Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
My Links
Juliadewi's Blog
Realworld84's Blog
Spymaster's Blog
Lazypeon's Blog
Limesnkoolaid's Blog
Gbcobber's Blog
Kana's Blog
Counterpunch Americas Best Political Newsletter
Executive PayWatch Database
judo info
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Theory |
| 07.31.04 (8:03 pm) [edit] |
The myth of American blacks having big penises exists because of the selective process that their slave ancestors went through to get to America and once in America. Slaves with strength, endurance, and fertility were chosen over those that were weak and less successful at reproduction because their penises were too small. It is a proven fact that the slaves went through a selective breeding process, in order to "bring out" these traits. The selective breeding over years has made the african Americans physically, bigger and stronger, Then there counterpoints. The white slave owners most likely did this to them, as away to increse man power or production without haveing to obtain more slaves. The bigger slave could do more phyiscal work then a smaller slave. So i guess the white forced the big male slaves to breed with other big female slaves. This createing the bigger slave who could do more work. Now since, this selective breeding has happened. The African Americans have come to dominate the sports world. They dominate football, basketball, baseball. Those four sport require the players to be strong and physically big. Now the African Americans have moved into the white dominated golf world. There are a few sports left that the African American have not dominated yet? Those sports are tennis and boweling. Nascar, jockey for a race horse. If the white slave owner have'nt forced selective breeding, I don't think the African Americans would be so dominate in the American sports world today. I am not white and i am not black. I just find it funny that the wealthly white slave owner polices of selective breeding have come back to haunt the once white dominited American sports world. Well not the enitre American sports world just basketball and football. But the white atheletes still give good competition againist the black athletes. |
| Why There is a Culture War |
| 07.31.04 (7:08 pm) [edit] |
|
Why There Is A Culture War Gramsci and Tocqueville in America By John Fonte s intellectual historians have often had occasion to observe, there are times in a nation’s history when certain ideas are just "in the air." Admittedly, this point seems to fizzle when applied to our particular historical moment. On the surface of American politics, as many have had cause to mention, it appears that the main trends predicted over a decade ago in Francis Fukuyama’s "The End of History?" have come to pass — that ideological (if not partisan) strife has been muted; that there is a general consensus about the most important questions of the day (capitalism, not socialism; democracy, not authoritarianism); and that the contemporary controversies that do exist, while occasionally momentous, are essentially mundane, concerned with practical problem-solving (whether it is better to count ballots by hand or by machine) rather than with great principles. And yet, I would argue, all that is true only on the surface. For simultaneously in the United States of the past few decades, recurring philosophical concepts have not only remained "in the air," but have proved influential, at times decisive, in cultural and legal and moral arguments about the most important questions facing the nation. Indeed: Prosaic appearances to the contrary, beneath the surface of American politics an intense ideological struggle is being waged between two competing worldviews. I will call these "Gramscian" and "Tocquevillian" after the intellectuals who authored the warring ideas — the twentieth-century Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, and, of course, the nineteenth-century French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville. The stakes in the battle between the intellectual heirs of these two men are no less than what kind of country the United States will be in decades to come. Refining class warfare e’ll begin with an overview of the thought of Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), a Marxist intellectual and politician. Despite his enormous influence on today’s politics, he remains far less well-known to most Americans than does Tocqueville. Gramsci’s main legacy arises through his departures from orthodox Marxism. Like Marx, he argued that all societies in human history have been divided into two basic groups: the privileged and the marginalized, the oppressor and the oppressed, the dominant and the subordinate. Gramsci expanded Marx’s ranks of the "oppressed" into categories that still endure. As he wrote in his famous Prison Notebooks, "The marginalized groups of history include not only the economically oppressed, but also women, racial minorities and many ‘criminals.’" What Marx and his orthodox followers described as "the people," Gramsci describes as an "ensemble" of subordinate groups and classes in every society that has ever existed until now. This collection of oppressed and marginalized groups — "the people" — lack unity and, often, even consciousness of their own oppression. To reverse the correlation of power from the privileged to the "marginalized," then, was Gramsci’s declared goal. Power, in Gramsci’s observation, is exercised by privileged groups or classes in two ways: through domination, force, or coercion; and through something called "hegemony," which means the ideological supremacy of a system of values that supports the class or group interests of the predominant classes or groups. Subordinate groups, he argued, are influenced to internalize the value systems and world views of the privileged groups and, thus, to consent to their own marginalization. Far from being content with a mere uprising, therefore, Gramsci believed that it was necessary first to delegitimize the dominant belief systems of the predominant groups and to create a "counter-hegemony" (i.e., a new system of values for the subordinate groups) before the marginalized could be empowered. Moreover, because hegemonic values permeate all spheres of civil society -- schools, churches, the media, voluntary associations -- civil society itself, he argued, is the great battleground in the struggle for hegemony, the "war of position." From this point, too, followed a corollary for which Gramsci should be known (and which is echoed in the feminist slogan) — that all life is "political." Thus, private life, the work place, religion, philosophy, art, and literature, and civil society, in general, are contested battlegrounds in the struggle to achieve societal transformation. It is perhaps here that one sees Gramsci’s most important reexamination of Marx’s thought. Classical Marxists implied that a revolutionary consciousness would simply develop from the objective (and oppressive) material conditions of working class life. Gramsci disagreed, noting that "there have always been exploiters and exploited" — but very few revolutions per se. In his analysis, this was because subordinate groups usually lack the "clear theoretical consciousness" necessary to convert the "structure of repression into one of rebellion and social reconstruction." Revolutionary "consciousness" is crucial. Unfortunately, the subordinate groups possess "false consciousness," that is to say, they accept the conventional assumptions and values of the dominant groups, as "legitimate." But real change, he continued to believe, can only come about through the transformation of consciousness. Just as Gramsci’s analysis of consciousness is more nuanced than Marx’s, so too is his understanding of the role of intellectuals in that process. Marx had argued that for revolutionary social transformation to be successful, the world views of the predominant groups must first be unmasked as instruments of domination. In classical Marxism, this crucial task of demystifying and delegitimizing the ideological hegemony of the dominant groups is performed by intellectuals. Gramsci, more subtly, distinguishes between two types of intellectuals: "traditional" and "organic." What subordinate groups need, Gramsci maintains, are their own "organic intellectuals." However, the defection of "traditional" intellectuals from the dominant groups to the subordinate groups, he held, is also important, because traditional intellectuals who have "changed sides" are well positioned within established institutions. The metaphysics, or lack thereof, behind this Gramscian worldview are familiar enough. Gramsci describes his position as "absolute historicism," meaning that morals, values, truths, standards and human nature itself are products of different historical epochs. There are no absolute moral standards that are universally true for all human beings outside of a particular historical context; rather, morality is "socially constructed." Historically, Antonio Gramsci’s thought shares features with other writers who are classified as "Hegelian Marxists" — the Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs, the German thinker Karl Korsch, and members of the "Frankfurt School" (e.g., Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse), a group of theorists associated with the Institute for Social Research founded in Frankfurt, Germany in the 1920s, some of whom attempted to synthesize the thinking of Marx and Freud. All emphasized that the decisive struggle to overthrow the bourgeois regime (that is, middle-class liberal democracy) would be fought out at the level of consciousness. That is, the old order had to be rejected by its citizens intellectually and morally before any real transfer of power to the subordinate groups could be achieved. Gramsci’s long reach he relation of all these abstractions to the nuts and bolts of American politics is, as the record shows, surprisingly direct. All of Gramsci’s most innovative ideas -- for example, that dominant and subordinate groups based on race, ethnicity, and gender are engaged in struggles over power; that the "personal is political"; and that all knowledge and morality are social constructions -- are assumptions and presuppositions at the very center of today’s politics. So too is the very core of the Gramscian-Hegelian world view — group-based morality, or the idea that what is moral is what serves the interests of "oppressed" or "marginalized" ethnic, racial, and gender groups. What, for example, lies behind the concept of "jury nullification," a notion which now enjoys the support of law professors at leading universities? Building on the Hegelian-Marxist concepts of group power and group-based morality, jury nullification advocates argue that minorities serving on juries should use their "power" as jurors to refuse to convict minority defendants regardless of the evidence presented in court, because the minority defendants have been "powerless," lifelong victims of an oppressive system that is skewed in favor of dominant groups, such as white males. Indeed, what is called "critical theory" — a direct descendant of Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist thinking — is widely influential in both law and education. Critical legal studies posits that the law grows out of unequal relations of power and therefore serves the interests of and legitimizes the rule of dominant groups. Its subcategories include critical race theory and feminist legal theory. The critical legal studies movement could hardly be more Gramscian; it seeks to "deconstruct" bourgeois legal ideas that serve as instruments of power for the dominant groups and "reconstruct" them to serve the interests of the subordinate groups. Or consider the echoes of Gramsci in the works of yet another law professor, Michigan’s Catharine MacKinnon. She writes in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), "The rule of law and the rule of men are one thing, indivisible," because "State power, embodied in law, exists throughout society as male power." Furthermore, "Male power is systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the regime." Therefore, MacKinnon notes, "a rape is not an isolated event or moral transgression or individual interchange gone wrong but an act of terrorism and torture within a systemic context of group subjection, like lynching." Similarly, MacKinnon has argued that sexual harassment is essentially an issue of power exercised by the dominant over the subordinate group. Such thinking may begin in ivory towers, but it does not end there. The United States Supreme Court adopted MacKinnon’s theories as the basis for its interpretation of sexual harassment law in the landmark Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986). This is only one example of how major American social policy has come to be based not on Judeo-Christian precepts nor on Kantian-Enlightenment ethics, but on Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist concepts of group power. Hegel among the CEOs uite apart from their popularity among academics and in certain realms of politics, Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist ideas are also prominent in three other major sectors of American