Quietly, the war on terror, in which everything is permitted, has laid the ground work for the Bush administration to intrude into the political life of citizens. Over the last several months, it has been revealed that the FBI, the Pentagon and the National Security Agency have each set up apparently independent covert operations to monitor the constitutionally protected political activities… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (176)Congress most likely will rubber stamp Bush’s eavesdropping program, so what can we, just average citizens, do? I suggest that all of us include - in every message we send - words that might cause these “wiretappers” to begin looking at our e-mail . Words such as: Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas. If enough people do this the lines of CIA, FBI, DOD and NSA will be overwhelmed. Maybe we could exchange Mom’s apple pie recipe followed by the words Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas at the very end.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 26, 2006 at 2:46 PM It may be wasted effort but here’s a suggestion.
As the debate rages here on these threads and elsewhere, one thing that has been overlooked is where the Grand Presedencia has been claiming his authority. Whether it’s for eavesdropping, utilizing his back door draft, and other “war powers” authority, it all has by claimed to originate by the emergency powers granted the him by Congress after 9/11. Our efforts as citizens that are concerned about the “imperialist” authority of this president, need to start sending Congress daily messages that if they oppose these acts as they claim, they need to draft new policy rescinding the emergency powers they granted him. Enough’s enough with this bulls*#t in my mind, Congress needs to step up to the plate and quit talking the talk here (i.e. Democrats).
Posted by csmelnix on Jan 26, 2006 at 2:57 PM Congress won’t do it. Another investigation, a lot of meaningless posturing, a cowardly umpteen page report and then on to the only thing that matters to every member of Congress - the coming campaign for re-election. If anything is to be done, we have to do it. My suggestion is one simple thing that we can do - easily and with greater effect than we might think. If, that is, all of us have the courage to do it. I have friends (and I thought them solidly anti-Bush) who are terrified that they might be hauled into Bush’s star chamber simply because they sent an e-mail criticizing Bush’s policies. We are a nation of (cowardly) sheep.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 26, 2006 at 3:16 PM More Americans favor impeaching Bush, poll says
Today’s topic: Domestic spying
By Jim Puzzanghera
KNIGHT RIDDER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - The word “impeachment” is popping up increasingly these days and not just off the lips of liberal activists spouting predictable bumper-sticker slogans.
After the unfounded claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and recent news of domestic spying without warrants, mainstream politicians and ordinary voters are talking openly about the possibility that President Bush could be impeached. So is at least one powerful senator, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
So far, it’s just talk. With Republicans controlling Congress, and memories still fresh of the bitter fight and national distraction inflamed by former President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment, even the launching of an official inquiry is a very long shot.
But a poll released last week by Zogby International showed 52 percent of American adults thought Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped U.S. citizens without court approval, including 59 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. (The survey had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.)
Given those numbers, impeachment could become an issue in this fall’s congressional elections, and dramatically raise the stakes. If Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, a leading proponent of starting an official impeachment inquiry, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., would become chairman of the House committee that could pursue it.
It is encouraging to see this in the mainstream. All hope is not lost. As Joe Hill said, “Don’t grieve, organize.” And FDR, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 26, 2006 at 3:54 PM Congresss will certainly act if re-election is all they care about and there’s enough movement amongst the voters to have this granted power rescinded. Frankly, that’ll work a hell of a lot faster than random people sending random emails with a couple of terrorist related phrases in it.
Posted by csmelnix on Jan 26, 2006 at 4:25 PM Well, I’m not pinning my hope on a public opinion poll of the fickle American electorate. The poll that matters is that conducted on election day - and the American public elected Bush, DeLay, Cunningham, Istook, Frist, Ney, etc.
And that same public has roundly rejected term limits for Congress and continues to oppose the draft.
It’s the system that’s broke. Even McCain had the courage to publicly say this. But what’s needed is less saying and more doing - on the part of all of us. If we just sit back wringing our hands and wailing while hoping that someone will come along and bail us out, we’re done.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 26, 2006 at 4:50 PM ...and there’s enough movement amongst the voters to have this granted power rescinded.
Dream on. What really moves the voters? Their pocket books? Fear? Carl knows.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 26, 2006 at 5:00 PM Behind the scenes , the noose is being drawn a little tighter, day by day. I believe the system is not dead only badly wounded, but it will take grassroots pressure to hold the bastards accountable. It seems the only out for the Administration may be the declaration of Martial Law. Will they create a new terrorist crisis to justify it? Stay tuned.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 26, 2006 at 5:03 PM That same public also elected Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Boxer, Reid, Bird, Rockafeller, etc… Luminous is on to it… more and more the citizens are getting fed up; there will come a breaking point. By the way, your asking the public to write all these emails to get the super secret orgs to look at everybody yet you don’t believe the people are empowered enough to speak up to their reps….sounds like a similiar means to a different end.
Posted by csmelnix on Jan 26, 2006 at 5:13 PM mirmir,
What I find significant about the Knight-Ridder story isn’t the poll, so much as the “I” word getting used in the mainstream press. The sheep need something for their little minds to grasp in order to come to grips with the real lupine threat, rather than the fairy tales with which they have been lulled into drowsiness.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 26, 2006 at 5:18 PM “...yet you don’t believe the people are empowered enough to speak up to their reps…”
I didn’t say that.
Why is it that almost without exception these public forums turn into acrimonious trashing of any contrary idea that another might have? Look, I’m for anything that will work. If writing Congressmen will work, fine. I hope it does. Get on with it.
The system is broke, and eavesdropping by Bush, even the invasion and occupation of Iraq, may not be the most serious threats the nation faces. Little by little, sometimes imperceptibly, we have allowed this nation to become one of the world’s most despised. We have no moral advantage over any nation that I can think of. Habeas Corpus? Forget it. Torture? You bet. Outsource it. Bomb and kill as many kids, women and old folks as you want so long as there’s a possibility that a terrorist might be hiding in a nearby ditch? Sure thing. Piece of cake. Slam dunk.
Maybe some of you students of history will remember accounts of brutal crusader actions of 1209:
“According to Caesar of Heisterbach the papal representative, Abbot Arnaud-Amaury, declared “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” — Latin for “Slay them all! God will know his own.” Béziers is believed to have held no more than 500 Cathars, but over 10,000 citizens were killed. The news of the horror at Béziers quickly spread and many settlements were cowed.”
It seems that Bush has adopted this cruel, callous policy. But I suggest that after Bush there will be yet another like him (or worse) if we don’t, right now, begin to make the broad and sweeping changes to the system that might prevent it.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 26, 2006 at 6:11 PM “Will they create a new terrorist crisis to justify it?”
You know this administration pretty well. And if that doesn’t work, how about a holy war against Iran, Pakistan…the Saudi’s, Chavez???
Posted by mirmir on Jan 26, 2006 at 6:20 PM Mirmir,
I apologize I didn’t mean to start a trash and bash deal; I just meant to say the ends are the same just a different means to get there.
Your 2nd to last post - I like the comments, unfortunately I agree with those comments.
Posted by csmelnix on Jan 26, 2006 at 7:15 PM csmelnix…
Thanks, your apology appreciated and certainly accepted. We’re on the same side, allied against a common enemy.
If you, or anyone, should be interested in more of my comments see my last four posts on “Cult of Character.” I would be very happy to have more people read them.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 26, 2006 at 7:37 PM These encroachments on fundamental, Constitutionally protected freedoms by the Bush administration only embolden me to continue to protest and become a thorn in the side of autocracy. I am not fearful of government intimidation, I wear it as a badge of honor that I am so alarming to the powers-that-be that they feel the need to monitor my behavior. Nothing great was ever accomplished without resistance by those fearful of change and in entrenched power positions. This fight will be the test of our generation-can we keep the freedoms that our forefathers fought so hard to provide? I will do my part…will you?
Posted by Liberal on Jan 26, 2006 at 11:26 PM Luminous beauty is likely foretelling the future acurately. Put nothing past this administration. They manufactured one disaster, they will do it again. And with an entirely complicit media there are now no checks and balances and no one credible (or at least with high visibility) left to expose them. They know this.
Glad I live on an unimportant island 3500 miles offshore.
Posted by opeluboy on Jan 27, 2006 at 2:31 AM Yo Lumpy,
You may want to look at this poll that was taken two weeks after the “biased” poll that you mentioned.But I say go ahead ... you liberals keep talking “impeachment” and keeping talking about “spying”. We will crush you on those debates. If the Dems plan on running their campains on that ... then they are in trouble.
.... that’s is too funny lol .... lmao ...
But you never know ... maybe that “PRO-TERRORIST ... ANTI-MILITARY, PRO-MUSLIM ... ANTI-CHRISTIAN, I LOVE FRANCE ... HATE AMERICA AND IT’S ALWAYS OUR FAULT” platform might be a winner for the Dimwhits.
And just think, if you dimwhits ran on that platform, you would be telling the truth. lol ....
———————————& ——————————
Poll: NSA Leakers are ‘Traitors’Thursday, Jan. 19, 2006
Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush’s decision to wiretap suspected terrorists operating inside the U.S. without first obtaining a court order - and a solid plurality believe those who leaked news of the secret operation are “traitors,” a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found.
Asked whether the president “should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?” - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes. Just 36 percent disagreed.
According to Dick Morris, who reveals the poll’s stunning results in today’s New York Post - even 42 percent of Democrats back the Bush surveillance program.
The results flatly contradict a widely reported Associated Press poll two weeks ago, which sampled a dispropotionate percentage of Democrats and concluded that the public objected to the Bush surveillance program.
In another stunning finding, the Fox poll found by that a margin of nearly 2 to 1, the American public believes that those responsible for exposing the super secret surveillance program have betrayed the country.
Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for blowing the NSA’s cover “traitors,” while just 27 percent agreed with media claims that the leakers were “whistleblowers.”
Americans also strongly support renewing the Patriot Act by a nearly 2 to 1 margin [57 to 31 percent].
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/19/124752.shtml?s=ic
Posted by tina1 on Jan 27, 2006 at 8:03 AM tina1
These figures may very well accurately reflect public opinion. Opinion, though, isn’t what will matter in the end. We are, in theory at least, a nation of laws. At times the law and public opinion may be at odds. If the courts do their job Bush may be found in violation of both laws and Constitution. In that case Congress will be obliged, if a shred of honor remains there, to begin impeachment proceedings (as Arlen Specter pointed out in his interview with Stephanopolous) regardless of fickle public opinion.
I’m glad you weighed in, opposing views, too, are needed here.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 27, 2006 at 2:06 PM More on polls.
As I mentioned earlier, the only poll that really counts is the one on election day when voters state their opinions at the ballot box.
Public opinion polls aren’t very reliable, mostly because people tend to be uniformed, misinformed or both. They want good information but very often don’t get it. This Bush administration will probably be remembered as the most secretive in history. Unless you know what it’s up to, how can you hold a well-founded opinion? 75 per cent of the people want the administration to disclose its contacts with lobbyist Jack Abramoff - again according to a poll (ABC’s). Of course the administration has, up to now, refused. Below I list just a few polls that folks can check if they want. There are lots more floating around. Some of these may seem contradictory but that ought not to surprise us.
Jan. 27, 2006 — A clear majority of Americans now disapprove of President Bush’s handling of ethics in government, and three-quarters say the administration should disclose all contacts between White House officials and disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1547685ABC’s Polling Unit
Poll: Majority Disapproves of Bush on Ethics in Government
Poll: Broader Concern on Privacy Rights, But Terrorism Threat Still Trumps
Poll: Majorities See Widespread Corruption
Poll: Majority of Americans Want the Senate to Confirm Alito
Poll: Public Outlook for the Year Ahead
Poll: Majority Wants Alito on Supreme Court
Poll: Elbow Room No Problem in Heaven
Poll: Bush’s Approval Ratings Climb
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/
Posted by mirmir on Jan 27, 2006 at 2:58 PM Finally!
I’ve written letters for more than twenty years, emailed for fifteen and have only gotten the obvious form letter responses. (Several for the wrong topic.)
Now, is my chance to tell them what they should be doing.
P.S. Remember out there — Look at my library card history.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 27, 2006 at 3:28 PM whattheheck…
The positive side! Great, but if you want to increase the odds that they’ll be read, don’t forget to include this line in all your e-mails:
Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas, Jihad, YeHaw!
Posted by mirmir on Jan 27, 2006 at 4:02 PM Thanks, Mirmir — I keep it in mind.
Job losses, not a free market, bipartisan screwing of America, evaporating middle class — haven’t gotten any attention.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 27, 2006 at 5:22 PM mirmir posted this ....
“” I suggest that all of us include - in every message we send - words that might cause these “wiretappers” to begin looking at our e-mail . Words such as: Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Taliban, Hamas. If enough people do this the lines of CIA, FBI, DOD and NSA will be overwhelmed. “”
——————————— ;-
That’s great mirmir, lets make it even harder for law enforcement to catch criminals. Your no different than Jose Padilla or American-born Taliban soldier John Walker
Lindh. You should be locked up for life in a U.S. Federal Maximum Security Prison. And you cellmate should be a big black guy, like Tookie ... and you can “toss his salad every night”.Your a “punk” and a “traitor” ...
But, it’s because of people like you, Michael Moore, Hollywood and LIBERALS in general that guarantee the success of the GOP and ... why the Republicans will stay in the White House in 2008.
So, I really have to say “Thank You” .... even if you are a little punk.
lol ...
