Deck Chairs on the Titanic [Archive] - Breaking Open The Head

Woodpecker

03-08-2003, 02:38 AM

If Bush is a puppet, then he's a puppet of Shiva, Kali, Azreal, folks like that. Sometimes destruction just comes down. He seems to have been born feeling that the world will be a better place if he's allowed to kill whoever he likes. So really, he's just following his dream. Like Osama, who mirrors him and is mirrored by him in so many ways. Where do dreams like that come from? What's their function in the cosmos?

"HEY, IT'S ALL CON
SCIOUSNESS
--thumps
of assault
rifles
and
the
stars"
--Michael McClure

"When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers." --East African proverb.

I think the thing to do, is do all we can politically and spiritually, and never get demoralized, whatever happens. Work with love, humor and hope. The Great Spirit is not on the endangered list.

I'm impressed by the human shields who've gone to Baghdad, too. Anyone who does that has my respect.

Two days after 9/11, I made a prose poem out of things I was hearing on CNN and things I was reading from a yage experience by William Torres in the book "Ayahuasca Reader" by Luna and White. I performed the poem twice recently at anti-war readings here in Vienna; it sums up some of what seems to me the psychological subtext of the violence--the fact that there's an archaic ecstasy to it. The poem:

Jaguar-Becoming

As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore. An interesting sidelight has emerged. What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. 35,000 reservists are being mobilized to beef up the military. To crack down on terrorist cells, and on those who provide support and inspiration for them. People like Achmet Rassan. And so you have to design a campaign plan that goes after that kind of enemy. The body perceives itself as color in that luminous vibrant intensity. The US is requesting access to Pakistani airspace. Many jaguar heads and many jaguars are around me. The statement came out early this morning. A great yawn emerged from my belly at the point where the drum was pounding. Sohail Shahan, Taliban spokesman. It would draw us into an imposed war. A luminous vibrant intensity possesses the body. It wasn’t about Osama, it was about the demonization of Islam. The two of us, the enemy and the body that becomes enemy, carry out gestures of complicity, warrior gestures. Other jaguars pass rapidly, some to one side, some to the other. The president pressed ahead with his visit to New York. It’s hard to describe what it’s like to see the gnarled steel. All space vibrates around me, and it’s a symbol of the greatness of this country. I’m angry at the people who have destroyed life. The jaguar that accompanies me has made the same movement with its own jaws. To find those who may still be in our country. Most of all, I’m satisfied, and pleased to be an American, in two-headed jaguar potency. In other news, the Israeli army entered a section of the West Bank that has been under full Palestinian control. The body, stretched out and suspended at the speed of an infinite pounce, experiences flying.

[ March 08, 2003, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Woodpecker ]

sidecross

03-08-2003, 04:38 AM

What I found most telling and disturbing listening to George W's "press conference", was his reference to describing our constitutional government as "his government".

totaldragonslayer

03-08-2003, 05:41 AM

i dont believe in icebergs..

Buzz

03-08-2003, 01:21 PM

I missed the speech, wish I hadn't now, but he makes me so damn mad. Has anyone seen "Bowling for Columbine?" Great movie about FEAR and manipulation. Highly recommend it.

I watched Bill Mayer on HBO last night and he said pretty much the same things as you guys (possibly gals too) about Bush's speech. Long pauses, Mayer thought he (Bush) was back on drugs. He showed some clips from the speech and some of the seemingly scripted questions from the press were pathetic, and pussyfied. One person asked a question and Bush actually said "thats not in the script", according to one of Mayer's guests.

imported_saoirse

03-08-2003, 02:00 PM

Published on Saturday, March 8, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Some of the Facts as of 3/07/2003
by Bill C. Davis

A man wearing a T-shirt reading "Give peace a Chance" is arrested at a Mall (private
property) in Albany. On February 15th protestors were forbidden to march in New
York City. The vice president's lawyer sent a threatening letter to a website that
parodied Lynne Cheney. The bare breasts on the statue of a woman that stood
behind John Ashcroft as he gave briefings were draped. The tapestry of Guernica at
the U.N. was also draped and covered during interviews with diplomats discussing
war with Iraq. Poets were disinvited to the White House when it was learned thay
had anti-war verses and they intended to read them. False reports of Osama bin
Laden's sons being captured aired fifteen minutes before the Security Council at the
UN convened to hear Hans Blix's report on the disarmament of Iraq. An accurate
report that North Korea was planning missile tests in the Sea of Japan aired
twenty-five minutes before the same Security Council convened. Colin Powell's
voice cracked several times as he made a case for military action following
speeches from the German, Russian and French ambassadors making a case for a
peaceful resolution. Jack Straw, without listening to the interpretation of Mohammed
Aldouri, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, was caught on camera sharing a laugh
with a US diplomat as the ambassador from Iraq was speaking. The US diplomat
was sitting in Colin Powell's seat. At the exact same time Mohammed Aldouri was
making his case before the Security Council, Colin Powell was conducting a press
conference that aired on all cable news. The image most of the American people
saw and heard was Powell answering questions with an insert of the Iraqi
ambassador. Powell was heard again, Aldouri was a silent moving image. Powell
did say that the last thing anyone wants is war. Bush said no one wants war.
Timothy McVeigh was a Gulf War veteran. Most Iraqi citizens say they will fight an
invading force. The prisons in Iraq have been emptied. It has been widely reported
that Saddam Hussein has ordered military uniforms that look like American and
British uniforms and that his soldiers will wear those uniforms, perform atrocities on
their countrymen and blame the Americans and British. Any democrat would beat
George Bush in an election held right now. The New York Times reports that 3,000
"precision guided" missiles will hit Baghdad if the inspections are abandoned and
Bush gives the order. The decision is Bush's alone to make. Bush did not win the
popular vote. A restaurant owner in Long Island poured a thousand dollars worth of
French wine down the toilet in protest to France's resistance to U. S. military action
against Iraq. The envoy from the Pope, who believes that an attack against Iraq
would be immoral and illegal, was given a photo op session with Bush. The
customary live cameras and microphones were not used for that visit. The Pope
also intervened on behalf of Karla Faye Tucker to then Governor Bush. Bush did not
show clemency and she was executed. Bush claims to lose no sleep over the
executions allowed under his watch as Governor of Texas. Texas used to be part of
Mexico, it was then an independent state for nine years, was annexed by the US
and war with Mexico followed. Mexico supports the inspections and a peaceful
resolution to the Iraq crisis. Senior journalist Helen Thomas was scrubbed and
marginalized at the recent and rare press conference held by Bush. She made the
statement the he is the worst president she has ever covered. At this press
conference Bush mentioned September 11th eleven times and yet no journalist
asked him about the progress of the investigation into September 11th. No
connection has been made between Iraq and September 11th. The president's job is
to keep the American people safe.