civil society: foundations, universities, and corporations. As laymen and analysts alike have observed over the years, the major foundations — particularly Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and MacArthur — have for decades spent millions of dollars promoting "cutting edge" projects on racial, ethnic, and gender issues. According to author and foundation expert Heather Mac Donald, for example, feminist projects received $36 million from Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, and other large foundations between 1972 and 1992. Similarly, according to a Capital Research Center report by Peter Warren, a policy analyst at the National Association of Scholars, foundations have crowned diversity the "king" of American campuses. For example, the Ford Foundation launched a Campus Diversity Initiative in 1990 that funded programs in about 250 colleges and universities at a cost of approximately $15 million. The Ford initiative promotes what sounds like a Gramscian’s group-rights dream: as Peter Warren puts it, "the establishment of racial, ethnic, and sex-specific programs and academic departments, group preferences in student admissions, group preferences in staff and faculty hiring, sensitivity training for students and staff, and campus-wide convocations to raise consciousness about the need for such programs." Alan Kors, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has described in detail how Ford and other foundation "diversity" grants are put to use. As he noted in "Thought Reform 101" in the March 2000 issue of Reason, "at almost all our campuses, some form of moral and political re-education has been built into freshmen orientation." A "central goal of these programs," Kors states, "is to uproot ‘internalized oppression,’ a crucial concept in the diversity education planning documents of most universities." The concept of "internalized oppression" is the same as the Hegelian-Marxist notion of "false consciousness," in which people in the subordinate groups "internalize" (and thus accept) the values and ways of thinking of their oppressors in the dominant groups. At Columbia University, for instance, new students are encouraged to get rid of "their own social and personal beliefs that foster inequality." To accomplish this, the assistant dean for freshmen, Katherine Balmer, insists that "training" is needed. At the end of freshmen orientation at Bryn Mawr in the early 1990s, according to the school program, students were "breaking free" of "the cycle of oppression" and becoming "change agents." Syracuse University’s multicultural program is designed to teach students that they live "in a world impacted by various oppression issues, including racism." Kors states that at an academic conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska, the attendees articulated the view that "White students desperately need formal ‘training’ in racial and cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should override white notions of privacy and individualism." One of the leading "diversity experts" providing scores of "training programs" in universities, corporations, and government bureaucracies is Hugh Vasquez of the Todos Institute of Oakland, California. Vasquez’s study guide for a Ford Foundation-funded diversity film, Skin Deep, explains the meaning of "white privilege" and "internalized oppression" for the trainees. It also explains the concept of an "ally," as an individual from the "dominant group" who rejects his "unmerited privilege" and becomes an advocate for the position of the subordinate groups. This concept of the "ally," of course, is Gramscian to the core; it is exactly representative of the notion that subordinate groups struggling for power must try to "conquer ideologically" the traditional intellectuals or activist cadres normally associated with the dominant group. The employees of America’s major corporations take many of the same sensitivity training programs as America’s college students, often from the same "diversity facilitators." Frederick Lynch, the author of the Diversity Machine, reported "diversity training" is rampant among the Fortune 500. Even more significantly, on issues of group preferences vs. individual opportunity, major corporate leaders tend to put their money and influence behind group rights instead of individual rights. After California voters passed Proposition 209, for example — a referendum outlawing racial and gender preferences in employment — Ward Connerly, the African-American businessman who led the effort, launched a similar antipreferences initiative in the state of Washington. The Washington initiative I-200 read as follows: "The State shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, or public contracting." This language was almost identical to California’s Proposition 209. Atlantic Monthly editor Michael Kelly reported in the Washington Post on August 23 that when asked his opinion on Proposition 209 during the referendum debate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman replied, "I can’t see how I could be opposed to it. . . . It is basically a statement of American values . . . and says we shouldn’t discriminate in favor of somebody based on the group they represent." However, Washington’s business leaders disagreed. In his autobiography Creating Equal, Ward Connerly wrote that the "most important significant obstacle we faced in Washington was not the media, or even political personalities, but the corporate world. . . . Boeing, Weyerhauser, Starbucks, Costco, and Eddie Bauer all made huge donations to the No on I-200 campaign. . . . The fundraising was spearheaded by Bill Gates, Sr., a regent of the University of Washington, whose famous name seemed to suggest that the whole of the high-tech world was solemnly shaking its head at us." Interestingly, private corporations are also more supportive of another form of group rights — gay rights — than are government agencies at any level. As of June 2000, for example, approximately 100 Fortune 500 companies had adopted health benefits for same-sex partners. According to the gay rights organization, Human Rights Campaign, the companies offering same-sex benefits include the leading corporations in the Fortune 500 ranking: among the top 10, General Motors (ranked first), Ford (fourth), IBM (sixth), AT&T (eighth), and Boeing (tenth), as well as Hewlett-Packard, Merrill Lynch, Chase Manhattan Bank, Bell Atlantic, Chevron, Motorola, Prudential, Walt Disney, Microsoft, Xerox, and United Airlines. Corporate reaction to gay activist attacks on Dr. Laura Schlessinger is another indication of how Hegelian-Gramscian the country’s business leaders have become. Sears and EchoStar have lately joined a long list of advertisers — Procter and Gamble, Xerox, AT&T, Toys R Us, Kraft, General Foods, and Geico — in pulling their advertising from the popular talk show host. Whether these decisions favoring gay (read: group) rights were motivated by ideology, economic calculation, or an opportunistic attempt to appear "progressive," they typify American businesses’ response to the culture war. The Tocquevillian counterattack he primary resistance to the advance of Gramscian ideas comes from an opposing quarter that I will call contemporary Tocquevillianism. Its representatives take Alexis de Tocqueville’s essentially empirical description of American exceptionalism and celebrate the traits of this exceptionalism as normative values to be embraced. As Tocqueville noted in the 1830s (and as the World Values Survey, a scholarly comparative assessment, reaffirmed in the 1990s), Americans are different from Europeans in several crucial respects. Two recent books — Seymour Martin Lipset’s American Exceptionalism (1997) and Michael Ledeen’s Tocqueville on American Character (2000) — have made much the same point: that Americans today, just as in Tocqueville’s time, are much more individualistic, religious, and patriotic than the people of any other comparably advanced nation. What was particularly exceptional for Tocqueville (and contemporary Tocquevillians) is the singular American path to modernity. Unlike other modernists, Americans combined strong religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group affiliations. The trinity of American exceptionalism could be described as (1) dynamism (support for equality of individual opportunity, entrepreneurship, and economic progress); (2) religiosity (emphasis on character development, mores, and voluntary cultural associations) that works to contain the excessive individual egoism that dynamism sometimes fosters; and (3) patriotism (love of country, self-government, and support for constitutional limits). Among today’s Tocquevillians we could include public intellectuals William Bennett, Michael Novak, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Marvin Olasky, Norman Podhoretz, and former Clinton White House advisor and political philosopher William Galston, and scholars Wilfred McClay, Harvey Mansfield, and Walter MacDougall. Neoconservatives, traditional conservatives of the National Review-Heritage Foundation stripe, some students of political philosopher Leo Strauss, and some centrist Democrats are Tocquevillian in their emphasis on America’s special path to modernity that combines aspects of the pre-modern (emphasis on religion, objective truth, and transcendence) with the modern (self-government, constitutional liberalism, entrepreneurial enterprise). The writings of neoconservative Irving Kristol and National Review-style conservative Charles Kesler clarify this special American path to modernity. Like thoughtful scholars before them, both make a sharp distinction between the moderate (and positive) Enlightenment (of Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith) that gave birth to the American Revolution and the radical (and negative) Enlightenment (Condorcet and the philosophes) that gave birth to the Revolution in France. Like their ideological opposites, Tocquevillians are also represented in business and government. In the foundation world, prevailing Gramscian ideas have been challenged by scholars funded by the Bradley, Olin, and Scaife foundations. For example, Michael Joyce of Bradley has called his foundation’s approach "Tocquevillian" and supported associations and individuals that foster moral and religious underpinnings to self-help and civic action. At the same time, Joyce called in "On Self-Government" (Policy Review, July-August 1998) for challenging the "political hegemony" of the service providers and "scientific managers" who run the "therapeutic state" that Tocqueville feared would result in "an immense and tutelary" power that threatened liberty. As for the political world, a brief list of those influenced by the Tocquevillian side of the argument would include, for example, Sen. Daniel Coats of Indiana, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, and Gov. George W. Bush of Texas. All have supported Tocquevillian initiatives and employed Tocquevillian language in endorsing education and welfare measures that emphasize the positive contributions of faith and responsibility. There is also a third category to be considered here — those institutions and and individuals that also oppose the Gramscian challenge, but who are not Tocquevillians because they reject one or more features of the trinity of American exceptionalism. For example, Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel sees the world divided into pro-change "dynamists" and anti-change "stasists." Postrel’s libertarianism emphasizes only one aspect of American exceptionalism, its dynamism, and slights the religious and patriotic pillars that in the Tocquevillian synthesis provide the nation’s moral and civic core. Similarly, paleoconservatives such as Samuel Francis, a leading Buchananite intellectual, oppose modernism and the Enlightenment in all its aspects, not simply its radical wing. Likewise secular patriots such as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. embrace a positive form of enlightened American nationalism, but are uncomfortable with the religious and entrepreneurial (including the antistatist) traditions that complete the Tocquevillian trinity. Catholic social democrats like E.J. Dionne accept the religious part of the Tocquevillian trinity, but would like to curb its risky dynamism and deemphasize its patriotism. A few years ago, several conservative and religious intellectuals writing in a First Things magazine symposium suggested that American liberal democracy was facing a crisis of legitimacy. One of the symposium writers, Judge Robert Bork, suggests in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah that "revolutionary" upheavals of the 1960s were "not a complete break with the spirit of the American past," but inherent in the Enlightenment framework of America’s founding principles. Bork and others — including Paul Weyrich and Cal Thomas — appear to have speculated that perhaps America’s path to modernity was itself flawed (too much dynamism and too little morality). What could be called a partial Tocquevillian position of some conservative intellectuals and activists could be contrasted with the work of American Catholic Whigs — for example, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Novak