posted on May 16, 2001 08:00:34 AM
Just a letter to the editor with some pretty accurate assessments, don't you think?:
"Some misunderstand the brilliance of W's intellectual approach to the world. At the core of his belief is the axiom that truth is faith-based. Real truth doesn't require factual back up. It doesn't require scientific verification. Several examples below illustrate this well.
1. Faith Based Fact: The Clinton years were a disaster for the United States. This is a fundamental understanding of W and the right wing nuts. Eight years of extraordinary prosperity and peace are statistical facts that seemingly would contradict this statement. In the same way, the elimination of deficit spending, the decline in the crime rate, the decline in the number of persons on welfare, and in the number of unwanted pregnancies all falsely indicate this was a good period for the nation. W realizes that the government must reverse the policies that created this false illusion of prosperity. He can see the need to recreate deficit spending, re invigorate the flagging crime rate and increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies. The tax cut combined with the potential for massive defense spending, reducing new spending for police and opposition to birth control all has the potential to revitalize the nation and return us to the idyllic state it was in Poppy's administration.
2. Faith Based Fact: We are in a period of unparalleled danger to the United States that requires massive defense spending. The end of the Soviet Union and the Clinton administrations efforts to work with Russia and China and integrate them into the world community only gave a false illusion that the world might be at the edge of peace. The Clinton administration efforts to bring peace to Korea, Israel, Northen Ireland are signs of weakness. Worst of all, Clinton's reversal of ethic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans was a disaster.
By coordinating with our allies we brought a dictator to his knees and eventfully the dictator was overthrown by his own people. W knows that close coordination with our allies and working with international coalitions is the wrong way to go. We need a more macho approach to war. His Viet Nam war experience going to bars while serving in the Texas National Guard gives W the solid basis in personal experience needed to guide the nation. Poppy knows that you only go to war for oil, and you need to insure the dictator remains untouched.
3. Faith Based Fact: The Clinton administration was the most corrupt in American history. It is a great tragedy that in spite of multimillion dollar investigations that occupied most of the eight years of the administration, the multitude of special prosecutors were unable to find evidence to prove the corruption they knew was there. They did uncover, and perhaps stage, a single sexual peccadillo. W knows that the single blow job dwarfs in its horror the large scale selling of arms and paying of ransom of the Reagan years. Then we had a secret foreign policy was being run by the president's staff. Nixon's use of burglars to win an election is a similar minor infraction. The large number of presidential staff and cabinet members convicted of crimes or jailed as a result of the Watergate and Iran-Contra affair gives a false impression that these were serious events that could have compromised the constitution of the nation. Cynics might note that great American patriots, such as Oliver North, sold arms to Iran. This is the same Iran that requires us to develop the Star Wars defense. We need to remember that Poppy supplied arms to Saddam until the Iraqi began to lust after our oil. This is the best of both worlds. We get to both supply arms and defend ourselves against them. What more could a defense contractor want? W knows that sex acts are easier for the American public to understand that complicated affairs involving smuggling, money laundering and possible treason. W knows that Poppy has paid a lot to make sure that his youthful adventures don't make it public. W also says a prayer every night thanking God that he never came close to Linda Tripp.
4. Faith Based Fact: Pollution is good for business. W knows that environmental regulations are bad for business and make it impossible to profit. Curiously over the last 40 years with increased environmental regulation, corporate profits have soared as has the overall prosperity of the nation. W. Knows that polluted water and smog filled air are positive spurs to corporate profit. Arsenic is a food supplement and real men shoot animals and mount their heads in the den. They don't worry about endangered species. W will do what needs to be done to restore America to the polluted state that made it great. We have the polluted wastelands of former Communist nations to show us just how effective large scale pollution can be as an economic stimulus.
Some people say the W isn't as stupid as he looks. I think that pseudo-sophisticated intellectuals mistake W's faith-based approach as stupidity. After all, faith-based knowledge is what made the dark ages dark. Iran and Afganistan have faith-based systems and W's efforts might well alow us to emulate their combination of piety, poverty and oppression."
posted on May 16, 2001 09:32:57 AMKen....Thanks. This is very moving, because it is so true...and scary! After all, faith-based knowledge is what made the dark ages dark. Iran and Afganistan have faith-based systems and W's efforts might well alow us to emulate their combination of piety, poverty and oppression."
Where are we going! What in the h--l went wrong!...I could take Locuts, the Energy crisis we are suffering in California, a shortage of water (coming soon)...BUT NOT BUSH!...I need a joint...I am feeling nauseous!
posted on May 16, 2001 03:19:40 PM"Where are we going! What in the h--l went wrong!"
-Shosh-
We are all too comfortable.
Listen to those who read these important threads and sneer at them. Those are people who just can't be bothered -- until it's too late.