You should change your screen name “punk boy” or “cell block biatch”
Posted by tina1 on Jan 28, 2006 at 5:44 AM Yeah, mirmir,
Stop exercising your freedom. All it does is get the ‘true believer’s’ panties in a bunch. They hate our freedom.
tiny one,
Watch out or the boogie man is gonna getcha. Better check under the bed.
Concerning Your a “punk” and change your screen name
It’s ‘you’re’, a contraction of you are; not ‘your’, the possessive form of ‘you’. You’re welcome.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 28, 2006 at 3:28 PM Last week Peggy Noonan wrote a piece (Bush the Romantic) in the WSJ Online edition:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007869
I have been concerned for some time about the mixed messages concerning the War on Terror (the title is one of them) coming from the administration.
My reply to her article:
——————————— ;——————————-
Seeing the trees
Ms Noonan has hit upon what appears to be a primary Bush trait — he sees the forest so clearly, but slips past each tree.
He continues to ignore hoards of illegal immigrants crossing our border while pushing electronic surveillance.
In my neighborhood we have noticed it in his touting free enterprise and the benefits of low priced goods, and the bestowing of global freedoms — while millions of Americans have been losing jobs, benefits and their financial/economic freedoms.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 28, 2006 at 4:02 PM tiny one (thanks luminous)...
“...even harder for law enforcement to catch criminals.”
I always thought that the principal job of law enforcement was to apprehend suspects, and that suspects only became criminals after due process. Bush, though, apparently thinks that courts and jurors are dispensable. He merely points the finger and a suspect instantly becomes a criminal.
“...a big black guy, like Tookie…”
Tiny, what makes you think that I’m not a big black guy? I might be seven feet six of of pure ebony muscle. Look out, little bigot.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 28, 2006 at 5:06 PM I really don’t see what’s so difficult about accepting a dictatorship. Many people have done so during the history of civilization. But if Brutus is more your historical idol than Octavian, be my guest in fighting it. It might be fun.
Posted by rocco on Jan 28, 2006 at 8:00 PM Heads up.
Everyone should have a firewall on their computer. I do and have been backtracing the port scan atttempts lately. Yesterday I back traced an attempted port scan to the DoD Network Information Center. I have no idea what the Department of Defence is doing port scanning my computer but it got me interested and after a few searches I found that I am not alone.
I found forums full of people who have had the same experience. Opinions ranged from ‘hackers have hacked a DoD computer and are using it for hacker purposes’ to ‘nothing to worry about, if they were really spying on us they would not be doing it from their own IP’ and everything in between.
Hmm .. maybe they would do it from their own IP for intimidation purposes?
Just prior to the DoD port scan I was doing some (google) searches with the words france chirac nuclear response to research for a subsequent post here on ITT on another thread. Coincidence? Maybe.
What? Me worry? Not at all. Nothing to hide and nothing to fear. That’s how I feel ...
... and as Liberal said earlier :
“I am not fearful of government intimidation, I wear it as a badge of honor that I am so alarming to the powers-that-be that they feel the need to monitor my behavior.”
Indeed. Bring it?
Posted by David in Canada on Jan 28, 2006 at 9:43 PM I’ll trust that you—-David and you—-Liberal have nothing to hide; but that’s not the point. It may sound noble when you say you’re honored to be spyed on by the government, but I don’t think you’re thinking this through. In the U.S., our right to privacy doesn’t start and stop with whether or not we have anything to hide.
With all due respect, guys, I really wish you would not be so blaze about everyones’ right to privacy. Why in the world are you justifying illegal eavesdropping by the fact that you have “nothing to hide”? Who determines what should be hidden, anyway?
As far as I’m concerned, my grocery list is none of the government’s business, and if they are snooping around in my computer, then they are not doing the job they swore to do.
If the U.S. government is snooping in your computer, they should, ideally, have probable cause to do so—-which means that they should have some evidence to arouse their suspicion that you are a danger to the society that they are supposed to be protecting, which leads to—- secondly, the DOD exists for our defense.
How is rooting around in your computers making us safer?
And here’s a question guys—- is it o.k. for the government to torture you, since you have nothing to confess? There are some serious boundary issues here, and though I trust you are sincere and well meaning, you are certainly not doing anyone else any favors by claiming that it’s o.k. for the government to spy on people because you’ve got nothing to hide.
Btw, after they get past your firewall, you might want to consider the possibility that the government could leave something on your hardrive.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 29, 2006 at 4:52 AM Lying to “justify” war, smart bombs that hit only the intended target (never mind that the intended target may shelter women, children and old people), Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, torture, outsourcing, eavesdropping and now sequestration of Iraqi women whose husbands are suspected of being – what? – terrorists, insurgents, dissidents, anarchists?
And that democracy that Bush talks about for others while destroying it at home. Iran elected, presumably through democratic processes, a hard-line militant while the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas (by a considerable margin). But Bush won’t deal with them. They aren’t the “democratic” outcomes he wanted.
Rocco…
It isn’t whether or not it’s difficult to “accept” dictatorship, but whether or not, once it’s in place, it’s difficult to reject it.Tina1 had a point. This morning ABC noted that, according to their latest poll, 56 or 58 percent of the general public approved of Bush’s wiretapping. Wileywitch just posted a splendid response but apparently most people don’t agree – the majority seem to take the position held by David and Liberal – “I’ve got nothing to hide, bring it on.” And the only beef that Congress apparently has is that they didn’t have the opportunity to approve wiretapping before Bush put it in place. They’re miffed that they weren’t consulted.
Bush may very well bring it on, with the acquiescence of Congress and the general public. And anyone who thinks that this administration will stop at the Patriot Act and Wiretapping may be rudely awakened. We lose our liberties, one small step at a time. My friends, it isn’t just Bush that’s taking away our freedoms – it’s also our neighbors.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 29, 2006 at 4:52 PM “That same public also elected Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Boxer, Reid, Bird, Rockafeller (sic), etc…”
csmelnix on Jan 26csmelnix…
This old proverb still resonates (at least with me):
“One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel.”
Posted by mirmir on Jan 29, 2006 at 7:19 PM And here’s a question guys—- is it o.k. for the government to torture you, since you have nothing to confess? There are some serious boundary issues here, and though I trust you are sincere and well meaning, you are certainly not doing anyone else any favors by claiming that it’s o.k. for the government to spy on people because you’ve got nothing to hide.
Wiley,
No, torture is not o.k. whether I have something to confess or not.
I never claimed it was o.k. for the government to spy on people and invade their privacy without probable cause.
Posted by David in Canada on Jan 29, 2006 at 11:15 PM I know you didn’t David. Please don’t take my post personally, even though I named you in the post. Same to you Liberal I am an ass sometimes, though lately I’d say that I’m just too lazy to phrase things more carefully and to include all the actual qualifiers that are necessary to speaking my truth more precisely. That was an actual rhetorical question, not a sarcastic taunt.
At first, I took what you said at face value, and didn’t give it a lot of thought. Then, it chewed at the back of my head overnight, so that by the next day it was really bugging me.
I meant what I said, but not in a pointy-finger way, and I do hope that you both will consider being a bit more vocal in opposition to domestic spying in general. Your personal reaction to being personally spyed on is, of course, yours. But, you can see how your action might be construed as a tacit endorsement, yes?
Mirmir, pointed out something I’ve been trying to express for a while—-it isn’t just Bush that’s taking away our freedoms – it’s also our neighbors. I feel almost as silly about how easy that is to express as I felt when I discovered that the word or phrase I had been looking for for three years was “perhaps”.
OH WELL. Hug, David?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 29, 2006 at 11:35 PM Wiley,
I understand what you are saying, then and now.
Tacit endorsement? Hmm ... I thought it was tacit opposition. I will try to be less ambiguous.
Hug happily accepted and reciprocated.
Posted by David in Canada on Jan 30, 2006 at 12:36 AM Whatever kids,
Let’s just not allow the bastards to intimidate us into being tacitly tacit.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 30, 2006 at 1:21 AM luminous…
“Let’s just not allow the bastards to intimidate us into being tacitly tacit.”
Yes. Straight talk, determined action.
Another disturbing Bush “program.” DOD distributes propaganda disguised as news to Iraqi journalists on its payroll and also to compensated European journalists. That bogus DOD generated news may return to the U.S. and appear in our newspapers, on our radio or TV as actual news reports attributed to “a reliable source.”
Posted by mirmir on Jan 30, 2006 at 1:40 AM mirmir - I guess I get in trouble using ironic devices to make points on this site (see ‘Cronyism’ thread).
My point - in square terms - is that just as Rome moved from republic to dictatorship due to excess and growth, so do we follow in the same groove. I think it’s instinctual. It would be up to any wisdom gained through a study of history to prevent the repeat of Roman excess (credit to George Satayana).
For those who value democracy, it would be wise to give up all you have in defense of it. Otherwise, stop complaining and accept your eventual servitude.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 2:54 AM Tell us how to give up all we have in defense of democracy, rocco—-if you value democracy and are wise, that is.
If you don’t value democracy and/or are not wise, then tell us how accepting your eventual servitude is coming along? Keep us updated, o.k.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 4:27 AM wiley - My servitude is coming along splendidly. I am a respectable citizen these days, with a job, a condo, and a car. I only have to answer to my masters quarterly, which is a lucky position for a slave. I don’t have to engage in manual labor as I once did, nor do want for any basic needs. It is a comfortable prison, and far more desirable than the average wage slave, who make roughly $10 an hour.
I don’t recall ever contradicting my plan of action in these posts. But I’m the one telling you to accept dictatorship, remember? If you find my conclusions repellant, there’s a simple solution. Sacrifice your comfort in the face of totalitarianism. It takes a lot of nerve. I feel too old and battle-scarred to continue on my original path. Are you going to pick up the torch, or remain satisfied in criticizing my hypocrisy?
Wiley…irony! Irony! Embrace it before it’s far too late!
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 5:28 AM wiley - my solution is a sucker’s game…by that I suppose you mean that sacrifice is the way of the fool. Perhaps.
So you proscribe resting in comfort, while moderately trying to change minds in an insulated left-wing discussion group. Have you looked into the efficacy of this? It’s useful to remember the clock is ticking.
On the other hand, personal sacrifice in the name of social change has a rich history of precedent. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, the workers of Flint, Michigan in 1936, Cesar Chavez, and all the people whose support allowed those figureheads to gain international attention, sacrificed their own comfort in the name of a greater good.
Suckers.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 6:54 AM So now I propose “resting in comfort”. Find someone else’s words to play with for a while.
They did not sacrifice so that they could say that they sacrificed, and they spent a hell of a lot of time in the library before they struck out on a path.
There work is glorious, their deaths are a crime and not something to aspire to.
Your thinking is uselessly simplistic (unless it’s enough for you to appear to have made a point), and your conclusions are trite.
Oh. Look at Jesus. You’re not really doing anything unless you’re getting nailed to a cross.
Or, maybe it’s enough to just list the martyrs? Huh?
PTTTHHHHTTT. Try it on a younger crowd. And when you can report something impressive, call a newspaper.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 8:43 AM So what freedoms is it that the new wars are tiring to protect?
When I was in grade school, we would be feed propaganda about the evil Russia. That their government, would and could spy on its citizens at any time. That Russians had no freedoms because of this.
Now that this style of government is here, and since it came internally, the sheep see no threat; threats to our freedoms can only come from the outside. Now those that oppose illegal spying on American citizens are called traitors; traitors to what, the elected officials, the corporate string pullers, or to the freedoms that this country once represented? We can claim to be free but what does this mean? Stand up write your congressmen, and hope that we are not too far down this path to freedom to find our way back to the land of the free.
Posted by lost2 on Jan 30, 2006 at 3:16 PM wileywitch, rocco…
Why this caustic internecine wrangling? Aren’t you two on the same side?
“Your thinking is uselessly simplistic (unless it’s enough for you to appear to have made a point), and your conclusions are trite.”
wiley, is this really necessary? Comments such as this lower the standard of this forum and tend to keep reasonable people, with reasonable arguments, away. Enough already.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 30, 2006 at 3:20 PM rocco…
I believe I understand what you’re saying. In moments of desperation I sometimes think that a benevolent dictatorship is the only viable form of government. Historically, though, benevolence hasn’t much staying power.
Now, as to Bush’s Goebbelization…
Posted by mirmir on Jan 30, 2006 at 3:29 PM mirmir - My position on dictatorships is this: our biology is geared for alpha-dominant relationships. The less educated a society, the more prone is that society to collapse into biologically-ingrained responses. So the less civilized we are, the better the odds that a powerful alpha or alphas will take control, and the majority will succumb. It has happened over and over again in history.
My point, which is apparently irking wiley, is that action - which will presumably require sacrifice - is time-tested tactic to counter this trend. It may very well be hopeless, but if one really cares they will work tirelessly for democracy.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 5:26 PM As for you wiley, your ire is again confusing, as is your logic.
First of all, Susan B. Anthony’s death was not a crime. Nor was Cesar Chavez’s. Or Rosa Park’s. Or the Dalai Lama’s or Mandela’s (they’re still alive). They’re not martyrs. But they chose a difficult path in the name of democracy. That is a sacrifice which most aren’t willing to do.
Lastly, you can’t drop something like “Your “solution” is a sucker’s game” without expecting a modicum of sarcasm.