and the Faith and Reason Institute’s Robert Royal — who have argued, in essence, that America’s founding principles are sound and that the three elements of the Tocquevillian synthesis (entrepreneurial dynamism, religion, and patriotism) are at the heart of the American experience and of America’s exceptional contribution to the idea of ordered liberty. At the end of the day it is unlikely that the libertarians, paleoconservatives, secular patriots, Catholic social democrats, or disaffected religious right intellectuals will mount an effective resistance to the continuing Gramscian assault. Only the Tocquevillians appear to have the strength — in terms of intellectual firepower, infrastructure, funding, media attention, and a comprehensive philosophy that taps into core American principles — to challenge the Gramscians with any chance of success. Tocquevillianism as praxis riting in Policy Review in 1996, Adam Meyerson described the task of cultural renewal as "applied Tocquevillianism." In explaining one of his key points, Tocqueville writes in Democracy in America that "mores" are central to the "Maintenance of a Democratic Republic in the United States." He defines "mores" as not only "the habits of the heart," but also the "different notions possessed by men, the various opinions current among them, and the sum of ideas that shape mental habits" — in short, he declares, "the whole moral and intellectual state of a people." One of the leading manifestos of the Tocquevillians is "A Call to Civil Society: Why Democracy Needs Moral Truths," published by the Council on Civil Society. It outlines the traditional civic and moral values (Tocqueville’s "mores") that buttress the republic. The document (endorsed by, among others, Sens. Coats and Lieberman, in addition to Don Eberly, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Francis Fukuyama, William Galston, Glenn Loury, Cornel West, James Q. Wilson, and Daniel Yankelovitch) states that the "civic truths" of the American regime are "those of Western constitutionalism, rooted in both classical understandings of natural law and natural right and in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. . . . The moral truths that make possible our experiment in self-government," according to this statement, "are in large part biblical and religious," informed by the "classical natural law tradition" and the "ideas of the Enlightenment." The "most eloeloquent expressions" of these truths are "found in the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural Address, and King’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail." The Tocquevillians, then, emphasize "renewing" and "rediscovering" American mores, suggesting that there is a healthy civic and moral core to the American regime that needs to be brought back to life. Moreover, if the first task is cultural renewal, the second task is cultural transmission. Thus, the "Call to Civil Society" declares that the "central task of every generation is moral transmission." Religion, in particular, "has probably been the primary force" that "transmits from one generation to another the moral understandings that are essential to liberal democratic institutions." Moreover, "[at] their best . . . our houses of worship foster values that are essential to human flourishing and democratic civil society: personal responsibility, respect for moral law, and neighbor-love or concern for others." In addition, the statement declares that a "basic responsibility of the school is cultural transmission," particularly "a knowledge of [the] country’s constitutional heritage, an understanding of what constitutes good citizenship, and an appreciation of [this] society’s common civic faith and shared moral philosophy." In the matter of practice, the past few years have also witnessed what could be called "Tocquevillian" initiatives that attempt to bring faith-based institutions (particularly churches) into federal and state legislative efforts to combat welfare and poverty. In the mid-1990s, Sen. Coats, working with William Bennett and other intellectuals, introduced a group of 19 bills known as the Project for American Renewal. Among other things these bills advocated dollar for dollar tax credits for contributions to charitable organizations, including churches. Coats’s goal in introducing this legislation was to push the debate in a Tocquevillian direction, by getting policy makers thinking about new ways of involving religious and other civic associations in social welfare issues. Coats and others were asking why the faith community was being excluded from participating in federal social programs. At the same time there are other Tocquevillians, including Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, who favor tax credits, but worry that by accepting federal grant money the faith institutions could become dependent on government money and adjust their charitable projects to government initiatives. In 1996 Congress included a "charitable choice" provision in the landmark welfare reform legislation. The charitable choice section means that if a state receives federal funds to provide services, it could not discriminate against religious organizations if they wanted to compete for federal grants to provide those services. The section includes guidelines designed simultaneously to protect both the religious character of the faith-based institutions receiving the federal funds and the civil rights of the individuals using the services. However, in 1998 the Clinton administration attempted to dilute the "charitable choice" concept in another piece of legislation by stating that administration lawyers opposed giving funds to what they described as "pervasively sectarian" institutions that could be inferred to mean churches doing charitable work. Besides activity at the federal level, some states have started similar projects. Faithworks Indiana, a center sponsored by the state government, assists faith-based institutions with networking. In Illinois state agencies are reaching out to faith-based institutions through the "Partners for Hope" program. In Mississippi Governor Kirk Fordice launched the "Faith and Families" program with the ambitious goal of linking each of the state’s 5,000 churches with a welfare recipient. Both Gov. George W. Bush in Texas and Sen. Joseph Lieberman in Congress have been friendly to some Tocquevillian approaches to legislation. Bush has promoted legislation to remove licensing barriers to church participation in social programs. He has also supported faith initiatives in welfare-to-work and prison reform projects. Lieberman supported the charitable choice provision of the welfare reform act and co-sponsored the National Youth Crime Prevention Demonstration Act that would promote "violence free zones" by working with grass-roots organizations, including faith-based organizations. Legislative battlegrounds ramscian concepts have been on the march through Congress in recent years, meeting in at least some cases Tocquevillian resistance and counterattack. For example, the intellectual underpinning for the Gender Equity in Education Act of 1993 (and most gender equity legislation going back to the seminal Women’s Educational Equity Act, or WEEA, of the 1970s) is the essentially Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist concept of "systemic" or "institutionalized oppression." In this view, the mainstream institutions of society, including the schools, enforce an "oppressive" system (in this case, a "patriarchy") at the expense of a subordinate group (i.e., women and girls). The work of Harvard education professor Carol Gilligan, promoted by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), was influential in persuading Congress to support the Gender Equity in Education Act. Professor Gilligan identifies the main obstacles to educational opportunity for American girls as the "patriarchial social order," "androcentric and patriarchical norms," and "Western thinking" — that is to say, the American "system" itself is at fault. In speaking on behalf of the bill, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine made a Gramscian case, decrying "systemic discrimination against girls." Democratic Rep. Patsy Mink of Hawaii likewise attacked the "pervasive nature" of antifemale bias in the educational system. Maryland Republican Rep. Connie Morella declared that throughout the schools "inequitable practices are widespread and persistent." Not surprisingly, she insisted that "gender equity training" for "teachers, counselors, and administrators" be made available with federal funds. As noted earlier, one of the remedies to "systemic oppression" is "training" (of the "reeducation" type described by Professor Kors) that seeks to alter the "consciousness" of individuals in both the dominant groups and subordinate groups. Thus, Sen. Snowe also advocated "training" programs to eliminate "sexual harassment in its very early stages in our Nation’s schools." In a related exercise in Gramscian reasoning, Congress in 1994 passed the Violence Against Women Act. According to Democratic Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the "whole purpose" of the bill was "to raise the consciousness of the American public." The bill’s supporters charged that there was an "epidemic" of violent crime against women. Echoing Catharine MacKinnon (e.g., rape is "not an individual act" but "terrorism" within a "systemic context of group subjection like lynching"), the bill’s proponents filled the Congressional Record with the group-based (and Hegelian-Marxist) concept that women were being attacked because they were women and belonged to a subordinate group. It was argued by bill’s proponents that these "violent attacks" are a form of "sex discrimination," "motivated by gender," and that they "reinforce and maintain the disadvantaged status of women as a group." Moreover, the individual attacks create a "climate of fear that makes all women afraid to step out of line." Although there was no serious social science evidence of an "epidemic" of violence against women, the almost Marxist-style agitprop campaign worked, and the bill passed. In 1991, the Congress passed a civil rights bill that altered a Supreme Court decision restricting racial and gender group remedies. The new bill strengthened the concept of "disparate impact"; which is a group-based notion that employment practices are discriminatory if they result in fewer members of "protected classes" (minorities and women) being hired than their percentage of the local workforce would presumably warrant. Nine years later, in June 2000, the U.S. Senate passed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would expand the category of hate crimes to include crimes motivated by hatred of women, gays, and the disabled (such crimes would receive stiffer sentences than crimes that were not motivated by hatred based on gender, sexual orientation, or disability status). In supporting the bill, Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon declared, "I have come to realize that hate crimes are different" because although they are "visited upon one person" they "are really directed at an entire community" (for example, the disabled community or the gay community). Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts supported the legislation because, he insisted, "standing law has proven inadequate in the protection of many victimized groups." In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Dorothy Rabinowitz penned a Tocquevillian objection to this Gramscian legislation. Rabinowitz argued that hate crimes legislation undermined the traditional notion of equality under the law by "promulgating the fantastic argument that one act of violence is more significant than another because of the feelings that motivated the criminal." Using egalitarian and antihierarchical (that is, Tocquevillian) rhetoric, Rabinowitz declared that Americans "don’t require two sets of laws — one for crimes against government-designated victims, the other for the rest of America." The Supreme Court and the White House ike the congress, the Supreme Court has witnessed intense arguments over core political principles recognizable as Gramscian and Tocquevillian. Indeed, the court itself often serves as a near-perfect microcosm of the clash between these opposing ideas. A provision of the Violence Against Women Act, for example, that permitted women to sue their attackers in federal rather than state courts was overturned by a deeply divided Supreme Court 5-4. The majority argued on federalist grounds that states had primacy in this criminal justice area. In another 5-4 decision the Supreme Court in 1999 ruled that local schools are subject to sexual discrimination suits under Title IX if their administrators fail to stop sexual harassment among schoolchildren. The case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, involved two 10-year olds in the fifth grade. Justice Anthony Kennedy broke tradition by reading a stinging dissent from the bench. He was joined by Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Justice Kennedy attacked the majority view that the actions by the 10 year-old boy constituted "gender discrimination." American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers in The War Against Boys noted that the court majority appears to accept the position of gender feminist groups that sexual harassment is "a kind of hate crime used by men to maintain and enforce the inferior status of women." Thus, Sommers explains, in terms of feminist theory (implicitly accepted by the court), the 10-year-old boy "did not merely upset and frighten" the ten-year old girl, "he demeaned her as a member of a socially subordinate group." In effect, the court majority in Davis endorsed Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist assumptions of power relations between dominant and subordinate groups and applied those assumptions to American fifth graders. Recently, a similarly divided Supreme Court has offered divergent rulings on homosexual rights. In June 2000 the court overturned the New Jersey State Supreme Court and ruled 5-4 in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that the Boy Scouts did not have to employ an openly gay scoutmaster. The majority’s reasoning was quintessentially Tocquevillian -- the First Amendment right of "freedom of association." Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist declared that "judicial disapproval" of a private organization’s values "does not justify the State’s effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance" would change the organization’s message. The law, Rehnquist continued, "is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government." The dissent written by Justice Stevens, by contrast, declared that the states have the "right" to social experimentation. Stevens noted that "atavistic opinions" about women, minorities, gays, and aliens were the result of "traditional ways of thinking about members of unfamiliar classes." Moreover, he insisted, "such prejudices are still prevalent" and "have caused serious and tangible harm to members of the class (gays) New Jersey seeks to protect." Thus, the dissenters in this case agreed with the New Jersey Supreme Court that the state had "a compelling interest in eliminating the destructive consequences of discrimination from society" by requiring the Boy Scouts to employ gay scoutmasters. In 1992 Colorado voters in a referendum adopted Amendment 2 to the state constitution barring local governments and the state from adding "homosexual orientation" as a specific category in city and state antidiscrimination ordinances. In 1996 in Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2. The court majority rejected the state of Colorado’s position that the amendment "does no more than deny homosexuals special rights." The amendment, the court declared, "imposes a broad disability" on gays, "nullifies specific legal protections for this class (gays)," and infers "animosity towards the class that it affects." Further, the majority insists that Amendment 2, "in making a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, inflicts on them immediate, continuing, and real injuries." Justice Anton Scalia wrote a blistering dissent that went straight to the Gramscian roots of the decision. He attacked the majority "for inventing a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take victory away from the traditional forces," and for "verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes." The court, Scalia wrote, "takes sides in the culture war"; it "sides with the knights," that is, the elites, "reflecting the views and values of the lawyer class." He concluded that: "Amendment 2 is designed to prevent the piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by the majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will." Finally, Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist concepts have advanced in the executive branch as well. In the 1990s, the federal government attempted both to limit speech that adversely effected subordinate groups; and to promote group-based equality of result instead of equality of individual opportunity. In 1994, for example, three residents of Berkeley, Calif., protested a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plan to build subsidized housing for the homeless and mentally ill in their neighborhood. The residents wrote protest letters and organized their neighbors. HUD officials investigated the Berkeley residents for "discrimination" against the disabled and threatened them with $100,000 in fines. The government offered to drop their investigation (and the fines) if the neighborhood residents promised to stop speaking against the federal housing project. Heather Mac Donald reported in the Wall Street Journal that one lawyer supporting HUD’s position argued that if the Berkeley residents’ protest letters resulted in the "denial of housing to a protected class of people, it ceases to be protected speech and becomes proscribed conduct." This is classic Hegelian-Marxist thinking -- actions (including free speech) that "objectively" harm people in a subordinate class are unjust (and should be outlawed). Eventually, hud withdrew its investigation. Nevertheless, the Berkeley residents brought suit against the HUD officials and won. In 1999, to take another example, the Wall Street Journal reported that for the first time in American history the federal government was planning to require all companies doing business with the government to give federal officials the name, age, sex, race, and salary of every employee in the company during routine affirmative action audits. The purpose of the new plan, according to Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, was to look for "racial and gender pay disparities." The implicit assumption behind the Labor Department’s action is that "pay disparities" as such constitute a problem that requires a solution, even if salary differences are not the result of intentional discrimination. The Labor Department has long suggested that the continued existence of these disparities is evidence of "institutionalized discrimination." Transmission — or transformation he slow but steady advance of Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist ideas through the major institutions of American democracy, including the Congress, courts, and executive branch, suggests that there are two different levels of political activity in twenty-first century America. On the surface, politicians seem increasingly inclined to converge on the center. Beneath, however, lies a deeper conflict that is ideological in the most profound sense of the term and that will surely continue in decades to come, regardless of who becomes president tomorrow, or four or eight or even 20 years from now. As we have seen, Tocquevillians and Gramscians clash on almost everything that matters. Tocquevillians believe that there are objective moral truths applicable to all people at all times. Gramscians believe that moral "truths" are subjective and depend upon historical circumstances. Tocquevillans believe that these civic and moral truths must be revitalized in order to remoralize society. Gramscians believe that civic and moral "truths" must be socially constructed by subordinate groups in order to achieve political and cultural liberation. Tocquevillians believe that functionaries like teachers and police officers represent legitimate authority. Gramscians believe that teachers and police officers "objectively" represent power, not legitimacy. Tocquevillians believe in personal responsibility. Gramscians believe that "the personal is political." In the final analysis, Tocquevillians favor the transmission of the American regime; Gramscians, its transformation. While economic Marxism appears to be dead, the Hegelian variety articulated by Gramsci and others has not only survived the fall of the Berlin Wall, but also gone on to challenge the American republic at the level of its most cherished ideas. For more than two centuries America has been an "exceptional" nation, one whose restless entrepreneurial dynamism has been tempered by patriotism and a strong religious-cultural core. The ultimate triumph of Gramscianism would mean the end of this very "exceptionalism." America would at last become Europeanized: statist, thoroughly secular, post-patriotic, and concerned with group hierarchies and group rights in which the idea of equality before the law as traditionally understood by Americans would finally be abandoned. Beneath the surface of our seemingly placid times, the ideological, political, and historical stakes are enormous. http://www.policyreview.org/dec00/fonte_print.html" title="http://www.policyreview.org/dec00/fonte_print.html" target="_blank"http://www.policyreview.org/d... |
| Anti-choice violence and the cultural war |
| 07.31.04 (7:02 pm) [edit] |
|
Anti-Choice Violence and the Cultural War War. Do you remember the speech Pat Buchanan gave at the 1992 Republican Party convention? - The one where he talked about being in a "cultural war" for the "soul of the American people." For all of the world to hear, he said something that is very important for us to remember - that a segment of American society is so distraught about contemporary American culture that they have declared war on those of us who do not believe as they do. To the cultural warriors, you are either with them or against them: there is no middle ground. No one who fails to support their agenda 100% is immune from attack. Note the recent attacks on Speaker Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Lott for capitulating both to the reality of the situation and to President Clinton on the last budget vote. Pat Buchanan is not a lone, fringe lunatic. Rather he is part of a broader culture of hate that directly challenges the fundamental rights of all Americans. By using a rhetoric of war and hate, the right has created a climate in which physical violence perpetrated upon their opponents thrives. Abortion providers and their staff are the shock troops in this cultural war. Other front line fighters include feminist women and pro-feminist men, women and men minorities, the GLBT community, and those who subscribe to non-fundamentalist Christian religious traditions, especially Jews. Violence, murder and maiming of abortion providers, acid attacks on clinic patients and staff, rape of women by strangers in public spaces, arson of Black churches, vandalism of Jewish synagogues, and the beating and murder of out-homosexuals, is endemic to our society. Many innocents, as in the Olympic Park and Oklahoma City bombings, have already been victims in this unwanted, unholy war. These acts of religious-political terrorism perpetrated by Americans against their fellow Americans in the name of God, constitution, and country have the potential of expanding into a much more generalized campaign of terror against major population centers. When will the terrorists escalate their violence to include use of chemical or biological weapons against a population center, as happened in the 1995 attack on a Japanese subway or the Oklohoma City bombings? Shot in the back, in all probability by a religiously and politically motivated cultural warrior who is too cowardly to claim "credit" and to take responsibility for his actions, Dr. Slepian understood that sometimes you must make the ultimate sacrifice to keep American democracy strong. A hero in both life and death, Dr. Slepian clearly understood that if we give in to fear and intimidation by our political opponents on any issue, then we will give in to our political opponents on all issues. For if they can frighten us into silence and inaction on any issue, they can frighten us into silence and inaction on all issues. The religious-political terrorism of contemporary American society and the rhetoric of violence that supports it undermines the very foundations of our democratic system. It is time for mainstream Americans to accept the fact that we are at war: a war we did not declare, a war that we do not want, a war, indeed, for the soul of the American people and the institutions of a free and democratic society. We must denounce the use of violence and the use of rhetoric that allows violence to thrive. We must demand that our more moderate opponents denounce and renounce the use of violence, those who use violence, and the use of rhetoric that allows violence to thrive. We must demand that our opponents debate our ideas using reason and facts, not demonize us by labeling us babykillers, murderers, perverts, deviants, ungodly, Satan or devil worshippers, immoral, followers of false gods, child molesters, or even that catch-all, "too liberal". We must demand that the perpetrators of all politically motivated crimes be brought to swift and certain justice. Below you will find links to a number of sites. Some will allow you to read about the culture warriors beliefs and values in their own words. Other sites monitor hate-groups. As you visit these sites, remember that Pat Buchanan, apostle of hate, managed to get about 20% of the vote in the 1996 Republican party primaries. We are truly in a cultural war. The Cultural Warriors in their own words Chalcedon Foundation, home of Christian Reconstructionism Creator's Rights Party Defensive Action Statement Father David Trosch Missionaries to the Unborn Prisoners of Christ Other words to try on a search engine: Phineas Priesthood, Christian Identity, Aryan Nations Watch Dogs ADL Hatewatch Institute for First Amendment Studies The Militia Watchdog People for the American Way Political Research Associates Southern Poverty Law Center Articles showing the ad hoc links between far right organizations Christian Identity: Religion, Racism, and White Supremacy Cop Killing: A Meeting of Radicalism, Religion http://www.pinn.net/" title="http://www.pinn.net/" target="_blank"http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/essays/slepian4 .html |