Tommy Franks is ready. France will veto. Bush prays for peace.

Bill c Davis is a playwight. http://www.billcdavis.com

Anita

03-08-2003, 11:14 PM

Kiesling,diplomat, resign in protest over Iraq policy.On NPR friday,have heard nothing about it anywhere else.What else is happening that is not being reported by the mainstream media?
NPR by the way is not too hot these days either (in my opinion).
USGS not posting the world earthquake bulletin since Thursday 3/06/03,have seen a slacking off on that since early this last fall,never this many days though.
It looks to me like the quakes are getting stronger since say,two or three years ago,used to be a lot of 2. and 3.,now mostly 4.and up
As far as the direct experience of life,now that is getting pretty weird too,seems like the "energy"of folks is getting easier to read,as well as time seems to be sort of slipping?having a hard time finding the right word.......The last few weeks have noticed how things one moment is there and then poof,gone.
Have you guys noticed any strange stuff in your direct experience of life?
As always,I appreciate who you are,every one of you.
Anita
Oh,and by the way,prayer is always good smile.gif

Anita

03-09-2003, 07:11 AM

more(predictable?)weirdness,When I got up this morning CNN headline news had a smallish clip on Carter warning against a war with Iraq(About 3:30 am local time)
Spent some time on the net,and about 10:30 am sat down with my partner for morning coffee and news.
Now the little strip on the bottom says Castro instead of Carter,and no report of Carters stand what so ever......
The Carter news is still out there on the net,Nando?news or something like that.
Do we think our news are spun and censored?
Anybody know of a good independent newsource?
Thanks
Anita

sidecross

03-09-2003, 08:41 AM

Anita

Just War - or a Just War?

March 9, 2003
By JIMMY CARTER

ATLANTA - Profound changes have been taking place in
American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan
commitments that for more than two centuries have earned
our nation greatness. These commitments have been
predicated on basic religious principles, respect for
international law, and alliances that resulted in wise
decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination
to launch a war against Iraq, without international
support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked
by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with
the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a
substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these
standards. This is an almost universal conviction of
religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few
spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are
greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on
eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined
criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all
nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is
obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options
- previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by
the United Nations - were outlined again by the Security
Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security
not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming
opposition of most people and governments in the world, the
United States seems determined to carry out military and
diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the
history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely
publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles
on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the
first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so
damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change
their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and
safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and
noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with
precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral
damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces
in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of
the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques
and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have
suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes,
American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks
have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by
the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote
of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our
announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to
establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying
the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For
these objectives, we do not have international authority.
Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted
the enormous economic and political influence that is being
exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the
possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes
or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although
Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous
financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds
and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at
least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of
concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over
what exists. Although there are visions of peace and
democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath
of a military invasion will destabilize the region and
prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at
home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the
United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable
institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war
after such a great deployment of military forces in the
region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to
America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly
antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated;
increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have
brought international trust in our country to its lowest
level in memory. American stature will surely decline
further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United
Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military
power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations
resolutions - with war as a final option - will enhance our
status as a champion of peace and justice.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is
chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the
2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html?ex=1048236509&ei=1&en=b1f52479de1eec51

Anita

03-09-2003, 02:22 PM

Sidecross,thanks for the article as well as the link,emailing this to a few folks and printing some copies to distribute.
Anita

paul

03-10-2003, 04:15 AM

^^^

anita

"what else is going on thats not reported?"...
the falluja iraqi chemical plant that the british govt built knowingly (guardian,uk)..
the bush families nazi and bin laden business connections....

"peoples energy fields are getting easier to read"..dont forget the backgroud energy vibration just increased a notch as of 3/3/03...what do you mean by timeslips...yr getting an increasing sense of de ja vu?..which ive had almost constantly for 3 yrs now...or youre seeing /shifting different dimensions/future possibilities?...which i also get on occassions...outcomes of particular actions outlined etc

wierdest experience to date drug free state of
x ray vision...

foretastes of 2012?????? smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

Anita

03-11-2003, 04:07 AM

Paul,and all of you,The timeslips for lack of a better word(not a wordsmith....sigh)has to do with my deciding some time ago to do my darndest to "wake up"a little more.Paying attention to the small details of my life,my direct experience as opposed to the "in my head"stuff.the last two were,one at the bookstore,old man looking at the anthropology section,watching him out of the corner of my eye,having a urgent feeling I should speak to him,turned around to pick up a book,deciding if I should,deciding to,no more than 4-5 seconds pass,turn back again,and he is gone,walk fast to the front of the store,nowhere to be seen,look outside,nothing,look around the store,nothing.
the second was driving to work,passing a bluelight parked on the shoulder,he pulls out,gets right on my rear,I get off on the next exit,loooong exitramp,he is still there,a feeling of slight amusement(don't know why)reach for a cig,look back in the rearview mirror,and he is gone,did not pass me,nowhere for him to have gone but pass me,the exitramp behind me empty.
Made me think that these kind of things are pretty commonplace,we just don't notice them because we are so accustomed to continuously guard our "reality",so we subconsciously fill in the blanks,or edit what we are experiencing in the here and now.
I hope this makes some kind of sense.........
Anita

sidecross

03-11-2003, 05:24 AM

Some may find this article of interest.