As far as a younger audience, you’re absolutely right. You appear to have made up your mind long ago, and don’t wish to question your assumptions. Children don’t have such blockades.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 5:33 PM “It may very well be hopeless, but if one really cares they will work tirelessly for democracy.”
Yes, rocco, I agree. ACTION!!!!
“And when I met Cindy, there in Crawford, I said to her…”
Can anyone finish this????Only some 300 supporters made their way to Crawford, out of millions of Americans. Sad.
“Does anybody really care?” Not many. At least there aren’t many who care enough to actually do something, something that might involve a bit of risk, a little bother, a touch of sacrifice.
I use the Crawford example because it’s recent and was widely publicized. Of course there are other ways to “actually do something.” But we have to do something, we must act. As a good man once said: “We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
Before it’s too late. But maybe it already is.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 30, 2006 at 6:09 PM mirmir - I don’t really think it matters whether there’s hope or not.
And with all due respect, action is a lot more than showing up at protests. Working with the disadvantaged, doing research, organizing resistance.
Even capitalists can join the fun. I’ve been fortunate enough to meet people who understand finance and economics, who are using their skills for humanitarian acts instead of personal enrichment. That has been instructive.
I’m of the opinion that creating ‘anti-corporations’ could do more in a day than a million students in front of the White House ever could. Imagine if Chomsky was a mogul? Think of what could be accomplished…
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 6:49 PM mirmir: I use the Crawford example because it’s recent and was widely publicized. Of course there are other ways to “actually do something.” But we have to do something, we must act. As a good man once said: “We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
Sorry. Missed that part. Yes, we agree.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 7:36 PM I keep mentioning Crawford because it was an event unique in this post 9/11 era. A courageous mother had lost her son in an unjust war. Bush, the person responsible for that war and for the death of her son was just around the corner - he had to pass her and her supporters to enter and leave his ranch. We, all of us, could have taken advantage of that opportunity to show our support for that grieving mother and our disgust with Bush and his policies. It would have been relatively easy, risk free. Bush must have been surprised and pleased at the small turnout. He may even have seen it as endorsement of his policies that so few showed up.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 30, 2006 at 8:18 PM Mirmir, since I live 1500 miles from Texas, I was unable to visit Camp Casey in person, but I attended a solidarity rally in my hometown that was designed to show support for Cindy Sheehan and her quest for justice. That was the best I could do and I was glad to have done it. I helped my hometown’s local peace group to collect several thousnd signatures indicating support for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq which was sent to my local congressman, a Republican. I did this all during the summer of 2005. I do what I can and am proud of it.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 30, 2006 at 8:31 PM mirmir - I’m not knocking that protest. In fact I’m strongly in favor of it. My point of contention - which you seemed to more or less agree with - is with ‘activists’ who go to a few protests and do nothing much else. My favorite satire of this is the People’s Front of Judea in ‘The Life of Brian’.
I also think debate of this nature is essential for the democratic process. But it’s far too easy to get locked into these things, spout opinion, and go on about one’s day.
Bush would like it a lot less if businesses (his donors) were boycotted, parties were organized, private money was spent on research & development of alternative energy, etc.
I much as I loathe Bush, he’s not the problem. The lazy American middle class is. I think it’s fair to say that we represent that group. Unless you’re reading this from the public library.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 8:37 PM Liberal and rocco…
I agree with both of you. Yes, the lazy, apathetic, over fed, overly pampered middle class. While that middle class idles it’s also besieged. Could easy street disappear along with pensions and medical benefits? Life is getting increasingly grim for America’s workers, but will there be a middle class to lead them when (and if) they finally take to the streets? I wonder.
Good on ya, Liberal, keep up the good work.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 30, 2006 at 10:16 PM I’m working class fellas. And I’m going to leave you to your self-righteous little bandwagons.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 10:25 PM My thought about what we must do, is to do what human beings are most talented among beasts to do. Communicate. Ethos, Pathos, Logos, give it all you can. Learning to grow your own vegetables is important, too.
What has happened is that much of America’s workforce has, due mostly to the past success of progressive causes, itself become middle class. At least economic, if not necessarily social or cultural, middle class. Whether Bush himself is really anybody’s problem but his own, his nominal administration has pursued policies that have seen the national median personal income move steadily in a negative direction, even as the GDP has grown at over 3%.
With Ford and GM promising to cause tens of thousands of shoprats to soon become re-acquainted with their working class roots, and commensurate numbers of white collar workers to discover the exhilarating life of structural unemployment, it doesn’t seem too great an imaginative stretch to think that the numbers of the dissatisfied may soon be swelling significantly. Given that many of these folks will have more time and opportunity to cruise cyber-world as a result, there seems a possibility newly radicalized voices will begin to appear in forums like this. I’m looking forward to that.I would venture a rude guess that it takes about nine weeks to shed much of the soft expectations of the boojie life.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 30, 2006 at 11:27 PM “...there seems a possibility newly radicalized voices will begin to appear in forums like this.”
Good post, luminous, and I sincerely hope that newly radicalized voices will show up wherever there’s a forum.
So Dell is relocating 5000 jobs to India. With all the advantages of globalization that accrue to large companies, the U.S. stock market can soar to new heights while U.S. employment falls through the floor. And Chevron-Exxon’s disgraceful mega-profits while the average wage earner sees more and more of his/her paycheck disappearing at the pump. Buy Citgo, all of you, please!!!
I subscribe to John Jeavons’ bioentensive methods myself - nothing better, in my opinion. It works, I can vouch for it.
When much younger and fairly mindless I spent some time in Iceland. Some of the most educated, civilized folks on the planet. They’ve inaugurated a plan to become a wholly fossil fuel free nation. Already there are hydrogen-powered busses picking up passengers. If we Americans ever got serious about putting a similar scheme in place the U.S. might not feel the need to invade other oil rich Muslim nations.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 31, 2006 at 12:29 AM Mirmir, by all estimations, the economy is becoming more barbell than bell curve, with a larger lower class and a fat upper class, like a banana republic. That means that the middle class will be split two ways. If you are middle class, I guess you better hope you fall up rather than down.
There are ways to free yourself from the economy: collectives, self-sustainability, conservation of energy. Creating ‘mutual funds’ with like-minded people in support of like-minded business. All sorts of cool stuff.
The middle class has never been taught that there’s any other goal but trying to be rich. We should remedy that.
Posted by rocco on Jan 31, 2006 at 12:38 AM “working class is middle class.”
I wonder, rocco, if West Virginia’s coal miners would agree with you. Maybe. I haven’t asked them.
This doesn’t necessarily logically follow my first sentence, but I think it would be a mistake to think that income level alone defines middle class.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 31, 2006 at 12:38 AM This doesn’t necessarily logically follow my first sentence, but I think it would be a mistake to think that income level alone defines middle class.
I don’t. Middle class is a tax bracket. There’s an upper-, a lower-, and a middle-middle-class. The majority of the middle-class works hard. The reason coal miners do that awful work is because of the pay. They make more than, say, a secretary. I wouldn’t classify a secretary as working-class, but I would classify a coal miner, a fireman, or a cop as middle-class.
The large middle class was America’s beacon for 40 years. It’s only fairly recently been shrinking as it has. But unless you qualify for welfare and have a job, you’re not among the working poor. And I daresay if you have the free time to post on this site, and have enough disposible income to buy a computer in the first place, then you’re probably not waking up at 5 in the morning to pick strawberries all day.
Posted by rocco on Jan 31, 2006 at 12:47 AM rocco.
You might check with the people who have the education and who have done the research that enables them to define these things with some authority. Perhaps you are one of those.
Why is it that so many who post on these forums simply crouch on their haunches waiting for a chance to pounce on someone? Why is it that so many have yet to learn how to carry on a civil discourse? Is this Rush Limbaugh II?
Posted by mirmir on Jan 31, 2006 at 4:20 AM Middle class (n) - The socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class.
I stand corrected.
Posted by rocco on Jan 31, 2006 at 4:47 AM Working Class (n) - In the United States, the population of blue-collar workers, particularly skilled and semiskilled laborers, who differ in values, but not necessarily in income, from the middle class. In Marxism, this term refers to propertyless factory workers.
See, luminous? Talking out of your ass is part of the learning process as well. Don’t look at it as pouncing.
Posted by rocco on Jan 31, 2006 at 4:50 AM The convention of most economists seems to be to divide the population into quintiles.
The point I was alluding to is how after WWII, the success of the industrial and trade unions led to alienation between the rank and file unionized workers who began to identify themselves as middle class, and the unorganized workforce that still to a great extent lives on the edge of poverty.
There is another set of cultural distinctions (blue collar, pink collar, white collar) between generally less educated wage earners who may well make more than salaried professional, middle management and self-employed persons who tend to identify with bourgeois values.
Another factor is suburbanized sprawl which has undermined the solidarity between more and less prosperous members of ethnic communities, and created vast bedroom communities with a high degree of alienation and rootlessness among their inhabitants.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 31, 2006 at 5:46 AM To play off luminous’s post - that was pretty much what I was trying to get at, imprecise language and all.
So, and this is an open question: need there always be worker bees and queen bees? While I’d like to think this isn’t necessary, the animal kingdom is pretty clear in its message. Are we so different? Aren’t hierarchies natural, and can democracy really function in large populations? What kind of economic system could allow more equitably the genetic leaders to rise to the top?
Posted by rocco on Jan 31, 2006 at 8:36 AM About 95 per cent of Americans (at last report I have)consider themselves to be middle class. That perception may change if real income and opportunity among salaried workers continue to decline.
I prefer Fussel’s divisions, although you’ll find a great deal of disagreement among social “scientists.”
I’ve been critized for offering so many quotes, but people aren’t inclined to accept an ordinary person’s opinion while a good many will accept that of a recognized authority. Of course for some the only authority is their own (usually unfounded) opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_in_the_contemporary_United_States
“Fussell argues social class to be determined more by culture, lifestyle, and values than income.”
Fussell’s system
Paul Fussell, in Class: A Guide Through the American Status System lists nine classes:
·Top out-of-sight: the “Old Money” wealthy who avoid public exposure (in part, due to experiences during the 1930s, when it was not to one’s advantage to be wealthy).
·Upper Class: a group of those who are not only wealthy, but usually born into the wealth, and who espouse a different set of values than wealthy middle-class people or “proles”.
·Upper-Middle Class: wealthy, refined people.
·Middle Class: most “white collar” workers, including many of the self-employed, and a group most afflicted with status anxiety and confusion, envying the refinement of the upper-middle class and the leisure of the uppers.
·High Prole: skilled, often wealthy manufacturing or service workers, who may outearn middle and even upper-middle class people but maintain a distinctively “lowbrow” culture.
·Mid Prole: an intermediate level of often poor workers, but with stable employment and relative security.
·Low Prole: the working poor, with difficulty finding steady employment.
·Destitute: the homeless underclass.
·Bottom out-of-sight: those incarcerated in prisons, or otherwise outside the purview of sociology; like top-out-of-sights, they fall so low in society as to become effectively invisible.Like most who have studied social class, Fussell is a determinist who considers it relatively difficult for anyone to achieve a significant move in social class. Fussell claims that most Americans exhibit some degree of class anxiety or insecurity.
Fussell also proposes the existence of a small subset of Americans who don’t fit into any of the above social classes, known as “Category X”. Recruited from all social classes, they are the intellectual, stylish misfits whom others try to emulate, but by no means qualify as an elite. Fussell claims “X” to be a category rather than class since one gains membership on account of personal qualities and values rather than social background or breeding.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 31, 2006 at 5:09 PM Now, having posted Fussel’s system I’d like to say that arguments of this sort aren’t particularly productive. We seem to harp on the most insignificant items in one another’s posts. I, for one, hope that this will put an end to the discussion on class. Those who want to learn more about it can refer to the literature - there’s plenty. I’d rather return to a discussion of Bush’s wiretapping scheme, perhaps a critique of his whole program of world domination.
How goes the war in Iraq?
Can “we” win in Iran?
Are Saudi’s oil fields and refineries in range of Pakistan’s atomic warheads?
Will Bush be able to further restrict our freedoms by heightening our fear?
That sort of thing.
As for Bush’s Goebbelization…
Posted by mirmir on Jan 31, 2006 at 5:25 PM The general public’s Interest in the Iraq war wanes, as a glance at this forum’s home page would indicate. Also check out these two sites for differing emphasis:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page.html
http://www.alternet.org/
It is the war in Iraq - the war on terror as Bush would have it - that’s being used as a pretext for subverting our freedoms. Isn’t it?
Posted by mirmir on Jan 31, 2006 at 6:09 PM “Aren’t hierarchies natural, and can democracy really function in large populations?” Posted by rocco
Madison made a case for this in Federalist 10. He held it to be false that democracies can only function in small populations. He argued that in fact just the opposite was true - that democracies could function best in large populations. History, in my opinion, has proved him wrong but neither Madison nor any other of the founders could have imagined the nation as it exists now. For that reason I hold that the two-and-a-quarter-centuries-old (justly venerated) constitution cries out for revision. It no longer serves a nation so radically different from the one that existed when the constitution was ratified by a majority of only 13 states, none of them able to boast of a city larger than a few thousand. But this discussion deserves another forum.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 31, 2006 at 9:02 PM I agree mirmir. The Constitution’s economic dimension is clearly antiquated and in need of revision. The fundamental issue of religion and government and the fear that madison and jefferson had of the two mixing IS quite relevant, as history had proven that the two made a volatile mix even at the time of the Consitutional Convention. The Bill of Rights is still relevant as well. The ideas of economics were still in their infancy at the founding of this country. Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the year Amerika began.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 31, 2006 at 11:06 PM mirmir,
“Fussell is a determinist who considers it relatively difficult for anyone to achieve a significant move in social class.”