| Clutural War/ Class War |
| 07.31.04 (6:59 pm) [edit] |
|
Cultural War / Class War America's cultural warriors have long used race, sex, ethnicity, natal language, religion, education, and political philosophy to divide their communities along predominantly class lines. According to America's cultural warriors, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (or in some cases "Christian" or even "Judaeo-Christian"), native-born, English-speaking elites -- usually well-educated and of the monied class -- are America's natural rulers. People of color, women, immigrants, naturalized Americans, non-native English speakers, those not of the dominant faith, their political opponents, and a host of others are to be ruled by the elites. Destined, in their opinions, by their self-proclaimed superior morality to be America's academic, scientific, political, industrial, religious, and political elites, America's cultural warriors expect to be the most financially successful Americans. Using the theory of social Darwinism, the rich and powerful claim to be rich and powerful because they have found favor in the sight of God and God has blessed them with riches. Consider several stories now in the news: of Enron's demise, of the Bush/Cheney administration's dealings with leaders of commerce (especially of the oil industry), of the favoritism shown by Congress and in the courts for the interests of the rich and powerful, of the influence of corporate campaign contributions on the votes of our elected officials, of the scandals at major accounting firms where fraudulent corporate earnings statements routinely pass audits (misleading stockholders into making bad financial decisions), of tax avoidance of rich individuals, of American the leaders of America's largest corporations registering the companies in off-shore tax havens to escape paying tax to American governments at all levels understands, of corporations shutting down plants in the US and rebuilding them in communities abroad where they can hire workers for subsistence level wages, where they are no worker health and safety regulations, where there are no environmental laws (and so can cut costs to the bone), and of industry flagrantly violating environmental laws Any one following those stories understands that America's rich and powerful are not rich and powerful because they have been blessed by God, but rather that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful because they are ruthless, unscrupulous, at best amoral (if not completely immoral), and possibly anti-American traders and wheeler-dealers motivated solely by greed and power. If we turn around the lens through which America's cultural warriors view themselves, we find that America's cultural war is a class war masquerading as a cultural war. It is so much easier to eliminate a competitor by claiming a person has the wrong color skin, the wrong sexual organs, speaks English with an accent, doesn't belong to an approved religion, belongs to the wrong political party, subscribes to a different philosophy of life, is not a life long American, or a raft of other unimportant distinctions than to triumph over the competitor by merit. Let's look at some numbers. Suppose we start with 100 people, a group which is statistically representative of America as a whole. Using the criteria of America's cultural warriors, how would a successful cultural war influence their financial opportunities? About 50% of American's are female: Right off the bat we can eliminate half of the competition for the best jobs, from positions of power and influence, from educational opportunity because they are female. Powerful incentive to encourage bigotry against women. Our pool of 100 people has now shrunk to 50 people. About 30% of American's are people-of-color, 70% are white. If we assume that, like America as a whole, about half of the people of color are female, then half are male. So, of the 50 people of which about 70% are white, about 35 people remain - 15 are removed from the pool for being people of color. About 20% of Americans self-identify as religious conservatives. Of the 35 people, 7 people will be religious conservatives. Less than 10% of Americans acquire post-graduate college degrees. Of the 7 individuals, less than 1 remains in our pool. Interesting, isn't it. Financial self-interest, otherwise known as greed, is a powerful incentive to become one of America's cultural warriors. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that all of America's best known and most influential cultural warriors are white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian, native-born, politically conservative men. A few women, people of color, people of non-Christian faith, immigrants, and others are permitted by the cultural warrior elites to spread their class warfare, but make no mistake about it, the interlopers are not among the influential, they are the servants of their taskmasters. Those token women and men have little, if any, influence on the direction of America's class war -- they are paid shills for the elites, and, as we have seen in the Enron debacle, are as disposable, dispensable, and influential on their taskmasters as the most humble mailroom clerk. America's cultural war is in reality a class war. The time has come America's silent and patient middle-class to become participants in America's cultural war, America's class war. If they don't fight for themselves, no one is going to fight for them. Remember Cultural War = Class War http://www.pinn.net/" title="http://www.pinn.net/" target="_blank"http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/essays/c_war2.html |
| Bush lies |
| 07.31.04 (8:47 am) [edit] |
|
Here is the link go look for yourself and see the lies. http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democr ats/caughtonfilm.htm" title="http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democr ats/caughtonfilm.htm" target="_blank"http://www.house.gov/appropri... Who is the real ( flip flop )? |
| All you French haters read this |
| 07.31.04 (7:42 am) [edit] |
|
The right hates the French, but the right fails to mention this about the french. The American Revolutionary War, known simply as the Revolutionary War in the United States, and as the American War of Independence. The war fought between the kingdom of Great Britain and 13 of its North American colonies, and there alley [b]France[/b]. How did France help America? The French warships naval blockade English controlled settlements. Thus greatly reduceing the English army ability to resupplied with arms and men. French warships also engaged British warships becuase I think the 13 colonies navy was to weak to take on the English navy. France supplied arms to American soliders. If was'nt for French intervention America would still be the 13 colonies of England. The conservative blogers are going to reply well America helped the french into 2 world wars. Big deal, How could America help the French in 2 world wars, if America did not exist? Hypothetically if America lost its war of independence with England? America would still be called the 13 colonies of England. In 2002, France was the second-ranking investor in the United States in terms of investment stocks and, for the first time, the first ranking investor for new FDIs. French investment in the U.S. went from Euro 32.9 billion in 1994 to Euro 140 billion in 2002 ! These investments are mainly concentrated in the manufacturing sector (21.4%), in real estate and business services (41%) and in the financial sector (23%). France has proven to be one of the most constant and active foreign investors in the United States for the last ten years, even after new investments in the US started to diminish in 2001. At the same time, France has become very attractive to U.S. and other foreign investors : it was in 2001 and 2002 the third most popular country worldwide for direct investments, behind the United States and the United Kingdom in 2001, Luxembourg and China in 2002 (source : UNCTAD). After the tragedy of September 11, France supported Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (some 5,500 French soldiers were deployed to the region). France is the only country, alongside the United States, to have sent bombers to Afghanistan, from Kyrgyzstan and the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. French forces provide logistical support to the Afghan theater, transporting coalition troops and equipment with the assistance of French detachments stationed in Uzbekistan, and resupplying U.S. warships and U.S. Navy fighter planes. Now just becuase the french did not support the us war in iraq. The americans some how forgot about the afgan help. The pussy french also did this" -Liberia : France evacuated about 100 Americans from Liberia on June 8 and 9, 2003." The french also employes american people. " Subsidiaries of French companies employ some 650,000 people in the United States (American companies provide some 550,000 jobs in France). " If your going to critize the french at less tell everyone how they help america (economically, military) instead of saying damm french they only oppose america. |
| Is America conflict habitual? ( a cynical view ) |
| 07.30.04 (9:59 pm) [edit] |
|
The use of violence abroad in order to make the world safe and the compliant to the American way has been the history of the last half of the 20th century. That this stimulates endless protest and firm conviction of secondary statue among people of the Third world is one agenda that America resoutely chooses to ignore. That it raises just as much doubt, rage, and fear in Europe seldom makes it onto the radar of American political consideration. When Ronald Reagan decided to send a warning bomb-o-gram to Libya in 1986, using US base in European as a terrestrial aircraft carrier, it was not only European public opinion that was incensed. Politicians openly voiced their fear that NATO was being manipulated to the point of fracture. American opposition to the proposed European rapid reaction froce seems perverse in the face of constant American complaint that it is shouldering the burden of defending freedom alone and at is own cost; and it fails to engage with the serious polictical debate about teh increasing distance between the American view of the world and that of European nations. All this promotes the strong conviction that America is a nation that has lost if it ever had the capacity to respond to any challenge, crisis, dispute or difference of opinion by negotiation, accommodation or serios dialogue. The reason for this inability is to be found in America itself. "How do we construe the American idea of freedom if we must communicate with one another by bomb-o-gram?' The most awful implication of the Oklahoma bomb was that it was deigned, as many commentators noted, to be undeerstood in tradition of regenerative violence. In a letter to a newspaper in 1992 Timothy McVeigh, the bobmer had asked: is Civil War imminent? do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? Indeed in America the use of vilence to make an emphatic statement is a well established tradition. America is not only a nation in which random violence is an everyday occurrence; in which the posibility of being shot by a mugger for the sake of a few dollars or a wristwatch is a routine fear of any citizen; in which drive-by shootings and armed road rage are common. It is also a country in which disaffected teenagers take their guns to school and shoot people, a place where mass slaughter has become a common place for the depressed, disaffected and disturbed. The rhetoric of violence has become an integral part of the American political scene. As the US has become a polarised nation of two cultures, liberal and conservative, unable to communicate by the political debate since the differences occur within a narrow spectrum of Republican and Democrat, it has become a country in which the politics of the bob-o-gram has establishd itself. so some of those who passionately defend the right to life of an unborn fetus can bomb an abortion clinic and assassinate doctors who perform abortions. If America has become a country that cannot debate,engage or negotiate with itself, cannot wrestle with different meanings among people who are all Americans. Then what hope is there? We communicate by committing violence or violent acts against one another. Ziauddim Sardar |
| happily married |
| 07.30.04 (4:23 pm) [edit] |
|
Among peopole who say they're "happily married," that ailment called "depression" is nearly four times more common in women than in men. But not, also: If divorced, men are more likely to experience profound depression, even though divores usuallly hit women far harder financially. Says one expert: "Divorced women are likely to be injured, practically. Divorecd men tend to be ruined, emotionally." Lou Boyd |
