuman, anti-environment democratic system will soon be destroyed, along with inequality, old age, sickness and death is a great incentive to me to not blow it by selling my soul in the meantime.
“And a certain ruler questioned him, saying: “Good teacher, By doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?” Jesus said to him… When he heard this, he became deeply grieved, for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him and said: “How difficult a thing it will be for those having money to make their way into the kingdom of God!... Those who heard this said “Who can possibly be saved?” He said “The things impossible with men are possible with God.” -Luke 18:18-30
Later…
Posted by Arby on Feb 15, 2005 at 11:39 AM
Gracias Clark. No doubt, I’m nothing if not opinionated. Can’t say I haven’t gotten pretty intense at points, depending on the issue I’m commenting on, but in general I try to stick to rational discourse. Not always easy, sometimes feels nearly impossible to stay calm. I’ve got this attachment to the belief that we can approach something of a higher truth if we hash out all the various ideas and try to learn from each other. Especially if we can get a halfway clear take on how those ideas play out in action, in the real world. Challenging…
And Arby, gracias also for your response. Not to suggest I know the breadth of your thoughts, but your disaffection with democracy, based on its poor record in use, sort of parallels my similar feeling about faith as the driver of social and political efforts. Hope for the Resurrection seems to me to so often encourage an unhooking of oneself from concrete outcomes, a denial of effects that stem from observable causes, a dependence upon Guidance that is said to be clear but that sure does lead in different directions. A soup-kitchen volunteer says she received divine inspiration, and so does a head of state who starts a dubiously justified war… Can I say for sure that the Spirit really isn’t whispering into George Bush’s ear? I can’t, but as his efforts show fruit I’m confirmed in my belief; I heartily doubt it. But I can also see how you might show up democracy as a collection of unkept promises, which can easily mislead people into overlooking the uncompassionate results of majority rule based on self-satisfaction as the driving force.
But I still prefer the basically skeptical approach to truth that characterize science and democratic discourse; I still think it’s best to demystify all sources of authority, even authority that says it’s based on the Bible. I want the attitudes of fact-checking and rational evaluation to spread, and I realize these aren’t compatible with the values of presumed loyalty or faith. I think influential people, and even more so those who have real power, are best responded to from a critical perspective (not an assaultive, gratuitously damning one, I mean one that tries to sincerely see the good and bad outcomes of those leaders’ work). That means I don’t want to rely on a priori truths as a starting point, I don’t want to start the reasoning process by saying “The Bible is the Word of God”. I guess because that approach has let me down as a way of revealing truth in the real world; as you perhaps feel let down by the promises of democracy.
Sorry to be so blabby, may peace be upon you, shine on. Later…
Posted by Kuya on Feb 15, 2005 at 2:04 PM
If we are all honest with ourselves, we would concur that the only reason Bush wanted over in Iraq was to have a strong footing in that part of the world, proven by the two massive military bases he is paying all that money to Haliburton to build. The second reason is to get the oil out for his buddings in the patroleum and insurance businesses. I understand a lot of our troops have been killed because they are protecting the roads that these empty tanker trucks are using to steal Iraqs oil. The Iraqi’s are mad as hell about that. Bush’s administration is the worst I’ve seen as far as being not concerned about middle class Americans who pay the biggest share of taxes to support this lousey government we have at the moment.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 15, 2005 at 3:33 PM
Bush is toast. And I don’t mind saying so.
I don’t want anyone to simply accept what I say because I say it. (There’s two ways to teach. You can be authoritarian and tell people that “This is how it is because I say so. Period.” Or you can be authoritative - not in the “I am special” sense - and tell people that “This is how it is and I’ll try to explain to you why I think so. Let’s dialog.” I believe in the latter approach.) My brand of Christianity, for what it’s worth, includes all of the Bible’s guidance, including the guidance inherent in the statement that “faith without works is dead.” That doesn’t mean that democracy is approved by God, however.
Just because I don’t believe in democracy, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think we are meant to manage ourselves. As Paul, who once persecuted Christians before becoming one himself, said about loafers: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” He certainly wasn’t advocating torture, the way some modern day US government officials do, but he did make a point that most reasonable folks would agree with. So if you’re looking for a way to dislike my message there, then I’m sorry to disappoint you.
As well, My religion makes no allowance for mumbo jumbo or spiritism (See Deuteronomy chapter 18). My religion is rational. Paul also counselled good people to offer themselves in sacred service to God “with your power of reason,” and to be “transformed by making your mind over, that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:1,2) In other words, If you’re persuaded by reason that God’s will is ‘not’ good, He himself won’t punish you for it. Which isn’t to say that we don’t reap what we sow. There is still cause and effect. If you put your hand into the fire expecting good things to happen, then you will be disappointed.
And in all matters, including politics which I’m very interested in (in my own way), I believe in skepticism. I recall two well known writers whose writings encourage us to question everything, and I have taken the lesson they impart to heart. Linda McQuaig and Noam Chomsky both tell us to question everything. Chomsky particularly dislikes those who get caught up in hero worship. He dislikes the way that followers of his work tend to idolize him. I already believe that idolatry, of any kind, is wrong. I certainly don’t agree with humans worshipping humans. And after the failure of Chomsky and others on the Left to get behind Raplh Nader in the last election, I have no trouble eschewing hero worship of progressives who I’ve learned from and admired greatly. I’ve learned a great deal from Chomsky and other writers on the Left, but none of them are perfect. What’s more. They are all democrats and that is a big boo boo, certainly from a Christian standpoint.
“This is what Jehovah has said: “Cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in earthling man and actually makes flesh his arm, and whose heart turns away from Jehovah himself.” -Jeremiah 17:5
Posted by Arby on Feb 15, 2005 at 11:13 PM
This may interest you Pat.