Let's NOT keep quiet!
Let us pester, shout, and rouse every citizen in this country in order to right these wrongs! We should toss them out of their easy chairs and sofas and out into the streets to WAKE UP for the first time to the fact that WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
We will continue to post, complain, and debate the facts with everyone who we can manage to make stop and listen to us. We must encourange as many others ot do this as well. It is already almost too late!
The clock is ticking away on our prosperity and our freedoms. It is two houirs past the time when we were due to show our patriotism. It is time to jump up out of bed and shake our heads of this nightmare, only to realize that it is no dream! We are at the brink of the Doors to Hell and the tounges of flame are licking at our toes! The choice is yours to make -- DON'T SHUT UP!!
posted on May 16, 2001 05:55:52 PM
Thanks, Ken. Great to see more of the threads that you select and present so well.
I disagree with the author's contention that W is especially intelligent, though those who crafted his strategy are. Bush's mind is simply one large teleprompter displaying the primary goal of the right on social issues post-Roosevelt and especially the changes instituted as a result of the so-called Sixties Revolution. The focus is more on the Victorian era as an idealized state of human existence since it is of sufficient chronological distance and devoid of electronic media documentation to more easily facilitate making it into the repository of virtue. The Sixties and Seventies are selectively employed to illustrate the results of the seeds of earlier liberalism sewn by Roosevelt and continuing a spreading growth into the present. Issues involving discrimination, abortion, environment, wage and price controls, progressive taxation, social security, welfare, health care, etc. Most of the national debate is geared toward a referundum of the issues most hotly debated during that time, largely ignoring the future except to the extent of re-creating a Red Scare/ Cold War fear.
Especially repugant though is that Bush's agenda is not so much ideological as it is a sort of insider trading; legislation designed to enrich the coffers of the financially elite and buying the support of the masses through token tax reduction. How anyone could fail to see that is frighteningly incomprehensible to me. I don't really believe that a majority of the population is too stupid to comprehend the situation, but I fear that too many of them have become so cynical of government that they simply chose to ignore any but the most sensational of national issues and at any opportunity opt to take the money and run, so to speak.
Of course, there are always some who can be purchased through moral/religious rhetoric. This aspect of the initial commentary which began the thread is the most dangerous IMO. I have thought it apparent from the beginning that a key aspect to the Bush strategy is to create at least a serious parody of a theocracy. In Bush's instance the goal isn't to pretend that the leader of the country speaks for God, which of course would never work in such an individualist country, but rather to convince as large a number of people as possible that the leader speaks for the people to whom God speaks. It's a crafty strategy and one which no president has attempted. Many churches have become increasingly unified and politicized the last twenty years. The times may be good to test the theological waters. In order for a president to exercise power and bring out the sort of change that he envisions, he must have the strong support of the people. Tax cuts will buy quite a bit of good will, but reviving a little nationalism through another Red Scare and a whiff of sanctity as the warrior of Christ, would definitely give Bush the impetus that he needs for his agenda.
posted on May 16, 2001 10:53:44 PM
Faith Based-And you have not done a thread on Ashcroft holding Bible Study in his office every morning before work hours?
posted on May 16, 2001 11:06:04 PM
Thanks KEN! Tell us all the role of the vastly republican House in all of this again! I especially like it when you gave them credit for the greatly reduced welfare programs, and the balanced budget etc. Very enlightening! Keep it coming.
posted on May 17, 2001 12:44:19 AMAntiquary:"The focus is more on the Victorian era as an idealized state of human existence since it is of sufficient chronological distance and devoid of electronic media documentation to more easily facilitate making it into the repository of virtue."
That is only to focus the puritanical temperament of Americans towards a distant past where everything was "right" instead of where we are today. Instead, Conservatives hearken back to pre-Renaissance times, before the Great Thinkers began political reforms as we see them today. Back when monarchies existed, owned all the land, everyone who was not of noble birth and landed were little better off than slaves. The Conservatives look back on those innocent days when the Bible explained it all and ignorance was the rule of the land.
"… but rather to convince as large a number of people as possible that the leader speaks for the people to whom God speaks."
Hmm. I wouldn't go so far as to think that, myself. I believe that since the Republican Party must pay its dues to the right-wing Christians who get them voted into office, they have to try to appear as if God means anything to them. Observe how Jeb Bush might not run for re-election in Florida, as there is something going on about his being unfaithful in his marriage. That's because the Republican Party vilified Clinton for his sexual escapades and spread on the honey to the puritans. They can not afford someone in office to be less than 100% moral since they beat those drums so loudly, so harshly that they even tried to impeach Clinton for his indiscretion. And woe be onto Dubya if he gets caught in any sexual shenanigans!
posted on May 17, 2001 05:38:32 AM
Government has been riding the back of religion for so long that they forgot how to walk. The trouble is they have not noticed how wobbly legged the old hooker has gotten.