| The media |
| 07.30.04 (7:05 am) [edit] |
|
The American media is notoriously parochial. With the exception of a couple of national newspapers, foreign news is, by and large, conspicuors by its absence. Televison, the medium that citzens watch and use more thatnany others, ventures outside the national bundaries only to report disasters and american-led wars. As teh American media has acquired a global reach, it has simultaneously, and paradoxiclly, become even moer parochial and banal. Diverse and dissenting voices have been filtered out to create a bland media monoculture dedicated to promoting consumerism. business and the interests of teh government and teh pwer elite, and to keeping the masses entertained and docile. This is not the outcome of a 'free market' operating as a natural law. it is the product of conscious state policy. The purpose of the press is to help us run the state, and not the other way around. As citzens of a democracy, we have the right and obligationo to be well aware of what is happening, both in 'the homeland' and wider world. Without such knowledge we cannot be both secure and free. Mark Miller, The Nation |
| Women and there sex appeal an unusual theory. |
| 07.28.04 (7:39 pm) [edit] |
|
If you are female you might get offended by this theory. So stop reading. Women have to be sexy there entire lives women compete with other women for sex appeal. Naturally women won't admit that there are in competition with each other. So i will disuss two types of women. The first type is the attractive, slim figure type of women. The second type is the attractive , not so slim figure women (not fat just not slim in the middle ) Now both types know there are attrative and the males know that they are attractive. However the first type has the advantage becuase she is slim, while the second type is at disvantage. Now this is the theory? Now most women like there men to be bigger then them. The women see that size as a sign of strength. The women want to know that there man can protect them if trouble occurs. I guess the bigger you are the tougher you are in a women mind? So the second type of women have boyfriends or husbands who are bigger then them? But she knows that she is not as slim as the first type of women. So she knows at some part in her life she will lose her sex appeal. While the first type will retain there sex appeal becase of the slim figure. The second type i feel purposely must have a guy who is bigger then she is. Because when they both go out into the public he the bigger guy will make the her the not so slim looking women slimer. Thus makeing her more attractive to the opposite sex, and makeing her feel still sexy? I am guy when i go out and see an attractive girl walking with a guy who is bigger then her i say wow she is pretty and slim. But when i see her by herself i think I remember her being alot slimer. This i think reduceing her sex appeal. Sometimes i think not so slim women know this that's why they usually have boyfriends who are bigger then them. Becasue they want to be sexy? Maybe its just and i have a problem with the not so slim women. I did'nt think about this theory until one of myfriends girlfriends sister went to the prom with my other friend when we were in highschool. My friends girlfriends sister was pretty but she was'nt slim. While my friend was big. Then when the pictures came back i thought she must of lost some weight becuase my big friend made her look slim. |
| Floridians Get Pre-Affiliated Voter Forms |
| 07.27.04 (8:24 pm) [edit] |
|
Floridians Get Pre-Affiliated Voter Forms July 25, 2004 When a group of new Americans left their naturalization ceremony in Jacksonville, Fla., last month, they were handed voter registration forms that had already been marked in ink for the Republican Party. NPR's Phillip Davis reports. http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3616703" title="http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3616703" target="_blank"http://www.npr.org/features/f... You need speakers to hear the audio interview. |
| Intresting life |
| 07.27.04 (7:02 am) [edit] |
|
A few days ago i attend my high school reunion. The first day was at a night club. I did'nt realize how popular i was untill i got there. People remember me but i did'nt remember them. I was talking to some old friends they were telling me how there life was messed up. They were divorced with kids paying child support and alimoney. They said man if this was'nt an open bar. I would only have money for two drinks. They kept telling all the guys make sure you marry the right girl? or you are going to end up like me. I kinda of felt fournate i was'nt in there situation. But that is life you have to make the right decesion during the critical parts of your life. I guess they made the wrong decesion. Some girls took a picture with me and my friend. I did'nt even know who she asked my friend and he did'nt know either. I felt ashamed people knew me but i did'nt remember who they were. But the girls i do remember i talk to for a while. Some girls would ask what do, i do now. I would answer. Then they would say so you must make a lot of money. I said no. That kinda of question freaked me out. Told the girl I'm going to get another beer talk to later and left. I think of that type of girl as the beach signs. Caution Dangerous current. If you don't know what that is? Here's a brief explantion. At the beach there is a rip current. This current pulls you out towards the ocean and it very diffcult to swim back would be like trying to swim up stream. Those girls i call the rip current they will pull out into the middle of ocean use you as a flotation device in life untill the next guy comes along. Maybe it was just me but i did not want to end up like those guys i talked to eariler. Some girls were nurses and some guys were engineers i guess some of my classmate made out pretty well so far in life? The next day we had our reunion at the water park which makes no sense to me i live on island in the middle of ocean. At the water park me and my friends were talking about the most popular girls in high school and how now they got fat, and she got this many kids. and who life is all messed up now after while it got kinda of boring. The water park itsel wasf kinda of boring for me. I had a hangover and did'nt feel like swiming in heavliy chlornated water. When the ocean is surrounds me. The person who orginzed the class reunion said well have another in five years. I really don't know if i want to go to that one. Overall i felt quite good i was'nt in the worst part of class i was'nt divorced and i was'nt broke. |
| Is Burning 'Old Glory' Free Speech? |
| 07.26.04 (6:48 pm) [edit] |
|
Is Burning 'Old Glory' Free Speech? by Silvio Carrillo Thursday, January 27, 2000 Desecration of the American flag by burning is a particularly provocative insult: in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, flag-burning is meant to test that freedom to its limits. There is currently nothing in the Constitution's definition of freedom of expression that expressly declares flag-burning illegal. But many consider this a clear distortion of what the founding fathers fought for in the first place. So how should patriotic Americans react to an act that is intended to provoke some sort of reaction? Should an amendment be added to the constitution forbidding desecration of our national symbol? Or should they turn the other cheek, since such an amendment be a gratuitous desecration of the constitution itself? At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, protestor Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall. Johnson was charged and convicted with desecration of a venerated object. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the conviction in 1988 and the Supreme Court took up the issue the following year. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court upheld the decision that burning the flag was a form of free speech. In 1990, Congress passed the "Flag Protection Act" which imposed a federal ban on flag desecration. Senators opposing bans on flag-burning included Vietnam Veteran Bob Kerry, whose record as a war hero has brought other Democrats around. This Act was later struck down by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Eichman. Congress has made four attempts since 1995 to circumvent the Supreme Court's rulings by trying to enact a constitutional amendment banning desecration of the flag. None have passed. But although the constitutional amendment has not passed, the debate rages on the campaign trail. In Connecticut on June 14, Waterbury mayor Philip Giordano used to the flag-burning issue to launch his opening broadside against Democratic Senator Joesph Lieberman. Lieberman has voted consistently against the flag-burning amendment, claiming that flag desecration is protected under the First Amendment. Giordano, who is mounting the most serious challenge to Lieberman in years, has claimed that by supporting the amendment, he will "zealously pursue protection of the flag." And while that may not be the determining issue, Giordano feels that it articulates the difference between his own patriotism and Lieberman's. On One Hand... Bans on flag-burning are clear violations of the free exercise of speech, a fundamental right in our democracy. Using the Constitution to promote patriotic sentiments would be a cynical abuse of legislative power. Those who support amending the Constitution to protect flags would establish a dangerous precedent that would erode our liberties. They are merely trying to score political points by appearing as the standard bearers of patriotism. Those who burn the flag are merely trying to provoke a reaction. Allowing them to proceed with this particularly abhorrent protest would prove that despite all they say, the U.S. is a country which honors freedom to speak. On the Other Hand... The flag deserves special legal protection because it is the ultimate symbol of our history and heritage. The U.S. flag is an important symbol of democracy. Allowing Americans to burn it insults the millions of citizens who have fought and died to protect our way of life. Using flag-burning as protest is not a legitimate form of expression because it doesn't invite any sort of debate. Some standards of flag etiquette: The flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. It should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should never be used as drapery. It should not be used as part of a costume. No part of it should touch the ground or any other object when it is being lowered. It should be folded neatly and ceremoniously. The proposed Constitutional amendment would protect the flag under an exclusive federal trademark, making it available for use only under a government license. The House of Representatives has passed the amendment three times since 1995. The last time the Senate considered the legislation was in 1995. The Senate is expected to vote on the latest version of the flag protection amendment during the current session of Congress. In 1988 Gregory Lee Johnson was given a one-year sentence and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine for burning the flag in Dallas. He was protesting Reagan administration policies. Title 36 of the U.S. Code states, "When it (the flag) is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, the flag should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." In some of the most widespread flag-burning in American history, Confederate sympathizers burned the American flag in protest at rallies across the South in 1861. American Legion; U.S. Constitution, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Supreme Court http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs /1144b-1.html" title="http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs /1144b-1.html" target="_blank"http://speakout.com/activism/... If the American GOP bans flag burning. Then that when the world knows America is no longer a democracy? It has become a tyrannical government. |
| conspiracy theory by British. |
| 07.25.04 (7:33 pm) [edit] |
|