Nonsense!
Thousands of Americans are moving down significantly each year — millions since NAFTA in 1994.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 31, 2006 at 11:09 PM mirmir - thanks for the accurate class structure breakdown.
As far as the efficacy of democracy, I agree that is a whole other debate. Since you used Madison as an example, it may be worth noting that he was an incredible elitist, and feared any notion of popular rule. He once said something to the effect that the purpose of government was to protect the wealthy class.
So, his vision of democracy is going strong…
Posted by rocco on Feb 1, 2006 at 2:02 AM Alright, wth, I agree with you for a change. Going down, down, down. Unless, of course, you just say that working class is middle class, then they aren’t going anywhere unless they’re going somewhere to demonstrate, otherwise they are so locked into their comfort and ease that it’s amazing they even bother going to work.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 2:20 AM “Aren’t hierarchies natural, and can democracy really function in large populations?” Posted by rocco
I wonder if any kind of representative government can handle the speed of change today. It seems humanly impossible to cope with the volume of communication.
I can’t believe it would be good (even if possible) to put problems of great consequence up for majority vote and action. The risk of emotional response (the herd instinct) is too strong. With the media firing from the hip as we’ve seen during Katrina and a few other retracted/corrected stories it is just too scary.As possibly the Lone Ranger on this site in believing this war is for real and therefore calls for extreme action, I am not very concerned about the government tapping my phone or reading my email. I also don’t expect it to happen — I’m not that much of a threat to anyone.
I am concerned that millions of people have entered the country and roam free to do mischief. When Y2K was a big deal, the State Department hired “PC experts” and who was there qualified to monitor their activities? We have been so lax on security for so long anything is possible — food and water supplies, medical prescriptions, power stations — think of the computer targets that could be our whole country to a standstill.
What the NSA or other agencies are doing has a long history. What is being done in Iraq is mild compared to some old examples. People need to gain some sense of proportion and understand how our present predicament compares to the past. A friend of mine commented when some military wives complained that their husband’s tours had been extended by six months, “Mac and I were married in 1940 and then he joined the Marines — I never saw him or talked with him for six years.”
I just reread William Manchester’s “Goodbye Darkness” his memoir of his WW2 experiences. This is not your typical John Wayne, Gung Ho account, but a man trying to put to rest his nightmares and sorrows thirty-five years later. Okinawa: 49,000 U.S. casualties in 85 days of constant shelling, bannzai charges, sucking mud (his buddy buried alive under it). For all of WW2 our killed = 300,000 battle deaths and 100,000 other causes.
Because of these people I was able to go to school, marry and have kids, live another sixty plus years and we are able to sit around and ponder life and death decisions on the internet. Like now, a lot of what went on then was less than perfect, unconstitutional, whatever. But without it?
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 1, 2006 at 2:20 AM Wonderful that you feel so secure from the dangers of political repression, WTH. What will you think when the gov’t. begins hauling dissidents off to camps? “Not my problem”?
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 1, 2006 at 2:37 AM http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/hopeisfortheweak.htm
(My alma mater.)
Posted on ZNet and Dissident Voice, November 15, 2005.
by Robert Jensen
In the face of the vast suffering in this broken world, some people turn away. But others want to rush to action, <i>any action. When there is so much pain around us and in us, how can we not feel that compulsion to act, to do something to relieve what suffering we can, and by that action relieve some of our own pain? Indeed, we should nurture that instinct in ourselves and each other; it is at the core of what makes us human.
But I think it is crucial at this moment in history to not simply rush to action but also to take time to deepen our analysis. That assertion implies that I believe the analysis that underlies many existing liberal/progressive/left movements in the United States is <u>shallow</u>. That is what I believe, and I think that the <u>shallow analysis poses a serious threat to our ability to translate our hope into real change</u> someday.
That might sound arrogant, but it is born more of desperation than arrogance. I don’t contend to have THE analysis. But I believe we are in a period in which traditional ways that liberal/progressive/left forces have understood the world are inadequate. If we continue to pursue strategies based in those understandings, we will lose. Standing here today, I can’t tell you that I know how we can win, or even that we can win. But I can be part of a conversation to try to shift the course onto a winning strategy, and in the course of that conversation we can demonstrate that we should win.</i>
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 5:04 AM All of the above should be in italics. It’s taken from a talk given on the link above. Same for most of the rest.
The first, and perhaps most important, move is to recognize that we humans long ago outstripped our ability to fully understand and control the consequences of our actions. <u>The crises we find ourselves in today are largely the product of social systems and technological advances that have moved far past the point we can control them</u>… That is a dangerous thing, especially in this complex world of nation-states and stateless armed forces, this world in which the forces of nature have been distorted by our meddling in creation in ways we have never fully understood.
…
So, step one: Let’s recognize our ignorance. Recognize that as a species <u>we are clever but generally not wise</u>, that our intelligence is not deep enough to pull off this attempt to control the world.
Step two: Recognize the paradox this lands us in… <u>We have to give up the illusion that our knowledge can run, in sustainable fashion, either the human or non-human systems of this complex world</u>. Yet at the same time, because we have to face the consequences of how we’ve mucked things up, we can’t give up on knowledge completely. The consequences of our hubris require that we continue to seek knowledge in order to reverse the course of destruction. That is a tricky proposition. If we are to pull it off, our pursuit of knowledge must be reined in by humility. We have to both believe in our ability to use knowledge differently, while being wary of that knowledge and the hubris which it has so often sparked.
As hard as it is for any one of us to become a better person, it would be comforting to think that such a personal transformation would be enough. But it isn’t, and it never will be. It is hard for us to confront ourselves and change. But it is immeasurably more difficult to become part of a long struggle to change that which is outside of us. But that is exactly what hope demands of us in this broken world.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 5:06 AM But that is not the most difficult thing that hope demands. Perhaps the hardest discovery from which we must not shrink is related to that first point, about the limits of our knowledge. As we intensify our commitment to analyze and act, we have to abandon any certainty about that analysis and action. We must cope with a fundamental uncertainty that will dog us as we must take up our place in the struggle, and that is hardest of all. I believe that to claim to know “for sure” is to mark oneself a coward. It is to say, “I have looked into the face of the crisis, but I cannot bear it, and I have retreated to certainty.”
I see conservative Christians do this. I see agnostic sectarian leftists do it. I see my academic colleagues do it, endlessly. I see my political allies do it. And every day I battle it in myself.
These are radically uncertain times. No one has the answer. There is no “the answer.” There is a rapidly deepening crisis that we first must struggle to understand before we can begin to imagine answers. … we have to pose questions that go beyond the available answers.
Can we hold onto our uncertainty and our convictions at the same time? Can we identify values which we will not surrender and also understand that the path to living those values may be unclear at any given moment? I don’t think we have a choice. If we cannot do this, we cannot honestly claim hope, and if that is our fate then I believe creation will be forever lost to us.
To borrow from a poem by Wendell Berry, it is time to face “the real work.”<line>The Real Work</line>
It may be that when we no longer know what to do
we have come to our real work,
and that when we no longer know which way to go
we have come to our real journey.
The mind that is not baffled is not employed.
The impeded stream is the one that sings.
End of excerpt from Jensen’s speech.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 5:06 AM I could have written as much, all by myself, but that would have been undisciplined, lazy, unauthoritative, not reviewed by academia, not blessed by a rabbi, etc., and therefore illegitimate. Funny how that works, huh?
And it would have been uncouthe, not genteel, crass, clumsy, rude, and uncivilized for me to tell someone directly that I think their time is spent in meaningless pursuit because they don’t satisfy my criterion for time well spent. Without the pretense of only wanting to help someone improve themselves through my selflessness and brotherly love—-why that would breach etiquette itself. <i>Mercy, no!!! I’m too Southern to bear (bayr) it!
God knows I only went to college to learn how to kiss academic ass.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 5:09 AM Interesting essay you excerpted, Wiley.
This - hopeisfortheweak - from the URL puzzles me. Satire? or Sublime? or both? I will be thinking about this hope is for the weak idea. I like it as sublime satire.
I liked the poem at the end the best and will post it on my fridge.
Posted by David in Canada on Feb 1, 2006 at 7:19 AM You might want to read the whole talk, David. He is not kidding. Neither am I. The closer we get to the brink the more useless or dangerous the people with all the answers become. Technical plans that will fix everything right up should be especially suspect.
This spying business and data mining sums up the stupidity of the technical solution. The more information you have, the more likely you are to see patterns—-whether the events in the pattern are related or not. It’s how our brain works. One of the most difficult exercises in art school is to make something that appears random. Even if you think you’re working randomly, patterns will emerge. We’ve nearly started a nuclear war by seeing patterns in separate world events that weren’t related, but appeared to be at the time. We need to put this stuff into perspective.
When looking for a gang member, do the police monitor every call ‘s home state? Detective work is detective work. Being a terrorist doesn’t change that.
This James Bond techno-wizardy may be romantic, but how effective can it really be? Maybe they should start reading every piece of mail that comes from a foreign country. Does that sound intelligent? Can you associate—-try very hard—-associate a plan to read every piece of mail that enters the country, with intelligence?
OOH, ooh—-this reminds me of one of my favorite stories—-Louis Lapham’s stories, actually. In the early days of the Cold War, the C.I.A. was trying to figure out a way to get their cutting edge surveillance bugging equipment near the Kremlin. They had a bright idea. They got 100,000 dollars together and hired a Chippendale furniture artist to carve a hollow oak tree. Then they made all the necessary arrangements, put the bugging equipment into the “tree”, shipped it to Moscow, and then had it planted in the fur woods next to the Kremlin.
The Ruskies got the latest in bugging technology and a Chippendale tree.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 8:49 AM LB, Mirmir, Rocco, Wiley…
“What has happened is that much of America’s workforce has, due mostly to the past success of progressive causes, itself become middle class. At least economic, if not necessarily social or cultural, middle class. Whether Bush himself is really anybody’s problem but his own, his nominal administration has pursued policies that have seen the national median personal income move steadily in a negative direction, even as the GDP has grown at over 3%.”
——————————— ;——————————
This is NOT a Bush policy. This is a national policy of long standing for Republican and Democratic parties. The most powerful party is the Lobbyists. Over 40% of those lobbying for foreign companies and countries are former congressmen. (How many middle class congressmen can you name?)There is always a lot of concern expressed at this site for minorities. Many became middle class due to our manufacturing. No college degree, many without high school, black, brown, yellow and white were able to hold their heads up and advance their next generation. That is all but gone.
No one, Republican, Democrat, union, journalist, has acted to prevent or even slow it. NAFTA, a Clinton sponsored project, has cost us millions of jobs, exploited Mexican workers and enriched corporate management. Even shareholders have been short changed through options, “too difficult to expense.”
Government numbers are so phony they are useless. Worse than useless because they disguise the problems and dull the pain while the malignancy multiplies.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 1, 2006 at 3:25 PM “And when I met Cindy, there in Crawford, I said to her…”
Can anyone finish this????
———————————& ———————-Yes…
Oh, sorry, I thought they said Cindy Crawford was going to be here.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 1, 2006 at 3:35 PM “Standing here today, I can’t tell you that I know how we can win, or even that we can win. But I can be part of a conversation to try to shift the course onto a winning strategy, and in the course of that conversation we can demonstrate that we should win.”
Win what? Excerpts from Bush’s speech? “staying the course,” “we’re winning?” What the hell does Jensen mean? And Wendell Berry, as much as I admire him, equally fuzzy. ” real work?” “real journey?” Aren’t the Republicans doing “real work?” Didn’t DeLay and others take more than one “real journey?” And the radical christian right - really working I believe. Straight talk, brothers, please.
Once more, with feeling…
*How goes the war in Iraq?
*Can “we” win in Iran? (irony intended)
*Are Saudi’s oil fields and refineries in range of Pakistan’s atomic warheads?
*Will Bush be able to further restrict our freedoms by heightening our fear?
*What are you doing?
*As for Bush’s Goebbelization…
That sort of thing.Oh, yes. The truly burning questions:
*Can the Steelers pull it off?
*Will Brokeback Mountain sweep the Oscars?Bush says that if we’d had his wiretapping scheme in place before 9/11 that tragedy might not have happened. I don’t believe it. I think that Tennent (famous former lacrosse player) gave Bush good, credible information. I believe that Bush and those AEI fellows knew that an attack was coming (maybe not the specific details or targets) and saw it as a pretext for launching their long-anticipated attack on Iraq. Hasn’t the U.S. a long history of doing just that sort of thing? This, I think, is the most relevant question on Iraq: If the U.S. had concentrated all its effort on al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than attacking Iraq, would the world be safer? That is: would the terrorist threat be less than it is today?
Posted by mirmir on Feb 1, 2006 at 3:39 PM A hard working lady. A few paragraphs and the URL for the whole bit of wit…
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=1208&catid=6
George W. Bush Declares Cindy Sheehan an Enemy Combatant
by Kamal El-Din
Unconfirmed sources report that the recently arrested anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan has been declared an enemy combatant and flown to Guantanamo Bay Cuba for questioning and indefinite incarceration. Sheehan was arrested in front of the White House today during a daring attempt to protest against the war in Iraq without a permit. The President was rushed to saftey to an underground bunker from where he issued an Executive Order declaring Sheehan an enemy combatant. Sheehan was then put on board a plane to Guantanamo Bay Cuba.