Most people will claim an affiliation with some main line religion but go home and do what they please and vote for whomever they please, and say yes I belong to the church but they need some reforms, and I have my own ideas. I guess the power of threatening them with Hell Fire has worn off a bit.
posted on May 17, 2001 07:54:30 AM
I don't know, I thought people settled here in the now United States to have freedom of religion. They didn't want to be part of the Church of England, but were still 'Christian'.
Why is it they allow 'In God We Trust' on our dollar bill? Why do they use the Holy Bible (it was used with all the others too) to swear in a new President. Why do Presidents end their speeches with 'God Bless America' (it was not just Bush that did that)
If people really really want seperation of Church and State, these things should have been gone.
That's a very tired old argument which misses the mark that those things are not an imposition to any person's religious freedom.
In each case in which I hae been required to swear an oath I have had the choice of whether or not to swear it on a bible, and there is no stipulation as to which God is to be trusted, or which blesses America--you can make your own determination of those things much like a twelve stepper placing faith in an undefined higher power however he or she determines what that is.
The state shall not impose or support the imposition of any religious practice or belief on an individual. That is not to say that the state would prevent any such practice or belief except where that practice imposes the free will of others.
posted on May 17, 2001 09:16:21 AMwhere that practice imposes the free will of others.
That should be impinges the free will of others.
Do you not think that the President (not Bush) but the others before, swearing on the Holy Bible, is a little upsetting to say, Buddhists, Islamics etc?
When a orginization changes its basic operating principles, chaos is bound to ensue.
This country was founded on Christianity there is no doubt about that. And yes we do not force anyone on that belief, and should never. All religions and faiths are welcome in this country.
I personally do not believe that its an old tired arguement, much the same as I cannot believe that Congress has never made English the official language.
I do not care what language you speak, or where you came from, but it gets confusing, looking on any state or Federal form, and trying to find the section where it is written in English.
Most countries have an official language.
No, English is not the language of the world, but it is the language most spoken in these United States, and has been for as long as this has been a country.
posted on May 17, 2001 10:34:34 AM
This country was not founded by christianty. It was founded by a corporate charter from the King of England. It was founded as a BUSINESS.
As far as the United States being founded, the religion of those who put the country together was deists, heretics and certainly not christian. I am always amazed by modern preachers who claim that a passage in the Declaration of Indepenence "proves" we are a christian nation, i.e., "endowed by THEIR creator".
Notice that it didn't say "endowed by THE creator". If Jefferson etal were christian as defined by the christian and fundementalists, it would have said "the creator". However, as good heretical non-christian deists, they used "their creator". This means that each person has a sense or belief of his/her antecedant, whether it be "god", Ra, Amon Ra, Mithra, or just evolved from primordial ooze.
North America was founded as a business, and the United States may exhibit a spirtual influence, but it certainly isn't exclusivly christian.
posted on May 17, 2001 10:44:26 AM
Great. Its a business, founded as a business. I take back all the above I said. Your right. Then quitb*tchingboutthosedamnedRebulicanCapitolistPigsandbigCorporationsthatgivemostjobs
posted on May 17, 2001 11:59:40 AM
Its odd that we had jobs in this country before we had corporations.
Corporations are not necessarily bad, but any undue concentration of power is bad. Corporations now have power and influence beyond prudence for a republic or a democracy. Corporations came into being to shield investors from personal liability, and better aggregate capital. The legal personage granted corporations was never meant for the corporation to become political power brokers, and become kingdoms unto themselves.
It has gotten to the point that we now must ask if corporations exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve corporations.
posted on May 17, 2001 12:16:00 PM
Interesting and timely link, Snowy.
Borillar,
LOL. Yes, I think the radical right would like to see a cultural atavism to some of the social conditions of the Dark Ages. But the impediment to achieving that state of ignorance is the necessity for maintaining a large number of moderately well educated workers, an unfortunate side-effect of which is the ability to develop the capacity to think abstractly and independently. Until that obstacle is overcome, a true universal state of enlightened ignorance among the masses is only a dream.
Oh I think a pure form or a very specifically defined type of theocracy is at best improbable, but political strategists can hardly be unaware of the enormous advantage to a political leader of having God on his or her side. Though representing a minority of the population, many of Bush's strongest supporters imbue him with messianic characteristics, here to deliver us from the terrible burdens of knowledge which we have had to bear since the Fall. I think it noteworthy that the fastest growing religions are those composed of Christian fundamentalists and that most pulpits in the nations now dispense political positions along with spiritual ones, perhaps often confusing the two. There's a difference between faith and blind faith, of course, just as there is between reason and emotion. Would that George Orwell were alive to witness the manipulations of language today.
posted on May 17, 2001 02:02:34 PM
Sea- My reply regarding the corporate charter by the King is in responce to you stating this "country" was founded on christianity.