5 trillion dollars (approximately $500 billion of which is American) sit in offshore tax havens, protected by George W. Bush, while ‘leaders’ whine that they can’t afford social spending! There is so much theft by those with talent it’s unbelievable. Here in Canada, Corporate Canada owes billions in deferred taxes, most of which will never be paid. Meanwhile, Little people have to pay all their taxes. Americans especially, but Canadians too, might be interested in a website I discovered a few years back. Check out www.howdarethey.org. The following paragraph is an excerpt from their archives section, which you get to after clicking on ‘learn more’.
“In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the President and congressional leaders quickly agreed on the outlines of a $50-75 billion, one-year economic stimulus plan to help those most hurt by the disaster and the economic downturn. But after an onslaught of corporate lobbying, that bipartisan agreement is in shambles. On a close party-line vote, the House passed a $212 billion tax-cut bill stuffed with tax breaks for profitable corporate campaign contributors, including repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax and huge increases in tax write-offs for “depreciation.” Senate Republicans endorsed a similar measure, as has President Bush, resulting in gridlock. Meanwhile, special interests continue to plead for even more tax breaks, from reinstating the three-martini lunch by making business meals 100 percent tax-deductible to granting special treatment for theme parks. Right now, profitable corporations adept at using tax shelters to whittle their tax bills down to little or nothing are required to pay alternative minimum tax. It’s a way of making sure they contribute their air share. But not only does the “economic stimulus” bill passed by the House repeal this tax, it actually issues refunds for corporations on the alternative tax they’ve paid all the way back to 1986. Just 16 profitable companies, which include household names such as ChevronTexaco, General Electric, IBM and General Motors, would receive $7.4 billion in immediate tax rebates under the House-passed bill. These same companies are the source of nearly $46 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1991, two-thirds of that to the GOP, including half a million dollars for President George Bush’s campaign.”
It burns me the way the capitalists create this gigantic deficit - via unemployment, via tax cuts to the rich, via a failure to collect taxes from corporations in various ways and via basing the economy on militarization - and then tell those who had no say in it’s creation, namely us little folks, to fix the problem. Got that? We need to lower our expectations of what our elected governments can do for us because we’ve got deficits - that capitalists and their partners in politics create. To hear them tell it, They don’t want deficits. In fact, They do. It keeps us down and distracted.
Posted by Arby on Feb 15, 2005 at 11:18 PM
Do you subscribe to this organization Arby? The small amount I read astonished me.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 16, 2005 at 3:45 AM
Didn’t I just direct you to it? I don’t have to join it in some formal fashion in order to subscribe to it’s general thrust. There’s many sites and organizations that I direct folks to, whose ideas, more or less, I think are important, but which I haven’t formally joined. If you’re thinking of donations, While I’d like to donate, often, to organizations I think are doing important work, unfortunately I don’t have a spare dime. (One that I would like to donate to immediately, and may, is International Socialist Review. It’s a great mag. Lots of bang for the buck, and they’ve recently asked for donations, which I’m sure all mags do from time to time. There are other informative mags out there, for sure. But these days I can’t afford to buy all my favorite mags, and, as well, too many of my ‘fav’ mags have been - very hypocritically - promoting Kerry, and by extension, the sickness of capitalism and militarism and American wars of conquest.)
I’m not sure why you asked your question, but I hope you find www.howdarethey.org useful.
Cheers.
Posted by Arby on Feb 16, 2005 at 8:25 AM
When will it stop? The worthless talk about Bush’s mistakes. He’s not making mistakes. He’s feeding us stalking horses and spending his evenings laughing laughing his sorry ass off. Even the burning faggot in the white house is not an issue. More laughter. When will it start? The demonic destruction of our democratic republic by the originators of the PNAC is the story. The judges, the patriot-police, the Halliburton enrichment project. $400 billion and counting and we haven’t even started on Iran. We’ll go in there to find the Shah, or someone that looks like him. We know what those bastards are doing - nuclear power plant my ass that’s a nuclear weapons factory. Bush’s immediate goal is to eliminate all remnants of Roosevelt’s New Deal and the last dog standing is Social Security. His second term goal is to bankrupt what the Republicans call “big government” and place the burden of debt upon the working bourgisie. The murder and mayhem will continue—soon to visit our own shores via our own government. We have taken giant steps backward to the year 1000 CE. These people are raving psychopaths, trained by the Barbara Bush’s of America to not concern their “beautiful minds” with unimportant body counts. After all, what other purpose might the poor serve?
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.”
GO
Posted by Gerald Osborne on Feb 16, 2005 at 8:42 AM
Mr. Gerald Osborne,
I’m very proud of you for speaking out and telling the conservatives just what you think. Bush and his cohorts are out to ruin this country. They raped the voting polls and now they are raping Iraq of their oil and next he wants to eliminate all the safe guards we have worked so hard to win, like clean air, clean water. He also wants to let lumber companies destroy our Redwoods which we have fought to keep their filthy hands off of. We have some beautiful country in the west and he wants to allow strip mining there. He is posion to our use to be Great America. The only way to get rid of him is by impeachment or assination, which I doubt either will happen
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Feb 16, 2005 at 10:21 AM
I am trying really hard to understand what you mean when you refer to “democracy” but I find it hard. USA boasts about being a democracy but nobody consults the plain citizens about important matters, such as whether they want to send their children to kill or be killed, to interfere in other countries’ affairs or how to spend the money collected from tax-payers. The man in charge and his team just do it and all the Congress, with its costly structure somehow manage to say yes to the Emperor’s desires. Is that democracy? They call themselves Christians, freedom lovers, men of God but they don’t hesitate at the time of lying, of using the name of God in vain or giving orders to kill innocent people in His name. I must have missed something because seen from the outside it all looks pretty hypocritical and most of the people play the same game repeating their slogans about doing all that to help the Irak people gain freedom, while nobody questions the starvation of children, the destruction of cities, the right a nation has to decide which is the right system for others. I have heard for years that a great part of the world is dangerous because they might have weapons of mass destruction but they never question their own accumulation of weapons or military power. As far as I know the only country who has used atomic bombs against others has been precisely the USA. Their stock of WMD doesn’t make me feel any safer because one group has them because the mere fact of manufacturing and keeping them puts me and the human race in danger of extinction. Each American citizen seems to feel they have a right to impose on others their views and that is no less dangerous than what Saddam or any other tyrant might have had in mind. Your bullets are lethal too, you know and we should all start thinking like human beings belonging to a species which is in the process of destroying our planet.