“America is a safer place now that Cindy Sheehan is behind bars in Cuba.” Said White House spokesmen Ben Lion. “Sheehan was apprehended today during a daring daylight protest against the President without a permit. The President frowns on this sort of ant-American behavior and exercised his right to have her arrested and held without charge and flown to a foreign country where she will be deprived of her rights. As an enemy combatant Ms. Sheehan will be afforded first class treatment that may or may not include torture.”
Posted by mirmir on Feb 1, 2006 at 4:34 PM whattheheck - I must disagree that the culture of lobbyists isn’t Bush (i.e. Republican) policy. The number of lobbyists have doubled during this administration. And people who say that Abramoff et al. is a “bipartisan” problem are full of shit. Paul Krugman wrote a great article on this yesterday. If anything, he ensured that less money went to Democrats.
Democrats are no saints, but Republicans are definitely little devils.
A word on etiquette by Paul Carus:
The most important laws of nature in the ethical domain are those which regulate all the various and sometimes very delicate relations of man to man, which concatenate our fates and set soul to soul in a mutually helpful responsion.
Posted by rocco on Feb 1, 2006 at 4:54 PM “Since you used Madison as an example, it may be worth noting that he was an incredible elitist…”
Many have held that notion in the past, few today. You might want to read fairly recent books by Drew R. McCoy, Joseph J. Ellis, Robert Allen Rutland, Bernard Bailyn, Lance Banning and Gordon S. Wood as well as articles and essays by them and others on the subject (yes, those books and many others that I often return to sit on my shelves, close at hand). In recent years there has been a long awaited, much needed reexamination - reevalution if you prefer - of the revolution and the founding.
The constitution and the founding are certainly relevant today (although the direct connection with Bush’s wiretapping may not be immediately obvious) as Bernard Bailyn makes clear:
“We must get the two-hundred-year-old story straight, in some way, in order to make sense of our own world.”
To repeat, this discussion needs another forum. I started an exchange that predictably has fizzled out. If you are interested you can read my original posting and the comments that followed here:
http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=8303&sid=f24e6bcf549f32466a ab802914afe496f
Posted by mirmir on Feb 1, 2006 at 5:43 PM rocco and others…
For more of my comments on the subject of good government/constitutional change click on this URL (if you’re interested, that is):
http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/iowa-work/2003-November/000505.html
Posted by mirmir on Feb 1, 2006 at 5:50 PM mirmir -
‘In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body.’
James Madison. At Lenin’s Tomb, commenter David Traynier quoted it from: Jonathan Elliot, ed., ‘The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 1787’ Philadelphia: Lippincott, 2nd edition, (1937[1836]), p. 450
An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this Country, but symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the Govt. sufficiently respectable for its wisdom & virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale.
June 26, 1787(http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/rv/rv011.htm), Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 as reported by James Madison
I admittedly haven’t read the books you’ve suggested, but that’s some pretty strong stuff. How exactly do the authors you mentioned handle this sentiment?
Posted by rocco on Feb 1, 2006 at 6:06 PM rocco…
It would be impossible to summarize all that’s written by these authors - I wouldn’t try.
It isn’t fair to any of the Founders to select a few random quotes supposing that a few lines could accurately portray the whole man. The arguments are complex, the debate long and passionate. There were few (maybe none) involved in the noble struggle who did not change one or more of their fondly held notions as they debated and, above all, listened. That is what I, at least, would expect from great intellects.
I think that Madison, justly considered the “Father of the Constitution,” as well as the other Founders, would be surprised and shocked that we have so little modified the Constitution in its more than 200 years of existence.
If you want to read some of the authors that I mentioned I suggest that you begin with:
*Gordon S. Wood’s “The Creation of the American Republic”
*Bernard Bailyn’s “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution”
*Drew R. McCoy’s “The Last of the Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy.”
Having read these three books (and they are imminently readable) I’d be surprised if you weren’t stimulated to go on to read others.
Posted by mirmir on Feb 1, 2006 at 7:42 PM mirmir - It’s never fair to anyone to be mythologized. But that is what we have done to the Founders. Christ, we capitalize the word ‘Founders’ as if they we on high. Every one of them that I have studied (and Madison isn’t among them) were incredible personalities with all-too-human contradictions, foibles, etc.
And while it may not be an accurate summation of the man in toto, someone’s own words are always fair game. Adams will always be held accountable by history for the Alien & Sedition Acts; Jefferson for his maddeningly warped views on human freedom and the institution of slavery.
If Madison held those views (and to be fair, he saw the House as a popular counter…but held in check by its republican nature) in 1787, and if he indeed is the Father (the ‘cap’ thing again) of the Constitution, then it’s fair to say that the Constitution is an elitist doctrine. It maintains elitist rule.
I am a big fan of the Constitution, and from a historical perspective, it’s downright miraculous. But it think that we need to view it with modern eyes, and from your previous posts I think it’s safe to say we agree on that. I will keep my eye out for the books you recommend…thanks.
Posted by rocco on Feb 1, 2006 at 8:27 PM To get this line of thinking back on topic: is it possible to amend a 200+ year-old document which governed a pastoral society with an agricultural-based economy to control a 21st century urban and suburban landscape fueled by corporate finance and high technology?
I often make parallels between America and Rome in my posts. Rome too was a small agrarian society governed by a wonderful compromise between the rich and the middle class. As Rome’s conquests grew, the republican rule was no longer functional. It deteriorated into an empire with totalitarian rule. The Roman people, made fat and lazy through pillage, didn’t bat an eye.
I saw a poll that 50% of the people in the US are unfazed by the actions of the NSA. Ave Caesar!
Posted by rocco on Feb 1, 2006 at 8:35 PM “...someone’s own words are always fair game.”
Yes, but our words change over time. I’d hate to be held accountable for what I might have said when I was 20. I’ve learned, the Founders learned (yes, for me always capitalized - I revere them). I think that what they accomplished was remarkable, little short of miraculous, FOR THEIR TIME. I doubt that it would have been possible to have gotten anything better. I said that they would probably be “shocked” that we have scarecly changed their constitution. I ought to have said that they would be horrified, astounded, incredulous. We consider the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historical documents to be sacred, right up there with the holy bible, and not subject to criticism or change. If you want to read another book that talks about this “sacred” business read Pauline Maier’s “American Scripture.” A fine book.
I’m no fan of myths as guide to action or understanding.
Posted by mirmir on Feb 1, 2006 at 9:11 PM So, the fall of the middle class didn’t start with NAFTA?
WTH has made a good point and a joke.Well rocco and mirmir it appears that posting here is suddenly a valuable pursuit. Because you’re doing it, right?
Why is it so important to you,mirmir, to set the off topic agendas?
Do you two have any evidence that protests are effective? Does doubt ever enter your mind or are you too well grounded in the self-comforting idea that demonstration would work if only more people would show up? They don’t show up because they’re “lazy” and “comfortable”? That’s the only way to explain their absence is it? That’s very convenient.
Have you ever stopped to consider that protest marches worked in the sixties because of the nature and character of our society at that time, and that it doesn’t work now because this isn’t the sixties, among other reasons? How is that the ability to attend a lot of protests is less in the comfort zone than going to work at your second job so the family has health insurance?
Thinking that you are doing the real work of democracy because you attend protests, is like someone thinking they’re one of the great artists because they can copy masterpieces. Leading is not following.
Mirmir and rocco you have both retreated into the comfort of certainty.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 11:18 PM ah, wiley. Isn’t the struggle for vindication exhausting?
Posted by rocco on Feb 2, 2006 at 12:17 AM Why is it so important to you,mirmir, to set the off topic agendas?
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 1, 2006 at 5:18 PMOK, I’ve strayed far from the topic. This is my last posting, promise.
Posted by mirmir on Jan 17, 2006 at 10:02 PMMirmir, please look through the other threads. The threads here are long. We wander around. It’s good. Ignorance is no problem—-who isn’t ignorant?
Hang out. Relax. The water’s fine, once you get used to it.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 17, 2006 at 10:31 PMHey mirmir, there are crowds on other posts. We have primarily sustained this thread by talking beyond the article. Happens all the time. It works. Can anyone get a conversation going about Iran on any related threads?
There’s a challenge.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 18, 2006 at 9:36 PM
Posted by mirmir on Feb 2, 2006 at 12:18 AM mirmir - I’ve always felt that the schizophrenia of the Founders led to the major problems in this country. As one historian noted, the two biggest non-decisions of the Constitution - slavery, and whether true power rested with the states or the fed - were only solved by the largest war in human history at the time.
So I don’t revere the Founders; however I often admire their adherence to principle. I like their bombastic statements and their Hamiltonian duels. A simpler time.
Keep the titles coming. I’m writing these down. I’m currently reading Shelby Foote’s Civil War series, so I’m probably good for about a year.
Posted by rocco on Feb 2, 2006 at 12:24 AM mirmir - Re one’s words: history is an unforgiving prick. As a friend of mine used to say, for whatever kind of life Malthus may have led, he is forever buried in the minds of eighth graders as:
Malthus = overpopulation.
Madison was the little giant, Father of the Constitution, etc. His wife saved Washington’s portrait. This is the mythologizing to which I was referring. I don’t think it sullies Madison that he was an elitist. I’m not even sure that elitism is wrong (see above question re hierarchies). But I think it does serve to round the man out a little, and take some of the starch that revisionist so-called patriots have put in the man out of either blind patriotism or a willful desire to indoctrinate future generations.
There is a lot of evidence for the latter. See “A People’s History of the American Revolution”.
Posted by rocco on Feb 2, 2006 at 12:37 AM I’m definitely an elitist when it comes to reading history, although I have read (and enjoyed, applauded, mostly agreed with) Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” as well as David McCullough’s “John Adams.” Dr. Zinn put his stamp of approval on Ray Raphael’s book and that counts for a lot. Still, I had some very few petty (carping?) disagreements with Zinn who, after all, is a student and scholar of history. So far as I know Raphael isn’t either so I doubt that I’ll get around to his book any time soon.
Right now I’m reading another sort of history: “La gran controversia” by Jean Meyer, a historian I admire very much. I don’t know if the book is available in English. Probably.
Adams’ Alien and Sedition abomination has always troubled me as well, and attributing it to Abigail’s influence (as some have done) even if true, in no way absolves him. He was the president. At the same time there was no finer scholar on government than Adams then, and I’d guess not many since. In order to get a good grip on Adams thought I think you have to read his papers - some extremely dull, but erudite.
Posted by mirmir on Feb 2, 2006 at 2:00 AM Well, rocco, it surely isn’t as vindicating as being one of the few people who are doing anything that really matters?
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 2, 2006 at 2:45 AM mirmir - Actually, I was referring to another book, which is, I believe, the first in the series of “A People’s History of…” post-Zinn. I can’t recall the author, and am presently too lazy to do a search. Suffice it to say it is of the same vein, and has some great facts about the American Revolution, that you as an obvious buff might like.
I don’t mean to disparage Adams, Jefferson, or Madison (maybe Hamilton). But I find them more interesting to learn their moments of weakness and failure.
It’s also very instructive to recall that they had a completely different outlook on life than us. And yet, you can find contemporary thinkers always. Franklin is probably the closest Founder to my own thinking. The guy was like a polished mirror…
Posted by rocco on Feb 2, 2006 at 2:58 AM wiley - Have no idea what you’re talking about. Please return to the forum with questions and/or answers. Until then, I’m just going to make fun of you in public. Noogie!!!
Posted by rocco on Feb 2, 2006 at 2:59 AM Is this the book you’re refering to, rocco?
Are you fellas familiar with E. Galeano’s “A Memory of Fire”?
[url=“http://tinyurl.com/dsuos”] Pocahontas: Medicine Woman, Spy, Entrepreneur, Diplomat
by Paula Gunn Allen [/url] is an interesting deconstruction of early colonial history.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 2, 2006 at 3:37 AM Wow…thanks for doing my research for me, LB. If I had bothered, perhaps I’d look less stupid for missing the whole Ray Raphael clue offered by mirmir.
Posted by rocco on Feb 2, 2006 at 3:54 AM As an armchair Florida historian, I’ve come across that the Pocahontas myth got mixed up with the story of an English explorer who married a Calusa princess. Can’t verify this, since my books are elsewhere…
Posted by rocco on Feb 2, 2006 at 3:56 AM We all live in Hamilton’s world. His vision has been realized, in spades.
Now, more on Cindy Sheehan. Yes, I think it’s on topic - Bush’s attack on free speech. Sheehan considers filing a lawsuit, as I think she should.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_co/state_of_union_sheehan_13
Police Apologize, Drop Charge Vs. Sheehan By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Feb 1, 7:10 PM ETCapitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.
“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.
“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”
The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.
“Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts,” Gainer’s statement said.
Posted by mirmir on Feb 2, 2006 at 3:30 PM Once more, with even more feeling:
*How goes the war in Iraq?
*Can “we” win a war with Iran? (irony intended)
*Are Saudi’s oil fields in range of Pakistan’s atomic warheads?
*Will Bush be able to further restrict our freedoms by heightening our fears?