How a War Became a Crusade

March 11, 2003
By JACKSON LEARS

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/11LEAR.html?ex=1048398066&ei=1&en=73d2865940968aad

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J.
President Bush's war plans are risky, but Mr. Bush is no
gambler. In fact he denies the very existence of chance.
"Events aren't moved by blind change and chance" he has
said, but by "the hand of a just and faithful God." From
the outset he has been convinced that his presidency is
part of a divine plan, even telling a friend while he was
governor of Texas, "I believe God wants me to run for
president."

This conviction that he is doing God's will has surfaced
more openly since 9/11. In his State of the Union addresses
and other public forums, he has presented himself as the
leader of a global war against evil. As for a war in Iraq,
"we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we
can trust in them." God is at work in world affairs, he
says, calling for the United States to lead a liberating
crusade in the Middle East, and "this call of history has
come to the right country."

Mr. Bush's speeches are not the only place one finds this
providentialist spirit - everyone from Christian
fundamentalists to interventionist liberals is serving up
missionary formulas: bogus analogies to the war against
Hitler; contrasts between American virtue and European
vice; denials that sordid material interests could have
anything to do with the exalted project of exporting
American democracy.

To those who worry about the frequent use of religious
language, Mr. Bush's supporters insist that the rhetoric of
Providence is as American as cherry pie. This is true, but
it is crucial to understand that Providence can acquire
various meanings depending on the circumstances. The belief
that one is carrying out divine purpose can serve
legitimate needs and sustain opposition to injustice, but
it can also promote dangerous simplifications - especially
if the believer has virtually unlimited power, as Mr. Bush
does. The slide into self-righteousness is a constant
threat.

The great rhetoricians of Providence have resisted the
temptation of self-righteousness. When the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. wrote from a Birmingham jail that "we will
win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation
and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing
demands," he was seeking common ground with white
Southerners, not predicting perdition for satanic
segregationists.

Likewise, when Abraham Lincoln invoked Providence in his
second inaugural address, his message to the victorious
North and the defeated South was one of reconciliation. By
characterizing the Civil War as a national expiation for
the sin of slavery, he wanted "to bind up the nation's
wounds" and make some moral sense of the appalling losses
on both sides. At its best, providentialist thinking can
offer a powerful antidote to self-righteousness.

Too often, though, American politicians and moralists have
reduced faith in Providence to a religious sanction for raw
power. In the 1840's, with the emergence of the idea that
the United States had a manifest destiny to expand to the
Pacific, the hand of God was no longer mysterious (as in
traditional Christian doctrine) but "manifest" in American
expansion. As for the natives who unproductively occupied
the Great Plains, Horace Greeley, the journalist, said in
1859: "`These people must die out - there is no help for
them. God has given this earth to those who will subdue and
cultivate it, and it is vain to struggle against his
righteous decree."

By the end of the century, Senator Albert Beveridge and
other imperialists had made Manifest Destiny a global
project, insisting that God had "marked" the American
people to lead in "the redemption of the world."

In the wake of World War I, Woodrow Wilson showed that it
was possible to use redemptive rhetoric for aims that went
beyond nationalism, and yet to still fall victim to hubris.
By intervening in the war and ensuring a just peace, said
Wilson, "America had the infinite privilege of fulfilling
her destiny and saving the world."

The failure of Wilson's postwar dream helped make most
Americans skeptical of world-saving fantasies during World
War II. Thus our most necessary war was also the most
resistant to providentialist interpretation. It was a dirty
job, and somebody had to do it: that was the dominant view,
among policymakers and the public. Only in retrospect has
World War II acquired an aura of sanctity.

To be sure, the cold war fitfully revived the nationalist
uses of Providence, at least among true believers like
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles - not to mention
Ronald Reagan, whose rhetoric arrayed the "city on a hill"
against the Soviet "evil empire." But for most Americans,
the failed crusade in Vietnam eviscerated the delusion that
we had a sacred duty to export American ways - by force if
necessary - to a recalcitrant world.

Until now. The proposed war against and rebuilding of Iraq
has brought the sentimental, self-satisfied sense of
Providence back into fashion. One might have supposed that
an attack on our country would have rendered utopian
agendas unnecessary - as it did for most Americans during
World War II. But while a war on terrorism may not need
Providence to justify it, a war to transform the Middle
East requires a rhetoric as grandiose as its aims. The
providentialist outlook fills the bill: it promotes tunnel
vision, discourages debate and reduces diplomacy to
arm-twisting.

Worst of all, it sanitizes the messy actualities of war and
its aftermath. Like the strategists' faith in smart bombs,
faith in Providence frees one from having to consider the
role of chance in armed conflict, the least predictable of
human affairs. Between divine will and American know-how,
we have everything under control. So the White House and
its backers can safely predict that the unpleasantness will
be over in a few weeks, with low casualties on both sides.