Posted by Maria Luisa on Feb 16, 2005 at 11:25 AM
I think and have thought all along Bush should hae been indighted, because he lied to the American people about the threat to the US from Iraq and Saddam Hussian, This was a complete fabrication. He lied to congress and took the US to war on false pretenses and is responssible for the death and mulitation of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis AND a very large number of our own troops and civilians. He has made the world ten times more dangerous as he bleats about his discussions with God and his divine mission and calling. Bush is a very dangerous man, because he is so vain, self important and a coward!!!!!!!!!!! I had a friend who use to people like Bush are so stupid they don’t knnow they are stupid. I fault the congress and the Democrats in particular, they have been spineless and cowardly. I fear that with Bush telling the world that what Bush says is the only way, he may suceed in distroying our wonderful US. The world, actually has a great more brain matter than poor Bush and it will only take China or Japan to say thanks but no thanks we don’t want any more of your worthless bonds, for the Dollar to colapse completely. We have a worthless SEC of the Treasury who is a yes man. Bush could not find a replacement for his job so Snow was reappointed. The really sad part is the avarage US citizen is not paying attention,as long as they have their cars and their munchies they they see no further need to bestir themselves.
I am truely thoroughly depressed and really do not see any thoughtful person in congress making a difference.
Posted by R Crocker on Feb 27, 2005 at 6:29 AM
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/
10만명의 회원들이 서로 가진 자료들을 공유하고있습니다
영화는 물론 토익 애니매이션 만화 성인물 등등..
서로가 가진 자료들을 공유해보세요.. 이것이 p2p의 장점입니다
한번 방문해보시면 절대 후회없는 p2p세계로 오실수있습니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
게시판 운영자님께 광고성글을 남겨 대단히 죄송합니다.
삭제 비번은 5012 입니다. 다시는 글남기지 않겠습니다.
즐거운하루되세요,.
Posted by 공유실 on Jul 8, 2005 at 4:13 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Greene’s “The Quiet American” is almost creepy in its applicability to today’s world. It just pretty much proves that history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce.
“Yes, the world is better without Saddam—but is it better if we also include in the overall picture the ideological and political effects of this very occupation?”
Great question! The answer seems to be yes, if one includes both the damage Saddam did to his country and the fact that his being the Iraqi leader made the removal of sanctions all but impossible. Not to mention his continued ambition to develop weapons that would make him “respected” both in the Middle East and the West. . .
Overall, it seems to me the war was worth it, so far. Of course, i would really like to see how it would have turned out just leaving the Iraqis to die of malnutrition and lack of medicine. Maybe they would have eventually overthrown him themselves, as the situation continued to deteriorate? (At least we know now that the Oil for Food program was really just a Saddam enriching scheme.)
First, the elimination of Saddam was not the justification for the war. The Congress allowed the President to skirt the War Powers Act, under the now obvious pretense of WMDs and a DIRECT threat to national security.
Second, the policy of “pre-emptive invasion” may or may not be justifiable…that is to be determined. BUT, if it were, given the fact that Saddam did NOT pose a direct threat, the use of that policy in this instance was unjustified.
Third, the end result of all this remains to be seen. There is no clear cut indication that the elections have brought long term peace, there is no clear cut indication that civil war won’t still take place, and there is no clear cut indication that this does not represent a policy on the part of this Administration to impose our will further into the region (despite statements by the Secretary of Defense to the contrary…anyone following this administration knows that its talk IS cheap).
What this has done is create a necessity to have a PERMANENT presence in Iraq, similar the one maintained in Saudi Arabia, which will over time only exacerbate the very forces of religious fundamentalism and hatred of the West that led to the tragedy that occurred on 9/11.
Can we end the tired refrain of Iraq’s lack of WMD? Especially that GWB “lied” about them?
We all *knew* Saddam had WMD. Clinton knew in 1998. Europe knew it. The US knew it. Hell, some Iraqi Generals knew it too, even in 2003. In a funny way Saddam was the boy who cried wolf (maybe we should teach our fairy tales over there?).
Is it a lie to “know” something that later is proven false?
We act on the information we have (we marry then divorce - is that a lie?). We do the best we can. While we are someimes mistaken, we can never know what might have happened if we took the other path. In the case of Iraq, it seems doubtful that the US doing nothing would have been better than the US deposing Saddam. To date i have not seen any alternatives that seem likely to have done better than the war. . . Especially given the Oil for Food fiasco (which was essentially unknown in spring 2003).
Anyway, if the point is “war is bad”, i agree. But in doing so, i also know that doing nothing can be bad. It would be nice if everyone just let others live in peace - if the strong would not attack the weak. But since we live in a world where the weak need protecting, that means sometimes the strong attack the bullies - too bad for Saddam, but very lucky for the rank and file Iraqis.
It is when you send troops over to die for a “mistake”.