*What are you doing to defeat Bush’s wiretapping? Is it something that others could also do?
*As for Bush’s Goebbelization…Are these on topic? Worth discussing? No one responded when I posted them earlier (twice).
Maybe these questions are more important:
*Can the Steelers pull it off?
*Will Brokeback Mountain sweep the Oscars?Bush says that if we’d had his wiretapping scheme in place before 9/11 that tragedy might not have happened. I don’t believe it. I think that Tennent (famous former lacrosse player, slam dunk artist) gave Bush good, credible information. I believe that Bush and those AEI fellows knew that an attack was coming (maybe not the specific details or targets) and saw it as giving them a pretext for launching their long-anticipated attack on Iraq. Hasn’t the U.S. a long history of doing just that sort of thing?
This, I think, is the most relevant question on Iraq: If the U.S. had concentrated all its efforts on al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan other than attacking Iraq, would we be safer? That is, would the terrorist threat have been less than it is today?
I know I’m repeating previous posts, but I’m trying to stay on topic, hoping that someone will address these comments.
Posted by mirmir on Feb 2, 2006 at 4:06 PM Wiley,
Why separate working class and middle class? Is working of one type of more or less value than another? Or is it an income level distinction? Seems unnecessary to me to distinguish.
Anyway, I know a lot of people who have been displaced by computerization and more by the rush to globalization.
Our city was a machine tool center and other manufacturing. Before that there were several knitting and furniture companies. Following WW2 those workers generally made a decent income, owned their homes sent kids to college. They were among the first to get squeezed out.
During the past 10 -15 years many white collar middle class (but not necessarily higher income than the above) have been forced into early retirement or, a bit later, just fired. Of my acquaintances these include: 2 architects (One was let go from 3 jobs before Soc Sec age.), a banker, several salesmen, a lot of people in the graphics field — typesetters, artists, photographers, printers.
Now it is barbers and dentists feeling it due to their customers stretching the time between visits. The ages being affected have also dropped. Now it is our kids in the forty to fifty year range.
Many do not show statistically — the self employed (ineligible for unemployment), those who have used up unemployment and are not able to get any more. Those working one, two, and three part time jobs.
One of my friends is selling at a large box store at $7/hr part time (no health care coverage) and has two more years to Soc Sec, five to Medicare. At 60 nobody wants to hire you.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 9:25 PM Rocco,
“I must disagree that the culture of lobbyists isn’t Bush (i.e. Republican) policy.”
I didn’t say it wasn’t Republican — it is both parties. Clinton shoved NAFTA through during his first term. The unions didn’t start talking about job loss until recently. No one gives a damn because there has been no active, organized resistance to it.
I’m disgusted with them all.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 9:32 PM re: protests
• They don’t show up because they’re “lazy” and “comfortable”?
Protest to whom?
A local aero-space manufacturing company is sending another bunch of jobs to Singapore. The union offer three times to take pay and benefit cuts — management would not even meet to discuss it.
Would walking the street with a sign have any desired effect?
I worked for this corporation forty years ago when the union was a bitch to get along with — now management is too powerful and loving every minute as they pocket their loot.
Protest are for students who are unmarried, have no kids or mortgage, and have parents paying their insurance.
One of my good friends just had his insurance cancelled due to a diagnosis of high blood pressure. Last week he had knee surgery and needs to more operations. He cannot get coverage and is only in his late forties.
I just finished reading David McColough’s, “John Adams.” They went to war with England for less than we are facing today. Get out the tar and feathers, forget the posters.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 9:48 PM Having re-read the first section, I don’t see anyone who advocated protesting as a viable solution. I wrote:
And with all due respect, action is a lot more than showing up at protests. Working with the disadvantaged, doing research, organizing resistance.
However, protests are not ust for students or professional activists. Think of all the massive protests in history that only succeeded because of the great number of people of all ages. India, South Africa, the current protests of South American Indians, and our own civil rights movement.
I was privileged to see Mixe Indians take over government buildings in Oaxaca City, Oaxaca for about two weeks. I’ve seen students occupy their universities. They’ve got a lot more to lose than we do, since their repressive governments are more likely to kill them than the US is.
In fact, if students are the only ones at these protests, they are sure to fail.
Posted by rocco on Feb 3, 2006 at 1:14 AM WTH - To preface this, and you should know this by now anyway, but I am not a Democrat. Re Republicans vs. Democrats: yes, both must operate in a system that encourages corruption and corporate preference.
However, I think it’s a mistake to say, “They’re both bad.” The Republicans are really bad. Like Franco bad. To equivocate is to be apathetic, and to allow the GOP to rule us like vassals forever. I truly believe that Clinton had to pick his battles, knowing that the Republicans would do anything to destroy him. He played the game pretty slyly, but for that weakness of the flesh…
I would argue that this is because Republicans don’t have to answer to their constituents as candidly as do Democrats. It’s often enough to wave a flag or to talk with a smirk on your face. Am I generalizing too much? I didn’t think so, either.
Someone like Barney Frank, for example, would be in trouble if he didn’t look out for the interests of his discriminating Massachusetts base. The best check on government is a concerned and educated populace.
As far as voting, being that I live in the swing state of Florida, I’m always going to vote Democrat, in the hopes that it complicates the rigging.
Posted by rocco on Feb 3, 2006 at 2:04 AM rocco…
As you live in Florida, you might be interested in this message that my nephew sent me a couple of days ago. There’s a photo that goes along with it, but I’ve no idea how to post photos here.
Of course this sort of thing could happen anywhere in the U.S. these days, given the present climate of fear and consequent loss of freedom. Slowly but surely the U.S. becomes a police state (a warning: be sure to wear only government approved “T” shirts).“This is true…
Shortly after taking this photo, I was informed by a police officer that: The Dept. of Homeland Security does not approve of me taking photos from this location. [The location being the Blue Heron bridge, overlooking the Port of Palm Beach] After a “You must be kidding,” a laugh, and a head shake, He told me I would be ok, if I parked my car farther away, off the bridge, then walked up to take my photos. Of course, by then the sunset would be gone. Since I fully understand the importance of National Security, I put my camera away, thankful that I am not currently being held in a secret prison finding out what “waterboarding” feels like.
Do you think D.O.H.S. knows how much I approve of Dubya’s war on terror?(should be a photo here of beautiful Florida sunset)
This got better when the sun got lower, “under” the cloud. Hopefully, things will get better when Dubya’s rule is over…”
Posted by mirmir on Feb 4, 2006 at 4:27 PM mirmir - I know exactly where that is. That’s bizarre. Particularly because the bridge is quite a distance from the Port of Palm Beach. I’m going to have to do some snooping…
somewhat relevant anecdote: It is illegal to take unauthorized pictures anywhere on the island of Palm Beach, and that authorization lies with the local government. Indeed, if someone who lived on the island allowed you to shoot a movie at their house, the police could come and shut you down.
Also, if you were black or Latino, you needed a special ID card to remain on the island up until the late 70’s. As if I had to mention, Palm Beach is one of the richest towns in America, and has more police officers than residents (the richest is Jupiter Island, FL…don’t get me started on their laws).
Posted by rocco on Feb 4, 2006 at 10:53 PM TWIMC…
The Mohammed Cartoons raise many questions.
(I’m posting on this thread simply because the most recent relevant article, “Islam Needs Radicals” is too far back to be live.)
1. Just why are the Danes under attack?
2. Is it due to their seeking global empire?
3. Could it be their fascist attitude?
4. Are they, like the French, relegating young Muslims to joblessness and ghetto status?5. Is it their arrogant refusal to punish these cartoonists and editors to placate the interior ministers of Muslim-majority countries?
What must they do?
Must we wait while the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour, seeks to provide a solution? Or… will God himself (herself?) deal a massive blow against the evil jesters with a tsunami or hurricane once more?
I have been critical that the Bush administration did not do a good enough job of rallying other nations in the fight against radical Muslims. With the attacks on Danish embassies and the threats of kidnappings against other European nations, they are doing it for us.(There must be a cartoon in this also.)
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 5, 2006 at 3:25 PM Gee, WTH;
Your incisive sense of irony is mind-boggling!
Which do you think is more likely; Denmark will become a militant ally of the Bush Administration in order to defend a culturally insensitive editorial cartoon, or more Moslems will become radicalized against the West because of it?
Great strategerizing, WTH.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 5, 2006 at 6:31 PM LB,
So would you prefer, “Death to all the culturally insensative editors and cartoonists!” as these wackos are calling for?
I think most people in most countries will say, “Screw these religious bastards — we’re sticking up for free speech.”
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 6, 2006 at 1:09 AM I think the Danish Foriegn Minister has already apologized without calling for censorship. Tres diplomatique, non? I’m sure that won’t appease every yahoo on the Muslim street, and Mullahs and Shieks may bark and shout for a few days but this will die down. No need to be lobbing any cruise missiles into Muslim homes, is there?
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 6, 2006 at 3:02 AM Isn’t it a bit obvious, WTH, that the decision and egging that went into publishing these cartoons was questionable? Does the right to free speech make it necessary to support a person’s choice to publish something that is certainly offensive to the sacred beliefs of a billion people?
If a person were to publish something discussing the pleasure of raping small children, would you be arguing for their right to free speech, and denigrating the people who got out their pitchforks and torches?
I’m not saying that both offenses are the same, just that the “free speech” argument is not so simple as it’s wrong to censure (<i>compare to the word “censor”) the content of speech, because we have “free speech”</i>. That is a juvenile and irresponsible point of view. The people who published the cartoon have apologized, as Lumens pointed out. My guess is that they properly regret their choice. It was in no way necessary to publish those cartoons.
Hopefully, people in most countries will learn from this, and will see a connection between words and actions that they might have conveniently ignored before. Or should they all conclude that words and images don’t mean anything, though the act of expression is sacred, and the actions that result from one’s religious figure being publicly humiliated are illegitimate (while maintaining that only symbolic action counts? Wouldn’t that by typical?)
You have yet to recognize, WTH, that the overwhelming majority of Moslems in the world are not terrorists and do not support terrorism.
The Iraqis are fighting occupation on behalf of their nation—-they are not fighting against Christianity and “our freedoms”—-they are fighting for their nation.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 6, 2006 at 3:49 AM Oh GOD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WTH. You cannot be left alone for a few days without you go shitting in your own shoes again. Dude what is it with you and your need to eat your feet?
When WTH speaks, the surprise is not that he invariably manages to get his foot in his mouth, within his first post or two. What keeps one guessing every time, is how exactly he will go about getting the second one in there simultaneously, within his next few posts.
It has taken the rabbit a few days to get his head around this one. But here goes. As is know Mrs Rabbit is danish, and Rabbit has lived six years in Denmark, speaks Daniahs and has contact with family in Denmark on almost a daily basis.
The Danes are a robust Democracy, something not seen in the USA for several decades. In fact the particular Socialist type representative government which Denmark has perfected has never been seen in the USA period. That is your loss. The same is true of Oz for that matter. we have come closer but lack the basic commodity which is the Danes greatest strength.
An intelligent and fairly enlightened populace, overall. They have plenty of conservatives, the average age is about 65, but they are more capable of a serious cultural debate and a democratic referendum than most lands, especially something as prostituted to corporate interests as the US political scene.
WTH, don’t make a bigger ASS of yourself than you have already by presuming you have anything whatsoever to say about the Danish situation which is worth the minor effort even of posting. Anything you have to say will face ridicule, it is a foregone conclusion.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 6, 2006 at 9:46 AM I support the Danish press right to have published the cartoons, it is free speech and the Danes will exercise it if anyone will. I am sorry to see so many Muslims enraged about it. I am less sensitive to the hurt caused by doing it, if it were in isolation. This is definately not the case.
It cannot be seen in isolation. This deliberate insult, for it was, a staged and intentional insult. You only have to see the cartoons. They are pretty poor.
Has anyone here seen the cartoons? Rabbit has.
they are crappy. They resemble the sort of cartoons normally common to much of Middle Eastern press, as it happens, which is rather transparent I think. Looks almost as if the intended audience was Middle Eastern. That sticks in my throat a bit, in the swallowing of the culpability argument.
More importantly though is that the Islamic world has been subjected to constant harrasment in the western dominated press, it has suffered continual warfare and threats which despite all the spin in the west, cannot be forgotten or rendered to mere academic exercises like they can by most westerners. It is a fact that the Islamic world is growing more and more intolerant of our demonisation and intolerance of them. Don’t forget you little weazal, WTH, that those fights which broke out here in OZ were about US attacking them, thanks largely to the government fearmongering and demonisation of Muslims.
If our suppossedly FREE PRESS was so free then there would be much more balanced coverage of the news. So much truth would not go unexplored exccept by Millions on the Internet., We do not have a free press, it is selective and clearly manipulated with an Agenda. This agenda has been anti Muslim for some time, and these cartoons are not printed in the spirit of a free press, even though it is being made into such a campaign on the surface. The nature of the cartoons give the lie. They were intended to be offensive, they were published for no other purpose than deliberate blasphemy.
So far WTH, nobody has been injured or really threatened with injury, the people are demonstrating, admittedly violently. Of course there will be deaths, and more rioting as things escalate. Of that I have no doubt.
The Danish contingent in Iraq has never been attacked and are merely being asked to apologise, and frankly in the interests of fairness and understanding, a great deal could be achieved by an all round apology and acceptance that we have all crossed a line here.