Combat veterans, from Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf down, reject
these scenarios. We can be sure that the soldiers in the
Persian Gulf region do, too. This should come as no
surprise: there has always been a chasm between the war
planners and the soldiers on the ground. The planners are
convinced that they can control outcomes; the soldiers know
the arbitrary cruelties of fate at first hand - maiming
this one, leaving that one alone. They know the power of
luck.

There may be no atheists in foxholes, but there are not
many believers in Providence in them either. Combat
soldiers have always been less confident than politicians
that God is on the premises. They have paid homage to an
older deity, Fortuna. From the Civil War through the
Persian Gulf war, American soldiers have festooned
themselves with amulets and lucky charms - everything from
St. Christopher medals and smooth stones to their
girlfriends' locks of hair. And why not? Ritual efforts to
conjure luck speak directly to their own experience.

But the power of providentialist thinking persists, drawing
strength from the fervent beliefs of Christian, Islamic and
Jewish fundamentalists. The more humane interpreters of
those traditions are increasingly ignored, and the
ideologues take command, convinced that they are doing
God's will.

Certainly those of us who doubt the divinity (not to
mention the efficacy) of the president's plan must continue
to challenge it. But as we watch Mr. Bush prepare for
righteous battle, ignoring the protests of "old Europe" and
many in his own country, even the most rational among us
might be pardoned for fingering a rabbit's foot from time
to time.

Jackson Lears is author of "Something for Nothing: Luck in
America."

Buzz

03-11-2003, 09:58 AM

Anita asks:
"Does anybody know of a good independant news source?" Try:

http://www.pacifica.org/

Buzz

03-11-2003, 10:10 AM

Someone stated that any Democrat would win against Bush if an election were to be held now. Actually that happened 2 years ago though the Supreme Court screwed it up. I must admit that I did not vote for anyone last time due to the fact that Ralph Nadar was not on the ticket in my state. I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference in the parties (Dem & Rep). With the death of Paul Wellstone I'm not at all convinced that there are any liberals left. If one hasn't completely "sold out" by the time one gets into office they will ruin you somehow.

Buzz

03-11-2003, 02:06 PM

And if you really want to get paranoid,

Many of you are probably aware that Daniel was interviewed by Whitley Streiber on his radio program "Dreamland". The url is:

http://www.unknowncountry.com/dreamland/

Click on the "Click here to listen now" space/button to select the program that you wish to listen to. Daniels interview is there. But perhaps more appropriate to this discussion is the Feb. 15 program entitled "The War on Freedom."
It is an interview with Nafeez Ahmed, a British citizen who wrote a book about "The War on Freedom". How US intelligence and the Bush administration seemed to purposefully ignore the warnings of an imminent attack on lower Manhatten just prior to 9/11. If true it is appallingly unforgivable.

Woodpecker

03-14-2003, 01:55 AM

CounterPunch

Couldn't resist this one... from http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp02142003.html

February 14, 2003

He'll Be Remembered as an Asshole

Peaceniks Win War!

By BEN TRIPP

Hey, gang! We won, if you don't mind Pyrrhic victories. I feel like the guy at Hiroshima who was in a fart-lighting contest just as the A-bomb went off. His last words were "beat that". In a topsy-turvy way that would baffle the Cheshire Cat, we who desire peace will triumph in the event of war. You see, if there's a clear loser in the pending savagery, it's George W. Bush and his administration of barking scrotum monsters.

Right now it doesn't look like they've lost. They'll have their war on Iraq; they will rain bombs down on that godforsaken patch of petroleum-soaked dirt and before you know it instead of the Iraqi population being 50% children, it will be 20% children, because kids can't run as fast as adults. After a few days of hand-to-hand combat through the streets of once-legendary Baghdad it will all be over. But George never read the Arabian Nights- too long and too dirty. So he doesn't know that Baghdad is infested with genies, and we're not talking about the cute blue ones with ADD who talk like Robin Williams. The ones in Baghdad are the djinn, ancient magical spirits that inevitably trick their masters into self-destruction. Voila! Or if you're Mozart, viola. But the effect is the same. George W. Bush has already lost the most important battle of all: the battle for the future.

Setting aside money and power for a moment (sometimes I do), what really matters to a guy like George is that he should someday join the pantheon of Great Americans whose marble busts inhabit the halls of our nation's capitol. He's got all the power and money he could ever misuse in a thousand lifetimes. What he needs now is to be honored by posterity. This is where he loses and we win. One could argue that George is a marble-headed bust already: that's as close as he'll come to being pals with posterity. Posteriority, yes. Posterity, no. He will not be remembered as a brave warrior, a noble patriot, a statesman, a father to his country, a son of God, or even a well-meaning delusional psychotic. He will be remembered as an asshole- and that's exactly how it will read in the history textbooks, although they'll spell it a**hole so as to avoid mantling the kiddies' cheeks with blushes.

In the future, assuming we can still hope for one, George XLIII's reign will be derided, scorned, mocked, and other words to that effect. jeered and disparaged at the very least, maybe even subject to opprobrium. We-- the unlikely alliance acting against his lunatic regime, we Liberals and Conservatives, Libertarians and Progressives and Pentagon generals and disenfranchised veterans, mothers, fathers, mimes, entomologists, podiatrists and transsexuals, all sons and daughters of a government that has turned its back on the principles upon which we were nurtured from cradle to shallow grave-- we will bask in the hallowed light of kind remembrance, not George. A fat lot of good it will do us, but there we are. I didn't say victory would be sweet. Those kids who took a bullet at Kent State? Martin Luther King? The Kennedy brothers? King Kong? They had to die at the hands of The Man to get immortal- it's a mug's game. George W. Bush, how will we loathe thee? Let me count the ways.