This "country" had a history of several centuries before the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and ratification of the Constitution.
The first settlers were under corporate charter. The sect protestants were "lured" to the New World by these corporations to get out from under religious prosecution [many were fleeing to Holland or any other European country that would allow their sect free worship]. However, these sects weren't the only ones lured. Criminals, debtors, bankrupts, those wishing to abandon wives and children [ a la the famous revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine]or other obligations were also brought over. It was like the French Foreign Legion only without the neat uniforms, monthly pay, and basic training. The corporations were able to use these people to some extent to settle the land and promote commerce in the New World to make some money.
The railroads did the same thing in the western expansion with all the land Congress granted them. The railroads made it out like people could go get this wonderful land for next to nothing or sometimes even for free, and had posters all over, even in Europe. What they didn't tell the would be settlers was that the prairie in most years was basically a desert with very poor soil. After 2 generations, these areas started to suffer a net loss in population as the settlers' children left the area. If it weren't for the then unknown mineral resources in some of the areas, the buffalo would still be free ranging out west in vast herds.
posted on May 17, 2001 02:20:46 PM
The following is part of a letter from George Washington to the Hebrew congregation at Newport, Rhode Island:
Gentlemen :
While I received, with much satisfaction your address, replete with expressions of affection and esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful rememberance of the cordial welcome come I experienced in my visit to Newport from all classes of Citizens.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy, a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship.
May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths and make us all in our own several vocations useful there, and in his own due time and way, everlastingly happy.
posted on May 17, 2001 02:25:24 PM
Yes, but I say 'argument' you say 'arguement'. I did unemployment on purpose so I could take the point and match. neener.
reamond-yes, but we were not a country then, thats why we fought England and won independece from them. We still 'belonged' to England. I won't argue that.
Snowy-thats an interesting letter, yes the gov't and leaders gave religious freedom (to an extent)
back then, and that is what is great about this country. But this country is still a majority of Christian, whether practicing ones or not.
krs-I only spelled 'arguement' that way to see if you were reading
Neanerneaner
posted on May 17, 2001 09:42:31 PM
Sea- This country is also a majority caucasin, does that make the country "white"?
The only true description of this country one might make is that we are a democratic republic, with a written constitution. But even that claim may fail.
BTW- the latest figures from CA show that whites no longer have a majority in CA, the white population is now under 50%.
[ edited by reamond on May 17, 2001 09:43 PM ]
posted on May 18, 2001 01:07:28 AM"The only true description of this country one might make is that we are a democratic republic"-reamond
Wrong, we are a representative republic. Hence the electors.
"This "country" had a history of several centuries before the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and ratification of the Constitution."-reamond
No it didn't. That was the beginning of this country. This land is what you are referring to I assume?
posted on May 18, 2001 01:29:13 AM
jlpiece- No, not just the land. The people were essentially the same ones before the revolution as they were after, and those people had a history going back several centuries before we became the United States. This "country" can not be separated from its pre- United States history. The people and events prior to the formation of the United States are what gave birth to the United States. What do you think happened ? Did everyone leave America and new ones brought in to replace them to form the United States ?
There was no break in the history or a change of persons when we became the United States. We were the same people, in the same place, save with a different government. With your line of thinking, the United States ended in 1861, and in 1865 we formed a new country. The history and identity of a people and its land are an unbroken line. The slate is never wiped clean of the past and its effects.
We are a democratic republic, i.e., we directly elect our representatives. The only function of electors was for presidential elections, and the electoral process has devolved to where it is now democratic, that is, the presidential electors are now bound by the majority of their states direct democratic process.
posted on May 18, 2001 01:37:09 AM
If we were a democratic republic, then Al Gore would be President. The representative republic hasn't devolved as much as you think.
And no, we were not a country before the founding documents, we were a collection of colonies completely independent of each other. During the civil war we didn't cease to be a country because all of the founding documents were still in place, and the the system itself was unchanged, just the amount of states.
posted on May 18, 2001 06:19:21 AM
The colonies were no more independant of each other than the "states" were. They were all Crown charters under the rule of the same British government.
Al Gore would not be president under the terms of my statement "the presidential electors are now bound by the majority of their states direct democratic process." To simplify for you, this means the electors are bound to cast their votes for the candidate that has the majority of votes in the state, or as in some states, electors are apportioned by the vote.
JL- Please limit your responce to what is written, not what you may comprehend.
- right now, I think the whole world would be a better if everyone had a joint!