The Bush EXCUSE was essentially “bad intelligence”...that the governmental equivalent of “the dog ate my homework”.
Sorry…he doesn’t get a pass for that. Especially when he had OTHER REAL issues to expend military resources on.
L&P - thanks for chiming in. Obviously, opinions vary. I believe that the ending of sanctions is a very good thing. Further i also think that if the dog *really* did eat the homework, then it did. So what?
So what?? That’s a pretty low standard to apply to an Administration that criticized and continues to criticize the previous Adminstration for actions it took based on GOOD intelligence.
We keep setting the bar lower and lower for this President. And he takes that as acceptance on the part of the American public to execute any policy the he thinks is right.
Then when the stuff hits the fan, its all written off as being “forceful and decisive”, or its someone else’s fault (CIA, FBI, Congress, the Lord).
I thought the sign at the President’s door said..“The buck stops here”?
In reference to the “tired refrain” comment about WMDs. Maybe someone should note how the “bad intelligence” that didn’t inform us of impending attacks on 9/11 was derived from the same apparatus that provided intel for the war. Maybe someone should note that it is unlikely that the U.S. will ever get nominally “bad” intelligence again. Perhaps when the U.S. invades Iran (likely with Cub Scouts and pea-shooters—that’s all we got left) those who deign to question the efficacy of such actions will be branded “crypto-terrorists” and be maligned for bringing up that old tired refrain of needing some kind of justification for invading. But, like most institutions, the administration will just generate their own justifications for doing whatever it wants. All criticism will be washed away when the president waves an American flag at a NASCAR event. The nation cheers! Freedom is on the march!
What you forget is that the entire war was based on LIES designed to wage an illegal and immoral war against a sovereign nation that happened to have oil. Duh! Let’s not forget the denizens of the LIARS’ DEN who gave us this fiasco…..
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/the_liars__den.html
It is unbelievable to think that the Iraqis are “better off” with Saddam gone. We have totally collapsed their infrastructure, killed their people indiscriminately and unemployed a third of the population!
And this, without even getting at their oil, which, of course, was the real reason we went in there with Halliburton slavering behind the ill-equiped US troops.
I have never seen so much damage done by so few in such a short time. Now, if the North Koreans get frisky, what are we to do? What about China, Iran? Pres. Bush has stuck America’s fist into the tar baby of Iraq.
What I’d like to know is: Where has all the money gone which has been poured into overcoming Iraq? A nation which couldn’t even put an airplne in the sky to defend itself.
Western “liberals” are not silenced on the question of Iraq being better off without Saddam Hussein. It is clear as a bell they were better off WITH him. He was going nowhere. The sanctions took care of that.
Don’t get me started.
It is true that no one misses Saddam Hussain, but we have caused more damage and killed more people in a couple of years than Saddam did during his entire dictatorship. Just because they don’t report how many Iraqis we have killed, doesn’t make them any less dead. And what of all the children we’ve maimed and starved to death? All the children who have died of dysentery from lack of safe water? We didn’t have to destroy the whole country just to catch Saddam (when we should have been after Osama Bin Laden, anyway… remember him?). We used cluster bombs filled with depleted uranium in the most populated city in the country… the radiation from which will be causing an epidemic of cancers down the road, not only to the populace, but to our own troops deployed there as well. Tens of thousands of innocents have been killed. It didn’t have to be this way.
WMD’s weren’t the only thing we “knew” about, goodQ. We also “knew” Saddam was harboring and aiding Al Quaeda operatives, and that there was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11. This turned out to be dead wrong. In fact, Bush’s overthrow of Saddam likely makes Bin Laden smile.
We also “knew” Saddam was training future terrorists, and that overthrowing him would end this threat. However, the CIA has recently concluded Iraq is NOW a training ground for international terrorists. Meaning, our invasion has made Iraq and the rest of the world less safe from terrorists.
And Barbara Boxer’s statement at Rice’s confirmation contains convincing and clear evidence that the administration *was* either lying about WMDs (specifically, the use of nuclear tubes for making weapons-grade uranium) or lacking responsible leadership. Don’t know which is worse.
You’ll recall that Bush “sold” us the war based on these three reasons - Iraq/Al-Quaeda, WMD, war against terrorism. ALL of which turned out to be wrong. How could a well-intentioned person be so consistently mistaken? Do we want that person in charge? What if Clinton had made these mistakes? How would you feel then?
I thought so.
Rather than overgeneralize the outcomes of all this with easy terms like “better off” or “worse off”, which are a bit misleading and glibly try to predict an uncertain future, it would be more appropriate to look at what we DO know: 1) Saddam and his forces are out of power, 2) the recent elections marginalized his formerly powerful minority constituency (in large part because Sunni clerics advised an election boycott), 3) Iraq’s infrastructure and economic base have been wrecked, 4) conventional and makeshift weapons are in enormous supply throughout the country, 5) occupation forces haven’t been able to preserve law and order since the start of the invasion, 6) insurgents continue to operate virtually unimpeded, 7) the formerly suppressed Kurds and Shias are in the midst of forming a government although they have broadly different priorities, 8) there is intense disagreement across the country regarding the appropriate connections between religion and government, 9) there is increasing disaffection among coalition-country nationals for their troops’ presence in Iraq, and 10) Iraqi authorities and military are completely unable to take over at present. This is no exhaustive list, other “known” factors further complicate the picture. I’m no fan of this war, I really think the resources would have been better used in Afghanistan. It’s entirely too soon to know whether the Iraqis will be generally “better off” in a year, or ten years, too soon for anything but an ill-founded prediction or, worse, a blithe statement of assurance coming out of some sense of “loyalty” to Bush or the troops. I certainly think Americans should not let Bush off the hook, as far as holding him to a strict standard of what “success” means. After all, he initiated this war, even if (granting him the most generous interpretation of events) all he had to go on was intel he thought was valid. The one who initiates a war bears responsibility for the great bulk of its outcomes, credit for what may in time improve and blame for the harm that results in the short and long terms. That’s been the rule of history for much longer than the Bush administration will ever exist, longer than most countries in the world have existed. He (and the country that elected him) shouldn’t get any special breaks as far as accountability.