Foremost among his epic buggerations, history will record that Bush precipitated modern America's first utterly unprovoked war and rekindled the arms race. Saddam's not even a communist. A war of opportunity, possibly World War III: this is what Bush will be remembered for, not the inevitable victory over some whiskery homunculus in Baghdad. And that's not all.

Another first: George will be remembered for reversing the outcome of both the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement. He will be remembered for mixing Church and State: his invisible cloud superhero and your tax dollars, together at last. He will be remembered for nose-diving the economy from a great height. For record deficits and massive bureaucratic expansion- he'll knock Reagan off the charts. For 50 bankrupt states. He will be remembered for turning his back on treaties. For insulting great nations. For calling the leader of Russia 'Pooty Poot'. For oppressing the weak and unleashing the mighty upon them. For eviscerating the Bill of Rights, and for secret detentions. For ignoring the desperate environmental crisis which grips the globe like a gut-spasming case of Montezuma's Revenge. For slipping the government's unclean fingers back into the womb of every woman in America. For stealing the election of 2000. For rigging the election of 2002, and probably for canceling the election of 2004. Need more? You can't spin the history of the future, which will read something like this:

Bush, G.W. 43d American President (locum tenens)

In private life an unsuccessful oil executive, George W. Bush was installed as president of the United States by the Supreme Court in the year 2000. At first an ineffectual president both at home and abroad, he was invested following the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 (see sidebar) with enormous political authority. Seizing opportunity in the name of fighting terrorism, Bush advanced an aggressive agenda to secure the world's natural resources for private interests, especially the petroleum industry. After initiating a disastrous program of economic, military and diplomatic actions coupled with severe domestic security measures, Bush's administration collapsed under a wave of scandals. The impact of his presidency on America's international standing is still felt today. According to an obscure satirist of the period, "George W. Bush was the a**hole that ate the world."

See also Stalin, J. and Hitler, A.

Just you wait and see. The genie is out of the bottle, and this is one bottle George won't put down. Us real patriots, the dissidents, have already won- and we'll get our country back someday. What's left of it. Hell, in ten years we'll be able to travel overseas again. History will smile on us. Meanwhile, buckle up your poniards, because we may have won the war, but the battle has only just begun.

Ben Tripp can be reached at: credel@earthlink.net

Charlie

03-17-2003, 06:02 AM

Interesting theory about the reasons behind a U.S. strike on Iraq:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

It's the only theory I've read that makes sense on all angles; very chilling to read. The article is very long—I’ve taken the grist of the argument and posted it here:

The U.S. fear:
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

Although Iraq's oil currency switch is astoundingly censored by the U.S. media conglomerates, this Observer article illustrates that the euro has gained almost 25% against the dollar since late 2001. This also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. `oil for food' reserve fund that was previously held in dollars -- it has also gained that same percent value since the switch. According to the abovementioned former government macroeconomist, the following scenario would occur if OPEC made a sudden (collective) switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition.

"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario. “

The background logic:
"World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.

". . . The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit. Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US essentially owns the world's oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win."

paul

03-18-2003, 03:29 AM

charlie

thats the one!
im in total agreement.
smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

michael heany

03-18-2003, 02:07 PM

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that the weapons that Saddam has will just sit there if we do not secure them. And the longer they sit there the more they accrue. Nuclear weapons will be added and then there will be no attacking him.

I don't think it is reasonable to assume that these weapons will not cross borders and fall into the hands of those who want to use them on civilians. There is supply, there is demand, and both are growing by the day. Cut off the supply. This might increase the demand, but look at the alternative.

I don't believe Bush is a bad person. When he speaks of his faith, it is real, and it points him towards the good. The demonizing of him reminds me of the demonizing of Clinton in his years. It's blind.

paul

03-19-2003, 03:12 AM

the crimes of george bush;
www.votetoimpeach.org (http://www.votetoimpeach.org) :eek:

steve

03-19-2003, 04:38 AM

With inspectors on the ground there is no way in the world Saddam Hussein could have developed nuclear weapons. In fact, Bush’s bellicosity and precedent-setting trashing of international treaties has given North Korea both the need and the opportunity to develop them. His precedent-setting policy of “pre-emptive” war has opened the door for other nations to follow. The United States is now considered - by most of the world, not just the “Axis of Evil” - as the earth’s most dangerous country. Put two and two together.

daniel

03-19-2003, 07:43 AM

michael heany writes: I don't think it is reasonable to believe that the weapons that Saddam has will just sit there if we do not secure them. And the longer they sit there the more they accrue. Nuclear weapons will be added and then there will be no attacking him."

Who sold him those weapons? US Labs and US Corporations, that's who! Who supported his rise to power? We did! Who funded the Taliban? We did! If our policies were that short-term and short-sighted before, do you think they are likely to be any better now?

heany writes: "I don't believe Bush is a bad person. When he speaks of his faith, it is real, and it points him towards the good. The demonizing of him reminds me of the demonizing of Clinton in his years. It's blind."

And what about the Bible? Where does it talk about preemptive strikes and utilizing tactical nuclear warheads and dropping the world's biggest bomb?
Do you think Bush's Bible includes that inconvenient line about critizing the mote in your neighbor's eye, while ignoring the beam in your own?
What about 'Thou Shall Not Kill"?
His "faith," methinks, is a very convenient one.
Did you read the interview where Bush imitated the begging of a woman on death row in Texas, pleading for her life? Have you noted he is obsessed with punishment and violence and death, but is incapable of compassion for anyone but his wealthy coterie, who deserve none, soaked as they are in human blood and ill-gotten gains?

heany writes: "I don't think it is reasonable to assume that these weapons will not cross borders and fall into the hands of those who want to use them on civilians. There is supply, there is demand, and both are growing by the day. Cut off the supply. This might increase the demand, but look at the alternative."