US may have let Sept 11 attacks happen: Ex-British minister LONDON: A former minister in Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government suggested in a newspaper piece Saturday that the United States may have knowingly allowed the September 11, 2001, attacks to happen so it would have a pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Writing in The Guardian, former Environment Minister Michael Meacher said America’s air defence response was inexplicably slow the morning four hijacked passenger jets destroyed the World Trade Centre and crashed into the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, killing more than 3,000. “Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence?” he wrote, referring to intelligence clues he said were ignored before the attacks. “Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority?” Meacher, who served as environment minister for six years before being dismissed when Blair reorganized his ministers in June, later told British Broadcasting Corp. radio that he didn’t believe the US government had planned the attacks. “I don’t think that we can conceivably say even that they allowed it, but when it actually happened, it was a very convenient pretext to put in place a plan for an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are motivated by the need to get control of the remaining oil supplies in the world,” he said. “It was an extraordinarily convenient pretext, that’s all I am saying.” A call to the US Embassy in London went unanswered Saturday. The Guardian quoted an unidentified embassy spokesman as dismissing Meacher’s “fantastic allegations especially his assertion that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.” The charges, the spokesman reportedly said “would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible.” A spokesman for Blair said the prime minister did not share Meacher’s views “because they are completely wrong and they are views which we would reject utterly.” Meacher wrote that the US-led war on terrorism was a “bogus cover” for achieving broad, pre-existing strategic goals, including “a blueprint for US world domination” driven by the desire for greater control of global oil supplies. He said US President George W Bush’s administration had prepared plans for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before the terror attacks, but that they were politically impossible until September 11. —Reuters http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-9-2003_p g4_3" title="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-9-2003_p g4_3" target="_blank"http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/... |
| The tough talk by bush on Iran is just talk. Bush people not telling the american people something v |
| 07.25.04 (7:22 pm) [edit] |
|
What the Bush people don't tell the american people is that Iran and Syria have a mutal defense agreement. Regimes in Iran, Syria forge new ties by Amir Taheri New York Post February 28, 2004 Whereby Iran and Syria will assist one another against aggression by a third party. The full text of the section has not been released, but Shamkhani and Tlas made it clear that "mutual defense" includes the commitment of troops and materiel to deal with any clear and present danger against either nation http://www.benadorassociatecom/artic le/2297s." title="http://www.benadorassociatecom/artic le/2297s." target="_blank"http://www.benadorassociateco... If the Bush was going to send ameican troops into iran then i guess the american will have to atttack syria. Becuase the syrians will send there soliders across the border into iraq. Thus forces the american military to fight on three votes the Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi fronts. When i say Iraqi front those fighters will be useing uncoventional tactics by iraqis in iraq while syria and iran fight with conventional tactics. This forceing more ameican troops into the region to fight this war. The war is going to called the war in the middle east, not a war on terror. But the Iranians have the ace of spades in there pokect and that ace of spades is= Iran began rivalling Pakistan’s trade route strategy in Central Asia and (unforgivably!) began cooperating with India strategically to the detriment of Pakistan’s regional security. [b]In January this year there was news that India and Iran had signed a secret defence agreement providing for the stationing of Indian troops on the Iranian soil in case of war [/b]http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/... So now you have Syrian and Indian defense agreement with Iran. So the Pakistan's now are forced into a corner. Yes Pakistan the so called ally in america's war on terror? Will the pakistan remain netural or get involed remember now pakistan is a muslim country? will the pakistan people support there country leaders to help in this new war in the middleeast? |
| My follow up replys to reducto's post. |
| 07.25.04 (5:40 am) [edit] |
|
» jesusisangry Sunday 07.25.04 [7:02 am] Hmm As Bush explained, he didn't want to get up and leave real quicly-- something that would surely cause panic, and something assholes Reducto if you are married and was at at party? and someguys were attacking your wife? and some other guy tells you hey reducto some guys are aftacking your wife. Would you reducto just sit for seven minutes at the party before you decide to leave? I think you would sit there because you reducto would'nt want to create a panic at the party. I mean the people at the party would accuse you reducto of acting hasty. Would'nt want that to happen to you reducto i being called hasty is such a terrible label. The president of the United States is suppose to be in charge for the safety of the County? Seven minutes is a long time to wait to decide get up and leave Second of all= Terror did not strike the world. Terror struck your country the U.S. but your U.S. leaders and propoganda specialist played it as if it was an attack on the world. Maybe if you were to travel to foreign countries and spend enough time in those countries you would then know how much hatered there is in the world against the polices your country imposes on the world. We can't attack North Korea, thanks to Clinton, because they now have nuclear weapons. So if a country has nuclear weapons the U.S. wont attack. Well i guess you won't be attack India So i guess i am free to talk about you anytime i want. Did US condemnation stop the Kofi Annan and the rest of the thugs at the UN from committing the biggest scandal in world history, the oil-for-food scandal? Wow that is the biggest scandal in world history. I thought the biggest scandal in world history was how bush cheated to win the 2000 U.S. election. according to the world media not the U.S. media I remember hearing that Bush did not get the majority of the u.s. votes in the 2000 election. I thought your country election was designed so that the majority votes win's the election. Iraq was a UN mess. The US had to clean it up. Was'nt Bush's daddy that attack iraq in the 1990's was'nt that a U.S. policy. And if iraq was a mess back then how did it become a u.n. mess? The US is far from perfect. But most of the time it does the work the rest of the world is supposed to do, and this is because the rest of the world is lazy and cowardly and pushes it off on us. Maybe the rest world tolerant with each other and its ameica who wants to take on the world? You should thank the US-- for without this involuntary "hegemony" in the world that the cowards at the UN let it have, hegemoney=leadership by one nation over another. From what i know most of the people did not ask the U.S. for Involuntary hegemony. Hegemony sounds like conquering. However reducto i do give you creidt becuase you are able to acknowledge that your country :The US is far from perfect: » jesusisangry Sunday 07.25.04 [4:59 pm] hello reductio i have returned. i have returned to finsh my responses i had to take care of some bussiness but anyways here i go agian. So what are you saying Jesusisangry? Are you ADVOCATING THE BUSH DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTIVE WAR AGAINST SUDAN? Yes reducto i am advocateing war againist sudan as you clearly say in your blog For decades terrorism killed hundreds of thousands, and the UN coddled the terrorists and excused it away (or just blamed Israel). The UN was created to prevent world wars. It is not doing that. You should thank the US-- for without this involuntary "hegemony" in the world that the cowards at the UN let it have, at the cost of billions of dollars of US tax dollars Thousands of people are dieing in sudan. those who are the killers are muslims attacking chiristians. I mean you said I should thank the U.S. for the Hegemony. Oh and when ask your country to attack sudan attack china also because of there conflict with Hong Kong and Taiwan. Attack Russia becuase of Chenya. I don't how it is spelled becuase as you point out i am stupid. If calling me stupid makes you feel superior it's ok. I understand. I mean you americans want the world to know that americans are superior to everyone else. but that not the point i am trying to make here. Lets back to the point Saddam Hussein broke a cease-fire in a war against the UN. This breach of the cease-fire threatened America. I don't understand how the U.N is America if he broke a cease-fire againist the U.N. how does that affect america directly? Tell me please? Are you trying to tell me that america is the U.N.? What is your argument, that we should let ourselves be blown up because that would stop the attacks? If you had'nt attacked them first then maybe they would'nt have attacked you? Was'nt america that invaded Iraq in the 1990's was'nt it America that stationed troops in saudi. Was'nt America that bombed Lybia in the 1980's, Was'nt america the overthrow the government in Iran in the early 1970's then installed the shah of iran in the late 1970's? America has a history of wronging doing in the middleeast this is why the people in the middle east are mad at your country for the polices it created in the middle east? Good thinking. I also know that Afghanistan and Iraq are free, to the gratitude of many, especially women, who don't have to live in tyranny anymore. Hmm if the women are better off why have there been honor killings. Where women are the target becuse they broke the law of Islam. I don't see how the women are better off they were killed under Saddam and they are still being killed under U.S. occupation. The UN Security Council did not condemn the US for invading Iraq, and that's because they couldn't. Why? Work with me here-- it was the US THAT DID WHAT THE UNSC WAS SUPPOSED TO DO-- ENFORCE THE CEASE-FIRE RESOLUTIONS. I said nothing about the UN security council. I said other countries condemed the U.S. invison of Iraq. Do you have to be a member of the U.N. security to condem the invision? That would'nt be fair to world becuase only what 8 countries make up the U.N. security council. What ever happend to freedom of speech? Do you honestly think Kofi Annan cares if terrorists have nukes or not? Why does it matter what kofi annan thinks as you point out earlier the North koreans along with other countires. have nukes. What's to prevent the north Koreans from giveing the nukes to terrorist or the terroist purchaseing the nukes from the former Soviet Union. I mean america is basically working on a honor system with russia. Does America really know where all the russian nukes are? This could be, as terrorists don't like to be challenged. However, terrorism flourished when we did nothing as well. Terrorist don't like a challenge? Do you remembe your country war of indepence from what i remember from your country history. You ameircans uses terrorist tactics againist the british? Or i am wrong. Watch your america tv i think it is called the history channel look for the revoluntary war. I watched it i seen your american revolutaionaires useing terrorist tatics in the program? .First of all, I am going to safely assume your stupid. Secondly, the President did show his national security credentials quite well-- four years, 2 regimes gone, no new terror attacks against the US, Al Qaeda cells in the US being busted, etc. So your telling me as long as bush is in office there won't be any new terror attacks on U.S. soil. You reductio are alot more arrogant then i thought? I really think if there was another terror attack on your country? you would wake up and stop living in wonderland? I belive wonderland is refrence to your american child story alice in wonderland. By the way, since I can safely assume you're not America, ,what else has the world done to stop terror? What did the rest of the world do to stop Saddam Hussein? The world didn't freeze when terror struck-- it just ignored it. How noble. Well reducto i belive the rest of world did'nt have problem with saddam. I mean how does Niger a county in africa feel threateaned by saddam? What is saddam going to do send his army on camels to invade niger? i really don't know how saddam threaten the world? so can tell me? Was saddam army of close to a million men was going to take over the world whos civilian population out number his army 1 billion of the worlds cilivans to 1 of saddam soliders. Saddam Hussein broke a cease-fire in a war against the UN. This breach of the cease-fire threatened America specifically, especially after 9/11 because it was known-- by everyone-- that Hussein had WMD. Every country accecepted that. Well how if saddam is accused of breaking i ceasefire i would like to know what he did to break a ceasefire? Then reducto you claim saddam threateaned america? As i said earlier i guess saddam was gong to send his soliders to america on cammels. Once those solider on cammel reached the atlantic ocean how would they get to amerca i mean iraq did have 1/100 of america's navy. .Was saddam soliders going to build rafts and go to american like the cubans. But unlike the cuban who only have to travel 90 miles to florida saddam's army would have to travel thousands of nautical miles to reach america? I know thats just sound so realistic that saddam would do something like that but you reducto actually think that saddam would do something like that? I guess your going to answer no? saddam was going to send his weapons of mass destruction to the U.S. I have not seen any weapons of mass destruction for a year. In additonal if any were to be found in Iraq they would most likely be place there by incomeing U.S. troops on the next troop rotation. By the way reducto i like how you devoted a blog to me by attacking me i guess you were doing THE BUSH DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTIVE WAR againist me? So i now i guess you and me are at war on tblogs. I look forward to comeing battles againist you? Are you going to build a colation of the willing againist me like how your government did? Build your colation i look forward to the battles? Do you know why reducto i look foward to the battle becasue the more time you and your colation spend on me the less time you will have to post your right wing(GOP) propoganda on tblogs. So like your enemy saddam said in the 1990's this will be the mother of battles. hahahaha but you know what i don't really care what you write about i'll just keeping makeing remarks. Or is the mighty reducto going to ban me jesusisangry from posting remarks on his tblog? and you know what i think you would because right now you probablely so pissed off right now? and your face is turning red are you reducto going to dedicated another post to me? Hahahaha is your face getting even more red? hahaha |