I don’t think it’s any great secret that George Bush is a liar and that politics is dirty and politicians are often dishonest. Although it amazes me that those who talk about George Bush’s religiosity always come around to the absurd conclusion that Bush is a true believer. I’m not saying Zizec has done that. (I don’t know what Zizec says about that.) I’m only making observations.
You’d have to extract Bush’s brain for him to not know that mass murder, and big time lying that leads to mass murder, gets you in God’s bad book. However stupid Bush is, he knows that a real God would have nothing to do with him. Bush is not a Christian, in fact. And he knows he’s not a Christian. That, of course, doesn’t stop him, and others like him, from claiming to be a Christian. Even Jesus pointed out that many would claim to be Christian who are not.
But this is Bush’s (noisy) world. He’s not alone. Bush might be singled out by an establishment Left that wants to crown it’s own national savior (who is not much different than the current one), but for a fact Bush was elected twice. Also, So
many who voted for Kerry were still voting for Bush, as Nader rightly pointed out. Bush is a man, not an idea or a collection of ideas. And any man or woman can be selected to champion the ideas that Bush embraces.
The worst states and the despots who run them still rely on the legitimacy afforded to them by the people.
People (a lot of them) are willing to stick with the clownish Bush (and other contenders for the presidential crown who come from Bush’s Darwinian, capitalist camp) because they understand him. They speak the same language. They come from the same god and religion. They come from Satan, aka Gog and their religion is democracy, which means humankind’s rule over humankind, without God’s involvement in it, from which we get capitalism, a demonic system of things if ever there was one. Yes, People also believe (and have been helped to believe) that man is God. This confusion of beliefs is easy in a democracy in which man makes the rules and can break them. It’s also easy when the true God allows people to believe as they wish. In order to allow people to believe what they wish, you must to a great extent allow people to behave as they wish, unfortunately. Then judgment can be carried out.
Once it’s clear, irrefutably, that democracy is a mistake, then democracy will never again have any way of returning from it’s adverse judgment. The trick is to not disappear with it.
People believe in (actively and conveniently only, rather than actively ‘and’ passively, or ‘fully’) capitalism. They believe fiercely and Bush, who will protect and respect their religion, if he does anything, makes believers proud.
People value moral support as much as anything. When they’ve chosen, freely or under compulsion (it makes no difference), a certain course that they feel is wrong, then unless they find the humility to admit that they are wrong, a rare ability evidently, they will rationalize their error and justify their course and they will do so more easily when they have the moral support of similar thinking folks.
Are Liberals the solution? Or are they true believers and part of the problem? And can this be honestly discussed?
Arby, your ideas intrigue me.
I also think Bush’s rhetoric, like that of so many aspirants to power, becomes more hollow with every reference to righteousness and holiness. It’s frankly disgusting. All that blood, so much deception…
But I have to question, for all democracy’s possible perversions, what alternative? If people can’t choose the way they want to live, how to spend their hard-earned dollars, where to apply their efforts and imagination so as to feed their loved ones and have a life worth living, how else can these things be decided? I would agree wholeheartedly that an economic or personal choice based on a desire to elevate oneself and one’s neighbors is a better choice, certainly better than the delusions that drive the ruthless world. But if it’s not a freely made choice, in pursuit of one’s own happiness, doesn’t that imply compulsion from another? Isn’t it just an expectation of pervasive obedience, as the alternative to a democratic model?
If it were only a matter of following scripture, well, honestly the historical record is not good. So many attackers against learning, all those blood-drenched tyrants, so many hoarders and wasters, refusing to invest in the welfare of the people whose work sustains them. How many claim the Bible or God as inspiration, as their sponsor no less. How are we to know which of you Christians to emulate? Especially when there are so many who (may falsely) claim affiliation with Jesus but who bully and connive, trying to seize the law and work unethical advantages, who try to force us into conformity or at least into marginalized and unhappy obscurity. Some of whom have proved they will attack us, if we don’t obey. They actually think they can set a plan for our lives better than we can do ourselves? Where does that hubris come from?
You shouldn’t see anti-Christian or anti-worship in these words. They aren’t there. It’s a aincere question: if the Lord isn’t here to actually offer direction to the human race (not just attempts to apply biblical verses to modern problems), aren’t we on our own to decide? Us, to decide? It’s not smearing Jesus to see that our daily decisions and plans for the future are in our own hands, is it?
And regarding capitalism, people need incentives to work, and that means profit. A generous and well-heeled society means that wealth has to be created; it’s easy to forget how squalorous past times were. People need to be able to figure out how to live their lives, perhaps with guidance from morally advanced teachers, but essentially as free agents who live among other free agents, who live among people who are their neighbors.
If democratic processes are unrighteous, if we must always take another’s lead, whose? We’ll be stuck with a minister’s interpretation of the Gospels and a ruler’s authority. In combination, they’ve been malignant so many times before.
Perhaps prayer, for those who think there’s Someone listening, is enough. Prayer asking for divine influence to make the right choices and do the right things in life, yes? The Real God knows the sincerity or bogusness of any such request, don’t you agree? And would take the opportunity, if asked, to inspire toward righteousness as the supplicant had requested?