Inciting the anger of the entire world and the rage of the Islamic world, nullifying the UN, breaking all arms control treaties, acting like a spoiled tyrant - that is guaranteed to send weapons and 'WoMD' spinning across borders the world over. No doubt about it.

According to the Geneva Convention, the leaders of our government are now war criminals. I suspect that we are going to live to see Bush and his men in prison for their crimes against humanity.

Halfglass

03-19-2003, 11:28 AM

Daniel: Do you think that whats happening might be the unavoidable growing pains of an over- crowded world, and that a one world government might be the only solution? (I'm not saying this would be right--but might the struggle have to go that way inevitably?) I wonder what kind of world we might live in now had Macarther met Patton in the middle of Asia somewhere in 1945 and just said "This is the way it's going to be! Free states all around!" Of course nobody had 'WoMB' then...sigh.

[ March 19, 2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

dragonfly

03-19-2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by sidecross:
What I found most telling and disturbing listening to George W's "press conference", was his reference to describing our constitutional government as "his government".In a similar vein:

New York Times
March 19, 2003

The Perpendicular Pronoun
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON — Sometimes I feel as if I've spent half my adult life covering a President Bush as he squares off against Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator who invades his neighbors and gasses his own people.

But while on the surface this seems like Groundhog War, the father-and-son duels in the sun with Saddam are breathtakingly different. The philosophical gulf between 41's gulf war and 43's gulf war is profound and cataclysmic — it has sent the whole world into a frenzy — yet it can be summed up in a single pronoun.

"The big I," as Bush senior calls it.

The first President Bush was often teased about his loopy syntax. But it was a way of speaking that signified the modesty and self-effacement his mother had insisted upon. He was so afraid to sound arrogant if he used the first person singular that he often just dropped the subject of a sentence and went straight to the verb.

"Mother always lectured us — in a kinder, gentler way — against using the big I," Poppy Bush said. He is so shy of "I" that he has never written a personal memoir.

Even though he came to politics with a sparse résumé, compared with his dad's stuffed one, the cocky W. was always more comfortable with the first person perpendicular.

When I asked him during the 2000 campaign about why he hadn't inherited his father's phobia about the dreaded singular pronoun, he laughed and self-deprecatingly replied, "That's the difference between a Phi Beta Kappa and a gentleman's C."

During his war overture on Monday night, W. was not afraid of the first-person spotlight: "This danger will be removed. . . . That duty falls to me as commander in chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."

The whole approach of the father, who had once served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and loved nothing more than to drag world leaders out on his cigarette boat and give them mal de mer, was a clubby "we." He and his secretary of state, James Baker, had a coalition of 90 countries for Desert Storm, and they constantly schmoozed world leaders and trying to maintain international order.

The hawks of Bush II are not afraid of disorder in the pursuit of American dominance. They have no interest in any coalition — except their own. They see the international "we" as an impediment to joy — and to destiny. The Bush doctrine is animated by "the big I." That self-regarding doctrine, concocted by Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle back when W. was still merely a presidential gleam in Karl Rove's eye, preaches preventive pre-emptive preternatural pre-eminence.

The only holdover from the first Bush administration's land of "us" is Colin Powell. When the secretary of state was asked whether the decision to go to war reflected the pre-emptive Bush doctrine, he recoiled, crying, "No, no, no."

While the president seemed to endorse Mr. Powell's attempt at diplomacy, it's now clear that he simultaneously adopted Dick Cheney's plan for a military buildup that was bound to upend the diplomatic effort.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that even though Mr. Cheney receded into the background for months, he was choreographing events like Pluto, lord of the underground. In his undisclosed locations, he had dinner parties with anti-Saddam intellectuals and reached out to Iraqi dissidents and plotted the war with his old pal Rummy, letting Colin Powell vainly spend his prestige at the mealy-mouthed U.N.

We'll never know from the ultrasecretive vice president whether he also touched base with oil industry types, since Halliburton and other big construction companies that give to Republicans now stand to make millions in contracts for reconstructing Iraq and reviving its oil industry.

And so we arrive at this remarkable moment, when a Bush who squeaked into office with an ordinary guy's appeal, not knowing very much at all about the globe but promising a humble foreign policy, has turned decades of American foreign policy on its head.

Asked on "Meet the Press" about the ire the president's approach has provoked around the world, Mr. Cheney was dismissive, proclaiming Mr. Bush to be "Reaganesque."

President Reagan always said to aides, "You have to be both revered and feared."

This crowd has the fear part down cold. They have a long way to go on the other.

sidecross

03-19-2003, 05:44 PM

George W's strong sense of doing God's will and armed with an apparatus of power has a fractal like similarity to both the Taliban and bin Laden. Nothing is more dangerous than certainty with the belief God is on ones side.

The U.S. Constitution knew of these dangers and wrote in the necessary tools to keep us off the path of kings and religious tyranny. We seem to have misplaced the key to the tool box.

dragonfly

03-20-2003, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by sidecross:
George W's strong sense of doing God's will and armed with an apparatus of power has a fractal like similarity to both the Taliban and bin Laden. Nothing is more dangerous than certainty with the belief God is on ones side.More on that, from www.bbc.co.uk: (http://www.bbc.co.uk:)

Tuesday, 18 March, 2003, 18:50 GMT
By Nick Bryant
BBC Washington correspondent

President George W Bush has remained serenely calm as the decision to go to war approaches, driven by an inner faith.

George W Bush: Increasing calm as the crisis has intensified

It was Harry S Truman, the only world leader ever to have ordered the use of nuclear weapons, who famously said that being the President of the United States was like riding a tiger, for it was impossible to control the violent tumble of events.

Such was the intense strain on America's 33rd president that he decided against seeking a second term.