| war has been declared against me for posting a reply on reducto blog. |
| 07.25.04 (3:17 am) [edit] |
|
reducto has attacked me. http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=reducto&static=24 0217" title="http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=reducto&static=24 0217" target="_blank"http://www.tblog.com/template... But i don't really care. I look at this way. The more reducto attacks me the less time he has to post on tblogs? Eventually reducto will stop attacking me. Then thats when i know i [b]jesusisangry has won the battle against reducto. [/b] So reducto if you are reading this i will respond like your president Bush remember what he told the terrorists. [b]BRING EM ON REDUCTO [/b] [b]BRING EM ON, BRING EM ON[/b] hahaha but you know what people i think reducto is going to ban me from posting replys on his blog. as his first move againist me. I know reducto a so called american citizen might try to ban me from posting replys on his blog. Hey reducto if you do ban me what ever happen to the american law the freedom of speech. Or reducto could say that i have declared blog war on him? If you were wondering why reducto has attack me i think is was because of this? My reply on his blog that made redutco attack me. This is the link to his blog that i had replyed to. http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=reducto&static=24 0217" title="http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=reducto&static=24 0217" target="_blank"http://www.tblog.com/template... » jesusisangry Saturday 07.24.04 [4:50 am] The real question is whether a Liberal president would use military force when diplomacy fails or when it is not an option-- like when dealing with terrorists. We all know the answer on that. Your country allows you to have the freedom of speech for you say that. But however was'nt it president bush who choked on 9/11. Was'nt it bush who just sat in his chair at the florida grade school for seven minutes before decideing to get up and leave. I can safetly assume that you are a guy.(american guy) Therefore you must watch (american) sports. You know when your star( american ) athletes freeze on the playing field. What does the commenters call that the star athelte froze was'nt able to come through on the play. Bush was frozen for 7 minutes. Then he got up and left. Now talk about a president who claims to run on national security as a strength. but when the time came he froze. Is that the type of preisdent you want someone who freezes in a emergency. 'Bush went into Iraq because Hussein threatened America, accept it or not.' If that is your agruement then there is alot of countries that threatean America, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Argentina, basically i think most of worlds people hate america now? would'nt you consider those people threats becuase there displaying the hate for america vocally?Maybe your contires actions has created more terrorist by your action. Is'nt possibe for the moderates to become extremes. Like how your countries politics try to get the swing votes (are swing voters moderates) But your country leaders due things purposely i belevie to court that block of voters? It is also the Bush administration, and not the EU or the UN, or anyone else, that wants economic sanctions and condemnation brought through the UN Security Council. ( talking abut Sudan) Another political move that american think's will achive results. big deal the U.S. is going to impose economic sanctions and condemnation. How would economic sanctions hurt that country. 1 Sudan has very little wealth, 2 a country that is not tied into the world economy. 3 is sudan one of america's freetrade partners. Then you say that ameica is going use condemnation of sudan. hmmm does that word condemnation sound familar to you. I think i can remember other countries leaders saying something about condemnation on the U.S. for invadeing Iraq. But did the condemnation stop the U.S. from invading Iraq? And my answer to that is like how you answered on your blog. We all know the answer on that. We all know the answer on that. We all know the answer on that. |
| don't read this if you are religious |
| 07.23.04 (8:11 pm) [edit] |
|
Recently i have been wondering why are chritsian and muslim people killing one another? In Sudan we have christian killings muslims, America's war on terror is basically a christian nation vs a mulsim ideology? I wanted to know if both religon have text makeing this war of ideology right? i have found some intresting passages from religious (bible and Koran ) texts. Kill Your Neighbors (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT) [Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT) What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder? Evil Bible Quote of the Day for April 22, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com: Behold the day of the Lord is coming, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in the midst of you. For I will gather the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women ravished..." Christian god-Zechariah 14:1 Now the muslims Jihad can take place in many forms, including speaking out against injustice or spending your wealth in the cause of public good, such as alleviating poverty. Jihad does also include armed struggle, which at times becomes necessary in order to protect the weak and to establish freedom of religion. (Jihad in the context of armed struggle is known as Qital.) Koran 47:4 When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens Koran 5:51 Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers. In this verse Prophet Mohammed is clearly instructing his followers never to befriend a Christian or a Jew. Because if they take a Christian or a Jew as a friend, they will commit a wrong deed and Allah's wrath will be on them. Koran 5:57 Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pastime... Here "those who were given the Book before you" refers to Christians and Jews. Once again Mohammed is warning Muslims of all time never to befriend a Christian or a Jew. Koran 5:64The Jews say: 'God's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained! May they be cursed for what they say!... In the above verse Prophet Mohammed is showing his deep respect for the Jews. What is going on today in the world is war of ideology with religous backing. Relgious americans say god ( Gods will ) put Bush in office even though bush did not get the majority of the votes. But the non religious americans say no that the republican cheated. Then there is binliden who follows the koran to the text. But bush also follows the bible to the text. His stance on abortion and stemcell research are examples. If this war on terror is really a war about religious ideology and getting oneside to submit to the others religious values no side can win? Binliden says american troops are killing muslims ( pre 9/11 ) which is true. Bombings in Iraq and Iran Lybia etc American(christian ) troops in saudi arabia which is home to islams most holyist sites, accoriding to the koran christians are not allowed to occupy muslam land. (U.S. occupition of Iraq) Then Binliden decides to attack america to get even with america for killing muslims. Who is right and who is wrong. Should both sides say ok cease fire amercans won't kill muslims and muslims won't kill americans. How do win a war that is based on religious ideology? Was'nt this done in the past with the crusades and mohmands march across the world. Who won those wars. Would'nt religious tolerance and respecting each other religous values be better? I personally think you can not win a war of ideology it's impossibe the only why you would be able to accomplish winnig a war of idology is geoncide on a global scale. But there is no way that can happen right? |
| The wicked women according to the bible |
| 07.22.04 (5:46 pm) [edit] |
|
The Wicked Woman "Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13) "heartbroken by a women" "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)" Clinton and monica " "A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15) "Ana Nicole Smith married a 80 yearold guy when he died wanted more of his wealth then what he left her." "A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25) "female that accused kobe bryant of rape" I not saying he not guilty but personaly i think she is after money. She wants to live the easy life without stuggleing to achive it." This i think is the orgin of the phrase a women can make men do stuipd things? |
| religon makes women the property of men. |
| 07.22.04 (5:38 pm) [edit] |
|
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." [EPHESIANS 5: 22-24 *King James Bible] "...man, created in thy image and likeness, in the very image and likeness of thee - that is, having the power of reason and understanding - by virtue of which he has been set over all irrational creatures. And just as there is in his soul one element which controls by its power of reflection and another which has been made subject so that it should obey, so also, physically, the woman was made for the man; for, although she had a like nature of rational intelligence in the mind, still in the sex of her body she should be similarly subject to the sex of her husband, as the appetite of action is subjected to the deliberation of the mind in order to conceive the rules of right action ... thou didst subordinate rational action to the higher excellence of intelligence, as the woman is subordinate to the man." ['Confessions' by Saint Augustine - 400 CE]http://www.reasoned.org/rs_dr... "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9) "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16) This according to the gop this is the foundation of the American values. God said marriage is the union between a man and women. "the woman was made for the man; for, although she had a like nature of rational intelligence in the mind, still in the sex of her body she should be similarly subject to the sex of her husband" Gay marriage will endanger these religious values. |
| The conservative spin on the tour de france before they spin it. |
| 07.21.04 (10:19 pm) [edit] |
|
Everyone knows that lancearmstrong is going to win the tour de france. But when the win is offical. The conservative then will spin it. Something like see those damn french losers again. They will do what is required to remind there listeners that remember the french those bunch of losers, just to keep there fire burning against the French. You have to keep the minds of you followers occuiped on something else or else your listener may actual think about what you are saying and start to question you. There is no room for dissent within there ideaology, well you can dissent if you are one of there leaders. But a follower is unacepptable. When rush was talking about how all drugs are bad and civilrights you have to surrender your civil for the good of the law. But when he gets busted for illegal perscription drugs he wants to withhold his perscription records from the court. Practice what you preach, don't change the rules when it affects you directly. would'nt that be called a flip flop.
|
| America land of the paronoid, greedy. |
| 07.21.04 (6:00 pm) [edit] |
|
Everything is about terrorism,crime, catholic presist abuse kids, drugs, sex, violence. The american media saturates there viewers with these images. Makeing americas paronoid about violence commited againist them. What is particular funny is there president bush. He tells his people i will protect you from the terrorrist. The only time they will be protected is if he is next to them literally side by side physically that is the only time he can say that he protected you becuause the secert service (Praetorian Guard ) protects him. Only the wealthly can afford bodyguards and security the rest of the american people can't. now we talk ab |