Of course WISDOM such as WTH espouses is the order of the day, so I guess it will be an all round, “nice knowing you folks”, one of these days instead.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 6, 2006 at 9:48 AM Thank you for your specificity, Rabbit. It is not an isolated incident, and how much vinegar should be pouring on the wounds of a people who are by a landslide NOT TERRORISTs? I wouldn’t be surprized if Sufi mystics starting burning things down. Equating being any kind of a Muslim with being a terrorist is simply wrong.
I found an article on terrorism today, that included mention of white supremacist terrorist groups in the U.S.A.:
...especially in the wake of 9/11, we’re just focused so much on Islamist terrorists. I just want to find the name of this—it’s a very, very interesting case in Texas. His name is William Krar. It’s extraordinary how little attention that case has gotten. Apparently he had 60 pipe bombs, 500,000 rounds of ammunition, and enough pure sodium cyanide, quote, to kill everyone inside a 30,000 square foot building, according to federal authorities. That’s a pretty big deal. Imagine the kind of press coverage a case like that would get if he were purportedly a member of al-Qaeda.
<a href=“http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/05/int04024.html”>
O.K., WTH, find the key words in this paragraph:
While Christian violence in the United States has been discriminately focused for decades against racial minorities and “immoral” targets, it recently has expanded into attempted bombings and poisoning municipal water supplies. (36) These indiscriminate attacks demonstrate a willingness to tolerate greater levels of collateral damage in efforts to generate mass levels of casualties. The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was the pinnacle of this trend, and although Timothy McVeigh accepted responsibility for that attack, some speculate that there was additional involvement by other conservative militia or Christian terrorists. (37) Effective domestic law enforcement in the United States has largely prevented these groups from achieving widespread violence on the level of Oklahoma City, making that incident a tragic exception among a larger number of foiled plots.
continued on next post
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 6, 2006 at 10:14 AM continued from above
One thing they have in common is a frustration with establishing a clear identity. What religious extremist groups offer—and that can even include groups that don’t get involved in terrorism—is a very clear identity. It’s very clear who we are, and it’s very clear who the outsiders are, and what makes us different from them. And one of the primary tasks of a religious terrorist leader is to capitalize on some feeling of humiliation, often related to identity, that they find in potential members (emphasis added). It could be a personal feeling of humiliation, or it could be civilizational, national. They make their followers feel that the way to forge a new identity is by getting involved with this violent group.
So WTH, don’t forget to worry about white supremacist groups poisoning your tap water; and consider that any public humiliation of muslim belief, arab culture, or the mideast, is giving fuel to the extremists who exploit the poor, illiterate, and helpless, and draft the intelligent, skilled, and angry.
Why stir up a hornet’s nest, especially when that entails hurting the bees ?
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 6, 2006 at 10:22 AM Knowing , as the rabbit does, The Danish Newspaper, Jyllands Posten, which first published the cartoons, it must be mentioned it is the more outspoken of the two in Jutland, the other being Midtjyllands Avis. They actually called for ebtries I believe. Basically it seems obvious that any entries were destined to be malaevolent. Most serious cartoonists steered away from it sating it was beyond acceptable, and besides highly dangerous.
How obvious is this that it was a deliberate attempt to provoke? My guess is the people behind the newspaper doing this, were Zionists. Rabbit has seen how infiltrated the newspapers are here and also the Jyllands Posten, though the same is true of anearly all major media outlets. Sometimes I wonder if the MAIN thrust of the Illuminati efforts is via the Media, and the Politicians are as much controlled by this factor as those select few actually involved with the overall strategy.
Which seems to be as much provocation of Islamic people as can be achieved. Using Media attacks, Threats and Military attacks, the provokations are becoming endless and gross. This latest example should have everyone wondering what the hell is going on in the media above all. That they can simultaneously print such blatantly offensive material, with no regard for the predictable damage it will cause, and yet refuse to print the truth about Spying on own citizens, loss of freedoms and the wholesale Lying and destruction of America as well as the world, based on easily verifiable NEWS if only the stupid cowardly corrupt DOGS would dare to print it.
Bastards!!!!!!!
It is the so called third estate, which has finally, crucially buggered us all in our sleep. Put us to sleep with stupid populist frippery and then pump us full of the scum that passes for news when it’s controlled by a few corporations.
All of which have close ties at the highest levels.
This scum is what we see regurgitated by nincompoops, morons, dittoheads, trolls and other assorted stupid wankers who like to pretend they have something to offer in a debate about the real world.
How hard is it to say oops, sorry we went a bit far on that, when the alternative could easily see deaths and increased bad feeling at a time of internation tensions.?
How easy is it to keep on printing and reprinting offensive pictures which are obviously causing great pain and anger amongst many millions of people for religious reasons, and which are designed for no other purpose?
I’d say watch the publications which print them. They will be your Zionist controlled outlets. Not the only ones sure but I’d be quite suspicious of any Rag which crossede this line at this time.
The media is not meant to make the news.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 6, 2006 at 11:52 AM The above fairly detailed biological description explains how a moron can talk out of it’s arse. In fact what we mean is this. They are getting it up the kyber, whilst living in states of denial, by the media which has them hypnotised, and can do anything with them it wants.
Today they are told War is Peace. They believe it and never questioned it. Individuals may, but they are not represented to any degree in the media, so nobody notices. Since nobody is questioning it beyond a few mildly disgruntled letters to the editor from a selecet few who are always balanced by the “Ditto” view in at least equal space. Mostly serious dissent is not seen and it is never focused upon. We have entered the twilight zone of Orwells nightmare vision.
I repeat it is the media which is the greatest enemy, not governments. With an open and truthful, zealous media, no government can go far astray. Without it the people are bad enough off. But if the same treacherous media should actually turn on it’s creators us it’s consumers, and b allow itself to be used to our detriment. To hide truth and decieve us. To control our views and to herd us like cattle to some end, like Iraq. A destructive, costly endless evil quagmire. Had the Media told the truth, sought that truth actively and competed within it’s ranks to tell the truth, then Bush and Gang would never have set one foot inside Iraq. It goes without saying if we had such a media, Bush and his gang, in fact probably none of the bastards would be in office even. I tell you, if you want to know where the real treachery occured, look no further than your Newspapers and Television stations. The media owners who feed it to you in selected news reports, re-enforce the message through TV series and all manner of tricks. They are the worst traitors. They have sold you out. They are essentially the PIMPS for the powers. They drug you with mindlessness via media manipulation and while your asleep, so to speak, you are used as described above. The media can sell your ass to any bidder, basically.
Among those clients who use the media services, pay for a piece of your ass basically, are the Pentagon, the government especially NSA it would seem, the Illuminati strategists, OIL companies and the Church a bit too perhaps.
Must be hard to get any rest with all that action going on behind their backs. Explains why they live in fear and terror I guess.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 6, 2006 at 12:14 PM Wiley,
“You have yet to recognize, WTH, that the overwhelming majority of Moslems in the world are not terrorists and do not support terrorism.”
Please note I was not referring to “...the overwhelming majority of Moslems” — I said, “radical Muslims.” A half dozen or so did a pretty thorough job on the WTC.
Also, this has nothing to do with, “...their nation.” They may be justified in being offended, but not justified in calling for punishment for poor taste or insensitivity. I have forgotten chapter and verse, but “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words (cartoons) will never hurt me.” I guess it’s not in the Koran.
These guys, however few, are saying in effect, “We are the authority on what you may express no matter who you are, where you live, or what you believe.” Then they add that they will call for the heads of anyone they find offensive.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 6, 2006 at 4:29 PM LB,
“No need to be lobbing any cruise missiles into Muslim homes, is there? “
I don’t expect that. (It is interesting that your first thought is not for the Danes who have been threatened.)
The radical Muslims will probably just wire up a few more idiots to go blow up a shop, an embassy, public square or school somewhere. (And then, you of course will say it is the fault of the U.S. and fascists like me.)
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 6, 2006 at 4:40 PM WTH “And then, you of course will say it is the fault of the U.S. and fascists like me.”
That is exactly what I am saying. Not.
My question is how do you separate the Muslim extremists from the Muslims who are just angry at having their culture and religion mocked? (And with such witless cartoonery to boot.) If it is a real war with (I assume) some kind of effective military resolution, that is?
I would say a mob shouting ‘Death to the infidels’ is something less than an actual meaningful threat. Unlike, say, a stockpile of thousands of nuclear weapons.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 6, 2006 at 9:02 PM So, WTH, what if Al Jazeera published drawings of Jesus Christ (with a hat shaped like a mushroom cloud) shitting red, white, and blue bombs on top of a little village where children are playing? Would you condemn any and all violent protests in the U.S., and site the old “sticks and stones” clause? Like if Iraqis wanted to test their new democracy and their right to free speech with the question Why are these followers of Christ in a country we did not threaten bombing our homes?
How about if they had that put on bulletin boards (that they rented, of course)?
How about a crude animation of the above scenario during the half time show of a big game? Brought to you by Pantex. You mark the targets, we’ll bring the bombs!
Free speech, right? Anyone complaining about insult is just trying to censor free speech, right? Nobody is actually responsible for what they say, right? It’s not as if words were significant—-like if they had meaning. (Yes, I am being facetious.)
I think those people should have listened to the inner voice that was telling them not to do it. Instead, they chose to insult a billion people (who claim Mohammed as a prophet) because of the actions of a small group (international terrorists).
They didn’t foresee the possibility of serious repercushions? Now they know. They can weigh for themselves the value of rubbing millions of other people’s noses in their right to “free speech”.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 7, 2006 at 5:27 AM Actually Armadhinejad may have the perfect response. Rabbit heard this morning he has called for Cartoonists to depict the Holocaust in Cartoons. Rabbit for one hopes this recieves a good response. Frankly he is much more likely to strike a nerve with that than showing Jesus getting a blowjob from one of his disciples or perhaps driving out the moneychangers from the temple so that he and his “gang” can control the drug trade going through the holy places.
A tit for tat insult match will buy a bit of time too, maybe.
Frankly Lumens, the rabbit is tired of wasting his energy wacking away at mindless morons, dittohead sheeple and loathsome shills. The end may well be nigh I fear. We have had the biginning of the end, and the middle seems to be getting a bit old. Now it seems like the beginning of a whole new chapter, and it the plot has definately not peaked yet.
This whole cartoon business is contrived. The cartoons came out months ago, the reaction is contrived. The signs in the protesting crowds with the most radical messsages, esspecially the highly improbable Death to Freedom one and the 911 type threats, are of suspiciously familiar construction and penmanship, the holders of those placards don’t seem right somehow.
Anyway let’s see what the response to the call for Holcaust cartoons brings, and don’t forget WTH, there is no law being made in even those middle eastern countries to ban free speech such as this. Like there are laws to ban free speech in dicussion about the details of the so called “Holocaust”.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 7, 2006 at 9:57 AM Ted Rall offers some interesting perspective in his latest political cartoon. It seems death threats are part of the job. At least for those on the left hand of the political spectrum. I don’t know, it might be something rare and special for those on the right.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 7, 2006 at 3:30 PM In the meantime the AG is on the radio displaying his considerable talents of dissembling about the Executive’s supposed authority to <u>ignore</u> the law under which they are supposedly given the responsibility to <u>uphold</u> the law.
“What a wicked web we weave,
When first we learn to decieve”Poor Richard
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 7, 2006 at 3:48 PM Wiley,
“So, WTH, what if Al Jazeera published drawings of Jesus Christ (with a hat shaped like a mushroom cloud) shitting red, white, and blue bombs on top of a little village where children are playing? Would you condemn any and all violent protests in the U.S., and site the old “sticks and stones” clause?”
Protest — NO.
“Violent protest” —Of course. (Either the Christian version of God has has a sense of humor or is very tolerant — I’d have been struck by lightning long ago were it not so.)
Political cartoons are by their very nature extreme, exagerated and often in poor taste (at least to those they criticize). Certainly many comments published on this site could be considered to fall into this category. This one becomes “political” do to the theocratic nature of THESE (not all) Islamists.
“They didn’t foresee the possibility of serious repercushions? Now they know.”Robertson was justifiably called to task (a non-violent protest) for his idiotic comments about Chavez at this site.
Will we get a similar article about this Muslim behavior. (Robertson was definitely not expressing a Christian majority opinion either.)
Free speech does, however, inherently permit exercising — stupidity, poor judgment, insult, religious insensitivity. But none of these should call for rioting, punishment and certainly not for death.
I’m very curious…
Why is it so often the case at this location that “we” are supposed to be “sensitive” to the religion or traditions of others at the expense of ours?
———————————-
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 7, 2006 at 4:32 PM LB,
“My question is how do you separate the Muslim extremists from the Muslims who are just angry at having their culture and religion mocked?”
Very difficult question. I’m not sure how. Neither were the London police. Nor ours, locally: Two nights ago a 26 year-old who had attempted to molest a woman at a super market was shot and killed by an officer. The man refused to halt and yelled, “ Go ahead and shoot me if you dare.” He made a move as if he was going to shoot the cops. In the dark alley I would have shot him too.
I guess my best judgment would be that, so far, my neighbor on the corner (Muslim) has not yet shouted that he wants me killed for being and “infidel.” If he did I would be inclined to be concerned - until then, no problem.
———————————& —————————-“If it is a real war with (I assume) some kind of effective military resolution, that is?”