After almost eight years of the 'buck stops here' - the famous slogan the plain-speaking mid-westerner placed on his Oval Office desk - it was time to go.

Contrast the experience of Harry S Truman, who buckled under the pressures of America's Cold War struggle, and George W Bush, who seems to relish the sharp focus and intensity of the war on terrorism.

These past few days, he has been a portrait of calm - whether addressing the nation in the red-carpeted grandeur of the Cross Hall at the White House, or playing with his dogs, Barnie and Spot, on the South Lawn outside.

God's will

And ever since it became clear that diplomacy was failing, his mood seems to have become even more relaxed.

After all, his relationship with the United Nations was always a marriage of convenience rather than a marriage of real commitment.

He seems pleased to have been freed from the constraints it imposed. So on the brink of war, this is a president at peace with himself - a man of rigid conviction, with an abiding belief in the righteousness of his cause.

The truth is, America's 43rd president believes he is doing God's will.

Daily routine

Throughout the crisis, his daily routine has stayed pretty much the same.

Bed before 10PM, a 5.30AM rise. Bible study and prayer.

At least half an hour each day of exercise - a three-mile run or a session with the weights.

Lunch in his private dining room, pouring over the sports pages and watching ESPN, the American sports channel.

While his diary has been trimmed - no public events are scheduled for the next few days - he still takes part in the customs and rituals that punctuate a president's day.

Last Friday afternoon, for example, even as the diplomatic effort was coming to a head, he found time for a brief awards ceremony in the White House.

One of the recipients was one of our BBC cameramen, Mark Rabbage, who was struck by the president's remarkable good humour and levity.

As he cracked gags about the Oval Office furniture, he seemed like a man without so much as a care in the world.

Great uncertainty

For all the president's calmness and resolve, America right now faces a moment of great uncertainty - largely because it is embarking on an historic new path.

This is the first war fought under the Bush doctrine's strategy of pre-emption - military strikes against unrealised threats.

Its long-term implications are impossible to fathom - both to America, its allies and the international order.

But its author seems to be the most confident and self-assured man in town.

daniel

03-20-2003, 05:59 AM

Funny that Truman uses the phrase "riding the tiger" - also the title of Julius Evola's memoir. He thought that in this late phase of the Kali Yuga, the only correct action was to help accelerate the processes of destruction to bring on the end of the cycle and the beginning of the next. To this end, he thought that the right attitude with maniacal industrialists and warmongers was: "You are doing great! Go faster, do more!"

Bush is an empty shell, a cypher, an almost mindless channel for occult forces.

Buzz

03-20-2003, 06:32 AM

Micheal Heany,

It is said that the streets of hell are paved with good intention.

steve

03-20-2003, 09:03 AM

I’m not so sure Bush has intentions one way or the other. Bush is a “mindless channel”, as Daniel says, also for quite materialistic and nefarious forces surrounding him in his administration. Forces which do not, by any stretch of the imagination, have “good intentions”, but are motivated by violent ambition (Wolfwitz, Rumsfeld) and/or unbridled and unprincipled greed (Cheney, Perle). Which of course doesn’t mean there aren’t big cosmic forces also operative here.

Which also brings up a personal struggle: when I look at the individuals involved, from the point of view of “choices”, (policy) “decisions”, etc, I become infuriated, a most unloving individual in respect to the perceived culprits of this mess. When I step back and look at it from a cosmic perspective, its easier to refrain from judgment and condemnation and accept it all as somehow as it ‘should’ be. I don’t believe there is a ‘correct’ perspective, but feel the need for balance. I don’t believe in monastic isolation, or blissful ignorance, but I also don’t believe that anger is such a useful emotion to harbor. Any thoughts on how to not lose the insight of either perspective, but also not lose oneself in one or the other? Or if that’s even the right way to think about it?

Halfglass

03-20-2003, 12:37 PM

Steve; are you doing any mind expanders these days? Perhaps now is a good time to trip and search for answers that way? (I notice there's not alot of talk on this board about what people are experimenting with. Not just trip reports per se, but has anyone made any attempts in this area since all this war jive started?) I actually had a belief change in my life last week and that hasn't happened in 20 years....I can't help but to muse on "why now?"

[ March 20, 2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

Charlie

03-21-2003, 01:53 AM

I wouldn’t label Bush as “an almost mindless channel for occult forces”. It’s too convenient, and glosses over a very real, concerted agenda of jingoistic catering to Big Business interests and Christian fundamentalism.

Steve makes an interesting and valid point regarding Balance. This is reflective of Eastern religious beliefs in "acceptance", or that emotions and human events are fleeting and meaningless in the greater cosmic sense of timeless time. Or simply that anger is a negative, ultimately destructive emotion.

Personally, I think anger has its place alongside joy as a basic human emotion, when channeled properly and not allowed to turn into consuming hatred. Any decent human being is allowed a righteous indignation at the trampling of human rights and senseless taking of human life. If not, mankind is doomed be at the mercy of powerful, hubristic tyrants. I don't believe this is where the intrinsic equilibrium of human nature lies, so an equal measure of opposing force (such as massive peace marches) is needed to offset this imbalance.

paul

03-21-2003, 02:06 AM

halfglass n all
A funny thing about over population- like much in life it depends upon how you measure it-

if you measure it in terms of consumption per head of population-then it is the west that is over populated as we have to import more resouces than we produce- whilst those in the supposedly over populated third world (due to their lower living standard)are by and large living within what is locally available -ie sustainably

you ask "is a one world govt the answer to all this.?"