With that providence, you could still negotiate a labor contract, he could still compete in an election, she could still own stock, I could still advocate marriage rights for gays…
But until Jesus actually does incarnate and rule, there’s daily life, there’s work, the law, decisions about who to trade with, what to teach your kids, who to obey and who to never obey. Unless we can do those from the basis of free choice, and that implies democracy (inshallah in its more enlightened forms), then unconditional obedience, to someone, will be the standard. We’ll just be subject to the agendas, values, and whims of the powerful and influential. We have enough of that now.
Kuya, your post with the ten points was very good, opinionated, certainly, but rational and very much more light than heat. This type of post which is critical, but not rabidly anti Bush (I mean the Bush is Hitler stuff) is getting rarer and rarer. It was a good read. Thanks
“We have enough of that now.” Indeed. It’s called democracy.
It’s fair to say that you don’t know enough of my views for me to think that you’ve been terribly critical of them. Which isn’t to say that what I did post was unintelligible.
I don’t believe in democracy, and nothing that has come from man’s rule over man inspires me to think that this is the way. I think that folks who think that they, collectively, are God, represents the greatest hubris. (See Luke 14:7-11 and 22:14-27 to get an idea what Jesus’s thoughts on hubris are. There are many, many instances in the Christian Bible where humility is taught.)
Good people can be antichristian, my friend. Things are a little more complex than what Hollywood, and those who have not studied the subject, would have you think. The Bible even speaks of a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous, whereas there are those who, when they die, die completely, body and soul. (Incidentally, As a former Jehovah’s Witness, I’m not supposed to believe in an insubstantial soul that survives the death of a human being. However, I do. But I also believe in death, which, unless you’re cursed, is simply a special, dreamless, perfectly peaceful deep sleep from which you are awakened at the appropriate time, by God’s power, via resurrection.)
If you ‘know’ that you fight against God, and willingly do so, say for what you believe is survival here and now, then you are cursed/damned. That doesn’t mean that you go to hell. There is no hell in the Christian Bible. It means that when you die physically in this hell we call our world, that’s it. You die completely, body and soul. Pharaoh, of the time of the Hebrews’ escape from Egypt, was imperfect and no doubt limited in his knowledge of Jehovah. It didn’t matter. You needn’t be fully informed and perfect in order to cross that line. Pharaoh crossed the line, like George Bush today.
Take note: Once you cross that line, then God can foreknow all that you will do, without injustice. There’s nothing left to lose in such an individual’s case. Whereas, God does not foreknow all that individuals who have not crossed that line will do, for that would make him responsible for great sins which they may choose to commit. God uses selective foreknowledge, which I don’t think you’ll find any experts on.
In the short term (again, Jehovah’s Witnesses would never be heard, at the doorstep anyway, saying stuff like this), I think we need a new socialism, namely one that’s bottom up, along the lines of what Karl Polyani envisioned when he wrote the seminal THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION, which looks at the rise of modern day capitalism. (I’ve got the book, but I find it ponderous. I’ve only tried to read it. I actually read another book which it inspired, namely ALL YOU CAN EAT, by a Canadian author, Linda McQuaig, for which reason I can talk a little about Polanyi’s ideas.) Unlike Stalinism, The new socialism would have as it’s central tenet, not centralization (which is practiced eagerly by capitalists today), but freedom.
In the long term, humankind will get theocracy. That’s simply reality. But we won’t, in my view, get the kind of oppression that comes from the democratic hierarchy of the present system of things. We will get theocratic hierarchy, which will present us with all but complete freedom for how we manage ourselves on earth. There are ‘no’ theocracies on earth right now. Theocracies that spring from godless men are simply more democracies, the religiosity they exhibit notwithstanding.
Knowing that this destructive, antigod, inhuman, anti-environment democratic system will soon be destroyed, along with inequality, old age, sickness and death is a great incentive to me to not blow it by selling my soul in the meantime.
“And a certain ruler questioned him, saying: “Good teacher, By doing what shall I inherit everlasting life?” Jesus said to him… When he heard this, he became deeply grieved, for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him and said: “How difficult a thing it will be for those having money to make their way into the kingdom of God!... Those who heard this said “Who can possibly be saved?” He said “The things impossible with men are possible with God.” -Luke 18:18-30
Later…
Gracias Clark. No doubt, I’m nothing if not opinionated. Can’t say I haven’t gotten pretty intense at points, depending on the issue I’m commenting on, but in general I try to stick to rational discourse. Not always easy, sometimes feels nearly impossible to stay calm. I’ve got this attachment to the belief that we can approach something of a higher truth if we hash out all the various ideas and try to learn from each other. Especially if we can get a halfway clear take on how those ideas play out in action, in the real world. Challenging…
And Arby, gracias also for your response. Not to suggest I know the breadth of your thoughts, but your disaffection with democracy, based on its poor record in use, sort of parallels my similar feeling about faith as the driver of social and political efforts. Hope for the Resurrection seems to me to so often encourage an unhooking of oneself from concrete outcomes, a denial of effects that stem from observable causes, a dependence upon Guidance that is said to be clear but that sure does lead in different directions. A soup-kitchen volunteer says she received divine inspiration, and so does a head of state who starts a dubiously justified war… Can I say for sure that the Spirit really isn’t whispering into George Bush’s ear? I can’t, but as his efforts show fruit I’m confirmed in my belief; I heartily doubt it. But I can also see how you might show up democracy as a collection of unkept promises, which can easily mislead people into overlooking the uncompassionate results of majority rule based on self-satisfaction as the driving force.