It remains to be seen how far this will escalate.
“I would say a mob shouting ‘Death to the infidels’ is something less than an actual meaningful threat. Unlike, say, a stockpile of thousands of nuclear weapons.”
If you disbelieve their (radical Muslims) involvement in 9/11, are you content to ignore resent events in Spain, London, Russia. It is when the shouting is no longer heard that they resort to hostage taking and killing whoever is at hand or plotting mass murder.
———————————& —
“I think the Danish Foriegn Minister has already apologized without calling for censorship. Tres diplomatique, non?”Nope.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
“Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen hasn’t apologized; the newspaper did.”
From… DW-World.deDeutsche Welle Europe | 02.02.2006
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1889584,00.html
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 7, 2006 at 4:40 PM WTH,
From The Peninsula On-Line: Qatar
Doha: The First Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister H E Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabor Al Thani yesterday received a telephone call from Denmark’s Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller.
The Danish Foreign Minister expressed his country’s respect to the tolerant religion of Islam and all other religions. He also said his statements on cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) which have been published in Danish newspapers were handled by the international mass media in an incorrect way.
The Foreign Minister stressed importance of respecting all religions and stressed that freedom of opinion and expression should not be used to offend or to attack beliefs and holiness of any religion.
As I said, tres diplomatique.
I am not saying terrorists are not a threat, but compared to many more immediate threats from within our own government are practically trivial. It is reassuring that you state somewhat obliquely that terrorism is a matter for international <u>police</u> enforcement rather than <u>military force</u>. I trust you can infer that willing cooperation with Islamic countries is more important than rhetorical confrontation over what are after all trivial matters. That is my position.
I am not really interested in your attempts to assumptively distort my position for the sake of salving your ego. You are entitled to resent being called a fascist, but when you defend fascistic policies you open yourself to such criticism. I suggest you either learn to live with it or else re-examine your position.
Did you see the T. Rall cartoon?
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 7, 2006 at 7:47 PM WTH—-knock, knock, knock. How many armies from nations with a huge muslim populations are bombing your neighborhood? How many of those nations have their nuclear missiles trained on our cities?
You are one of the laziest thinkers I’ve ever met and are locked in self-made victim mode. Oh, poor us, poor us, we can’t kill moslems fast enough! We need a bigger bomb. We need tactical nuclear strike capability. We need bunker busters!
Ahhhhh. Why do you people always talk as if killing moslems wasn’t the number one goal of our faultless nation? Why do people complain when we arrest people in sweeps and torture and humiliate them? Why do people criticise us for launching aggressive attacks against people who did nothing to us? Why do people not accept the necessity to wipe out the muslim nations and leave their land radioactive for all time?
WhYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY? WAAAAAAAAAAAA. Boo hoo, booo hoooo. Why don’t they leave us alone and let us bomb them?
<b>Rabbit—-again you make me to laughter,
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 7, 2006 at 8:21 PM LB,
As to apology or not: I often find conflicting internet info. I guess if we cared enough we could check to find out when each comment was made. Could both have been right, or one only.
“I am not saying terrorists are not a threat, but compared to many more immediate threats from within our own government are practically trivial.”
We differ on this, but no surprise there.
“I trust you can infer that willing cooperation with Islamic countries is more important than rhetorical confrontation over what are after all trivial matters.”
This is not a matter at this point to be solved by “Islamic Countries”, but I see no reason to actively work at alienating Islamic countries with cartoons like these. But I don’t think any sovereign Islamic country controls the radicals. They may be able to exert some influence if we can all cooperate. Of course we would first need to agree the radicals should be stopped. I have my doubts on this basic idea.
Also I see no reason to actively work at alienating countries with with rhetoric such as they have been using either. I don’t think of national leaders calling for murder or attacking embassies as trivial.
“You are entitled to resent being called a fascist, but when you defend fascistic policies…”
Just what “fascist policies” do you refer to — something in these recent comments or something earlier?
——————————-Yes, I saw the T. Rall cartoon.
I have done a few political cartoons, but nothing as personally insulting as either Rall’s or the Danes’. Mine have had to do with job off shoring, lobbying, and judicial activism.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 7, 2006 at 8:39 PM WTH,
I originally referred to the Danish FM’s public comments. You said I was wrong and referred to the Danish PM’s public comments. This is your reading error. I take no responsibility for that. (I agree with Rabbit, the Danish PM is a hopeless asshole.)
We have no control over the hyperbole and bombast of other’s rhetoric except not to allow ourselves to be swayed. I trust we can agree with this on principle. However, I do question your ability to act responsibly in this regard.
Who exactly is Ted Rall personally insulting with his cartoon? Alan Keyes who publicly called for his murder, or the thousands of anonymous correspondents who mailed him death threats? How is that insulting if it is true? Don’t you think one bears responsibility for one’s speech?
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 7, 2006 at 9:21 PM LB,
FM/PM: Whoops, sorry about that. In the AM I have enough trouble remembering if I am on AM or FM.
Rall is “personally insulting” all Republicans in the same degree the Danish cartoons personally insult any believing Moslem.
He takes Keyes’ stupid comments and extends it to Republicans in general. (By the way I am NOT a Republican as I had to remind Tom Delay several times.) I voted for Obama — Keyes choice was my state’s Republican committee at work.
His cartoon does not bother me and would not even if I were a Republican — after all, it is only a cartoon and Rall’s view. Not an big deal type of insult — and it’s funny besides.
I don’t like being identified with fascists, but am not about to go ballistic over it and burn an embassy tonight. I particularly liked the “Out of Virgins” cartoon, but would not have drawn it under today’s circumstances.
I’ll admit to missing some of the ethnic jokes we used to get. But if I remember correctly the public ones on TV and radio we usually told by someone about one’s own group. (The Jewish mother-in-law or mother by Hennie Youngman, or the Flip Wilson black jokes.)
People seem so much more intense and touchy now.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 7, 2006 at 11:27 PM WTH,
If Rall is insulting ‘all Republicans’ then I would say that is a ‘generic’ rather than a ‘personal’ insult for the simple reason that ‘all Republicans’ is not a person. I think Rall is directing his irony at those particular Republicans who have mailed death threats. If any Republicans take his insult personally, that implies that they are in agreement with those who have sent death threats. If that is so, then I would not in any way defend their perception of offence. Why do you if, you believe death threats are not defensible speech?
I know you are salivating, after reading the above, to ask me why I defend Muslim death threats. Short answer, I don’t. It’s mob talk. Irrational, incoherent and impotent. I am precisely concerned about public officials and the punditry from where ever throwing gas on the fire.
You bet people are getting intense and touchy now. We’re involved in an illegal and immoral foriegn occupation abroad and approaching unbridled tyranny at home. Meanwhile vital questions about Global Warming, large scale cultural, social and economic alienation, declining education, public health, etc. go scarcely addressed. If you are unaffected, you’re not paying attention.
The humor about the ‘virgins’ is dependent on false and ignorant western beliefs and perceptions about Islam, a major contribution to why it is considered so insulting.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 8, 2006 at 12:38 AM Wiley,
I fear you are in danger of becoming merely a figment of your own imagination.
Do not hold out hope for a position in the diplomatiic corps.
Posted by whattheheck on Feb 8, 2006 at 1:39 AM Has anyone else ever noticed how the favorite analogy of morons and dittoheads is that of Police shooting people?
Invariably WTH, Scorpy, Jay, Jay and other morons raise the analogy of a policeman shooting shooting some. They make the assumption in EVRY case that the shooting is justifiable no matter the circumstances, even as mistaken or accidental or whatever, just so long as a policeman does it, ie: Authority, then it is OK and can be used as an effective counter to any argument of brutality and violence.
I think it is to be expected that this is the favorite image of the clowns whose contact with the world happens through the Televison screen. The fact that it is their measure stick, their benchmark, shows no matter what they might bleat, that they are attached to the TV at the brain.
“I know it’s true cause I heard it on TV”
..............Thanks John Fogerty
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 8, 2006 at 3:27 AM WTH in his pathetically wanting guesswork about the Cartoon inspired violence, is choosing to ignore that this has not occurred in a vacuum.
It was not the Danish who were the first to print such cartoons, actually it has been done before, and even in this case the incident happened way back in September last year. The whole thing is a setup, and it is obviously being done to push the Europeans towards supporting a Bush war on Iran. It is transparant and a mere checking of the people involved with the staged printing of these cartoons now is very telling in itself. All Neo-Con stooges.
The thing is the real result can only be a hastening of conflict, and ensuring that people will not think rationally about any of it. Personally I don’t think they need have bothered for all the likelihood of that happening.
Of course the fact that the police in the countries where riots and protests are happening are shooting their own people in a bid to control and protect the embassies and foreigners. The cockheads like WTH will still use it as justification for attacking the nations concerned. Idiot warmogering hypocrits.
Well just don’t forget because the rabbit will keep reminding you, that it is a criminal offence to be offensive to the Religion of the Holocaust.
The religion of the holocaust is about to get a cartoon attack in return and I think we should wait and see what reaction that brings before we go pointing the finger.
I think that goes doubly so for person who comes from a rogue war criminal state like USA. You really must get over the habit of assuming pre-eminence in morality or right to tell anyone anything about how to run their countries.
Your nation is an international disgrace in every sense of the word, and as I’ve pointed out, this doesn’t leave you any credibility when it comes to pointing out the faults, real or imagined, (by you), of anyone else. Period.
Perhaps you can put shit on Mugabe, and Burma, on many grounds the USA has more moral standing than either of them, and if one thinks about it there may be a handful more nations so corrupt and vicious and completely mercenary they could be criticised by the USA.
Rabbit just realised where thoise handful of countries which are the lowest in human rights and highest in corruption. They are to be found voting with the USA everytime they need extra help swinging somethinmg the rest of the world is resisting.
These are your most faithful allies. Telling isn’t it.
Perhaps you could on most grounds.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 8, 2006 at 3:45 AM Of course the above post was specifically for WTH. Apologies to true American patriots who are forced to share a flag with….people…....like this braindead sack of arrogance, hubris and terror.
Perhaps since there really are not, that many Terrorists, but there do appear to be so many who are terrified of them to such a mind boggling degree they are voluntarily choosing to live in a martial law state with no rights or freedom, maybe we need a new name?
Many of us feel no terror. In the end, what is a terrorist if he fails to terrify? Rabbit has never yet been terrified of anybody let alone any terrorist. So since many of us feel the same way, we are just normal people. We are not especially brave, just normal men and women. We don’t have such a strong emotional feeling of fear that we will sell our asses just to assuage it a bit. Apparently between 20% and 25% of the US population is technically psychotic at this time. That from American researchers.
I’ll bet these people all fall into the category which is terrified of terror attacks and who shiver in fear whenever the code red goes up, and who almost wet themsleves in gratitude when the fuerer comes onmto the TV to tell them he
“Will do anything in my power to catch and destroy these terrorists and protect the poor widdle peoples from the big bad Mad Muslim hordes.”
What would you call these anti-terrorists?Terrorised? Terroree? Terrorniks?
Terrorclowns? Terrorsubs?
Curs? Cringers?
Rabbit sort of likes Cringers. The name should perhaps not include Terror, this is too frightening. It should preferably be something soothing and calming, like CRINGERS.
Posted by Rabbit on Feb 8, 2006 at 4:59 AM Go ahead and fear, WTH, that is apparently what you do. I, however, am strong, brave, and have no interest in being a diplomat, which you may have noticed.
I was hoping you would have a more fiesty rebuttal. Sometimes smacking back gives you a little depth.
Oh, I don’t think that anyone can be a figment of their own imagination, What the Heck. Imagination is a product of the brain, which is a physical object. If one is a figment of imagination, then one is not real, and cannot have a brain that is the instrument of the imagination of the person who can’t be a figment of their own imagination.
You follow? Diplomats, btw, often resort to logic. Watch Lumens and take notes. I do.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 8, 2006 at 6:56 AM I like chickens—-clear, concise, easily recognizable. The ones who would vote for Satan if he promised that the police, homeland security, the military, and security guards at malls would all be required to shoot anyone who looked suspicious. This would also cause a dramatic decrease in the case loads of family courts.
Statistically, so far, we are far more likely to be killed by a vending machine than by a terrorist. Yes—-even after our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq drove the rate of terrorist attacks upward.
I never could figure out why Americans weren’t freaked out about driving around with their heads up their butts, under the influence of who-knows-how-many drugs (legal and illlegal) and/or alcohol. Shoot, the cell phone alone makes people insanely negligent in their driving duties to pay attention to what the f*ck they are doing, where they are going, and what other drivers nearby are doing.
Driving down the road in a GM tank, drunk and under the influence of Prozac and antihistamines, having a violent argument with the spouse on the cell phone, turning around to yell at the kids and slap them now and then, and going 60 miles an hour. That doesn’t scare them. Bin Laden scares them.
They be so blind, Ja. So sad. They be killing themselves, mon, killing the selves. Ja won’t do anything about it.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 8, 2006 at 7:14 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
- Block ’Em, Sock ’Em
- Buy Back Our Government
- A Specter is Haunting Dems
- Bailout Bandits
- Building Utopia
A new documentary profiles the rise and fall of a Depression-era utopian experiment in the Bronx. - To Boycott Israel…or Not?
Naomi Klein and Rabbi Arthur Waskow debate whether divestment will bring peace to the Middle East.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