But I still prefer the basically skeptical approach to truth that characterize science and democratic discourse; I still think it’s best to demystify all sources of authority, even authority that says it’s based on the Bible. I want the attitudes of fact-checking and rational evaluation to spread, and I realize these aren’t compatible with the values of presumed loyalty or faith. I think influential people, and even more so those who have real power, are best responded to from a critical perspective (not an assaultive, gratuitously damning one, I mean one that tries to sincerely see the good and bad outcomes of those leaders’ work). That means I don’t want to rely on a priori truths as a starting point, I don’t want to start the reasoning process by saying “The Bible is the Word of God”. I guess because that approach has let me down as a way of revealing truth in the real world; as you perhaps feel let down by the promises of democracy.
Sorry to be so blabby, may peace be upon you, shine on. Later…
If we are all honest with ourselves, we would concur that the only reason Bush wanted over in Iraq was to have a strong footing in that part of the world, proven by the two massive military bases he is paying all that money to Haliburton to build. The second reason is to get the oil out for his buddings in the patroleum and insurance businesses. I understand a lot of our troops have been killed because they are protecting the roads that these empty tanker trucks are using to steal Iraqs oil. The Iraqi’s are mad as hell about that. Bush’s administration is the worst I’ve seen as far as being not concerned about middle class Americans who pay the biggest share of taxes to support this lousey government we have at the moment.
Bush is toast. And I don’t mind saying so.
I don’t want anyone to simply accept what I say because I say it. (There’s two ways to teach. You can be authoritarian and tell people that “This is how it is because I say so. Period.” Or you can be authoritative - not in the “I am special” sense - and tell people that “This is how it is and I’ll try to explain to you why I think so. Let’s dialog.” I believe in the latter approach.) My brand of Christianity, for what it’s worth, includes all of the Bible’s guidance, including the guidance inherent in the statement that “faith without works is dead.” That doesn’t mean that democracy is approved by God, however.
Just because I don’t believe in democracy, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think we are meant to manage ourselves. As Paul, who once persecuted Christians before becoming one himself, said about loafers: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” He certainly wasn’t advocating torture, the way some modern day US government officials do, but he did make a point that most reasonable folks would agree with. So if you’re looking for a way to dislike my message there, then I’m sorry to disappoint you.
As well, My religion makes no allowance for mumbo jumbo or spiritism (See Deuteronomy chapter 18). My religion is rational. Paul also counselled good people to offer themselves in sacred service to God “with your power of reason,” and to be “transformed by making your mind over, that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:1,2) In other words, If you’re persuaded by reason that God’s will is ‘not’ good, He himself won’t punish you for it. Which isn’t to say that we don’t reap what we sow. There is still cause and effect. If you put your hand into the fire expecting good things to happen, then you will be disappointed.
And in all matters, including politics which I’m very interested in (in my own way), I believe in skepticism. I recall two well known writers whose writings encourage us to question everything, and I have taken the lesson they impart to heart. Linda McQuaig and Noam Chomsky both tell us to question everything. Chomsky particularly dislikes those who get caught up in hero worship. He dislikes the way that followers of his work tend to idolize him. I already believe that idolatry, of any kind, is wrong. I certainly don’t agree with humans worshipping humans. And after the failure of Chomsky and others on the Left to get behind Raplh Nader in the last election, I have no trouble eschewing hero worship of progressives who I’ve learned from and admired greatly. I’ve learned a great deal from Chomsky and other writers on the Left, but none of them are perfect. What’s more. They are all democrats and that is a big boo boo, certainly from a Christian standpoint.
“This is what Jehovah has said: “Cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in earthling man and actually makes flesh his arm, and whose heart turns away from Jehovah himself.” -Jeremiah 17:5
This may interest you Pat.
5 trillion dollars (approximately $500 billion of which is American) sit in offshore tax havens, protected by George W. Bush, while ‘leaders’ whine that they can’t afford social spending! There is so much theft by those with talent it’s unbelievable. Here in Canada, Corporate Canada owes billions in deferred taxes, most of which will never be paid. Meanwhile, Little people have to pay all their taxes. Americans especially, but Canadians too, might be interested in a website I discovered a few years back. Check out www.howdarethey.org. The following paragraph is an excerpt from their archives section, which you get to after clicking on ‘learn more’.
“In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the President and congressional leaders quickly agreed on the outlines of a $50-75 billion, one-year economic stimulus plan to help those most hurt by the disaster and the economic downturn. But after an onslaught of corporate lobbying, that bipartisan agreement is in shambles. On a close party-line vote, the House passed a $212 billion tax-cut bill stuffed with tax breaks for profitable corporate campaign contributors, including repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax and huge increases in tax write-offs for “depreciation.” Senate Republicans endorsed a similar measure, as has President Bush, resulting in gridlock. Meanwhile, special interests continue to plead for even more tax breaks, from reinstating the three-martini lunch by making business meals 100 percent tax-deductible to granting special treatment for theme parks. Right now, profitable corporations adept at using tax shelters to whittle their tax bills down to little or nothing are required to pay alternative minimum tax. It’s a way of making sure they contribute their air share. But not only does the “economic stimulus” bill passed by the House repeal this tax, it actually issues refunds for corporations on the alternative tax they’ve paid all the way back to 1986. Just 16 profitable companies, which include household names such as ChevronTexaco, General Electric, IBM and General Motors, would receive $7.4 billion in immediate tax rebates under the House-passed bill. These same companies are the source of nearly $46 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1991, two-thirds of that to the GOP, including half a million dollars for President George Bush’s campaign.”
It burns me the way the capitalists create this gigantic deficit - via unemployment, via tax cuts to the rich, via a failure to collect taxes from corporations in various ways and via basing the economy on militarization - and then tell those who had no say in it’s creation, namely us little folks, to fix the problem. Got that? We need to lower our expectations of what our elected governments can do for us because we’ve got deficits - that capitalists and their partners in politics create. To hear them tell it, They don’t want deficits. In fact, They do. It keeps us down and distracted.
Do you subscribe to this organization Arby? The small amount I read astonished me.
Didn’t I just direct you to it? I don’t have to join it in some formal fashion in order to subscribe to it’s general thrust. There’s many sites and organizations that I direct folks to, whose ideas, more or less, I think are important, but which I haven’t formally joined. If you’re thinking of donations, While I’d like to donate, often, to organizations I think are doing important work, unfortunately I don’t have a spare dime. (One that I would like to donate to immediately, and may, is International Socialist Review. It’s a great mag. Lots of bang for the buck, and they’ve recently asked for donations, which I’m sure all mags do from time to time. There are other informative mags out there, for sure. But these days I can’t afford to buy all my favorite mags, and, as well, too many of my ‘fav’ mags have been - very hypocritically - promoting Kerry, and by extension, the sickness of capitalism and militarism and American wars of conquest.)
I’m not sure why you asked your question, but I hope you find www.howdarethey.org useful.
Cheers.
When will it stop? The worthless talk about Bush’s mistakes. He’s not making mistakes. He’s feeding us stalking horses and spending his evenings laughing laughing his sorry ass off. Even the burning faggot in the white house is not an issue. More laughter. When will it start? The demonic destruction of our democratic republic by the originators of the PNAC is the story. The judges, the patriot-police, the Halliburton enrichment project. $400 billion and counting and we haven’t even started on Iran. We’ll go in there to find the Shah, or someone that looks like him. We know what those bastards are doing - nuclear power plant my ass that’s a nuclear weapons factory. Bush’s immediate goal is to eliminate all remnants of Roosevelt’s New Deal and the last dog standing is Social Security. His second term goal is to bankrupt what the Republicans call “big government” and place the burden of debt upon the working bourgisie. The murder and mayhem will continue—soon to visit our own shores via our own government. We have taken giant steps backward to the year 1000 CE. These people are raving psychopaths, trained by the Barbara Bush’s of America to not concern their “beautiful minds” with unimportant body counts. After all, what other purpose might the poor serve?
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.”
GO
Mr. Gerald Osborne,
I’m very proud of you for speaking out and telling the conservatives just what you think. Bush and his cohorts are out to ruin this country. They raped the voting polls and now they are raping Iraq of their oil and next he wants to eliminate all the safe guards we have worked so hard to win, like clean air, clean water. He also wants to let lumber companies destroy our Redwoods which we have fought to keep their filthy hands off of. We have some beautiful country in the west and he wants to allow strip mining there. He is posion to our use to be Great America. The only way to get rid of him is by impeachment or assination, which I doubt either will happen
I am trying really hard to understand what you mean when you refer to “democracy” but I find it hard. USA boasts about being a democracy but nobody consults the plain citizens about important matters, such as whether they want to send their children to kill or be killed, to interfere in other countries’ affairs or how to spend the money collected from tax-payers. The man in charge and his team just do it and all the Congress, with its costly structure somehow manage to say yes to the Emperor’s desires. Is that democracy? They call themselves Christians, freedom lovers, men of God but they don’t hesitate at the time of lying, of using the name of God in vain or giving orders to kill innocent people in His name. I must have missed something because seen from the outside it all looks pretty hypocritical and most of the people play the same game repeating their slogans about doing all that to help the Irak people gain freedom, while nobody questions the starvation of children, the destruction of cities, the right a nation has to decide which is the right system for others. I have heard for years that a great part of the world is dangerous because they might have weapons of mass destruction but they never question their own accumulation of weapons or military power. As far as I know the only country who has used atomic bombs against others has been precisely the USA. Their stock of WMD doesn’t make me feel any safer because one group has them because the mere fact of manufacturing and keeping them puts me and the human race in danger of extinction. Each American citizen seems to feel they have a right to impose on others their views and that is no less dangerous than what Saddam or any other tyrant might have had in mind. Your bullets are lethal too, you know and we should all start thinking like human beings belonging to a species which is in the process of destroying our planet.
I think and have thought all along Bush should hae been indighted, because he lied to the American people about the threat to the US from Iraq and Saddam Hussian, This was a complete fabrication. He lied to congress and took the US to war on false pretenses and is responssible for the death and mulitation of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis AND a very large number of our own troops and civilians. He has made the world ten times more dangerous as he bleats about his discussions with God and his divine mission and calling. Bush is a very dangerous man, because he is so vain, self important and a coward!!!!!!!!!!! I had a friend who use to people like Bush are so stupid they don’t knnow they are stupid. I fault the congress and the Democrats in particular, they have been spineless and cowardly. I fear that with Bush telling the world that what Bush says is the only way, he may suceed in distroying our wonderful US. The world, actually has a great more brain matter than poor Bush and it will only take China or Japan to say thanks but no thanks we don’t want any more of your worthless bonds, for the Dollar to colapse completely. We have a worthless SEC of the Treasury who is a yes man. Bush could not find a replacement for his job so Snow was reappointed. The really sad part is the avarage US citizen is not paying attention,as long as they have their cars and their munchies they they see no further need to bestir themselves.
I am truely thoroughly depressed and really do not see any thoughtful person in congress making a difference.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/
10만명의 회원들이 서로 가진 자료들을 공유하고있습니다
영화는 물론 토익 애니매이션 만화 성인물 등등..
서로가 가진 자료들을 공유해보세요.. 이것이 p2p의 장점입니다
한번 방문해보시면 절대 후회없는 p2p세계로 오실수있습니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
http://yahanp2p.ub.to/ ◀이 주소로 가시면됩니다.
게시판 운영자님께 광고성글을 남겨 대단히 죄송합니다.
삭제 비번은 5012 입니다. 다시는 글남기지 않겠습니다.
즐거운하루되세요,.
register a new account »Posting Security