.im certain thats what bush/rumsfeld and co would like us to think.......and judging by some of the papers from pre 2000 election right wing think tanks that are only now emerging......may possibly even be at the heart of their secret agenda...

but if so you can bet it wont be an improved united nations (in which each country at least theoretically has an equal voice)...but rather will resemble some kind of american lead mafia

daniel..not sure id agree our task at this time (kali yurga)is to speed the old world on its way
...im more inclinded to feel our task is to get from here to "there" (the noosphere/new jerusalem)
whilst avoiding as much of the "needless" destruction as possible on the way

smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

daniel

03-21-2003, 08:51 AM

paul,

I was explaining Evola's concept of "riding the tiger," not supporting it myself.

I wonder how many of the "Shock and Awe" bombs contain depleted uranium. Parts of Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq were irradiated by previous American assaults - for the next 4.4 billion years.

from a Rudolf Steiner lecture:

--| Steiner on Electricity and Light |---

If we were to look into early post-Atlantean times, we would find that men
built their dwelling places by methods very different from those used in
modern life. In those days they made use of all kinds of growing things.
Even when building palaces they summoned nature to their aid by utilizing
plants interlaced with branches of trees and so on, Whereas today men must
build with broken fragments. All the culture of the external world is
contrived with the aid of products of fragmentation. And in the course of
the coming years you will realise even more clearly how much in our
civilised life is the outcome of destruction.

Light itself is being destroyed in this post-Atlantean age of the Earth's
existence, which until the time of Atlantis was a progressive process.
Since then it has been a process of decay.* WHAT IS LIGHT? LIGHT DECAYS
AND THE DECAYING LIGHT IS ELECTRICITY. WHAT WE KNOW AS ELECTRICITY IS
LIGHT THAT IS BEING DESTROYED IN MATTER. AND THE CHEMICAL FORCE THAT
UNDERGOES A TRANSFORMATION IN THE PROCESS OF EARTH EVOLUTION IS MAGNETISM.
YET A THIRD FORCE WILL BECOME ACTIVE AND IF ELECTRICITY SEEMS TO WORK
WONDERS TODAY, THIS THIRD FORCE WILL AFFECT CIVILISATION IN A STILL MORE
MIRACULOUS WAY. THE MORE OF THIS FORCE WE EMPLOY, THE FASTER THE EARTH
WILL TEND TO BECOME A CORPSE AND ITS SPIRITUAL PART PREPARE FOR THE
JUPITER EMBODIMENT. Forces have to be applied for the purpose of
destruction, in order that man may become free of the Earth and that the
Earth's body may fall away. As long as the earth was involved in
progressive evolution, no such destruction took place, for the great
achievements of electricity can only serve a decaying Earth. Strange as
this sounds, it must gradually become known. By understanding the process
of evolution we shall learn to assess our culture at its true value. We
shall also learn that it is necessary for the Earth to be destroyed, for
otherwise the spiritual could not become free.

michael heany

03-22-2003, 01:56 AM

If Bush is so evil, how do we explain the pledge of money for AIDS? (a large sum in fact) This is certainly not his constituency. I suppose you could give all sort of devious, ulterior motives. But once again, all this mudslinging on Bush is like all that done to Clinton. I suppose I could have listened to all that virulence, telling me Clinton meant the end of civilization. I didn't. Because I realized it wasn't objective. It was based on a prejudice, and the venom flowed from that.

Inspections would not work. Why? Because, as Saddam sensed, the rest of the world would not back the inspections with force. And he hoped that world opinion would influence us. If it had, our troops would leave. He then slowly restricts the inspectors' movement, gradually. The world's interest turns elsewhere. (He's done this before) And just as he did before he eventually kicks them out. How can it be otherwise if you refuse to use force (and the french are clear that they never will, and they have the veto)? Saddam was counting on your mindset to prevail. You can't have inspectors if you don't back it up *with force*.

Our past policy is irrelevant to what we do now, because the question "What is the right thing to do?" depends on the situation *as it is* and how it might change by action or inaction. My question again, then, is: is it *reasonable* to believe (absent action, absent inspectors (which need to be backed up by action)) that these weapons will just sit there, unused, and somehpw hopefully come into friendly hands when the scene eventually changes? It's certainly possible. Is it likely?

Suppose we make more people hate us by this war. Ok. At least they (and others, who hated us already) will have fewer options for plunging us into anarchy. All it takes to throw this country into deep turmoil is a dirty bomb that cuts through a few blocks in mid-Manhattan. That will do it. And it's not that hard, and the people who want to do it are already there. Fear this, because it coming. Fear it more than whatever Bush does. And it's coming *regardless* of what Bush does. Or what you believe.

Anita

03-23-2003, 02:46 AM

a lot of fear and probably anger as well is felt by Iraqi civil population right now,does the massive bombing we have witnessed in the last few days make is safer here in the US?Personally I rather doubt it,me thinks it does rather the opposite,only fuels the resentment of not only the Iraqi people,but many of the other smaller countries around the world.What we are witnessing is the shedding of the cloak of civilized behaviour.The damage already done to our relationship with the rest of the planets independent governments will take a long time to mend,if indeed it is mendable.
For myself,I have no doubt that this is all a matter of corporate interest,oil,currency,the particulars will come to light in time.
I found it quite unsettling to see the change in peoples behaviour Thursday,lots of "glittering eyes"reminded me a little of the aggression one sees in the schoolyard when the shout of fight is heard..
Anita

Charlie

03-24-2003, 02:02 AM

Michael Heaney: Bush on AIDS

Did you know that Bush has reinstated Ronald Reagan’s global gag rule? Any health funds going to third world countries must not include counseling on birth control methods of any kind. This is, of course, in deference to right wing Christian fundamentalist groups, who give millions in campaign contributions.

http://www.awakenedwoman.com/gagrule.htm

The Bush administration is now considering extending the same gag rule in regards to AIDS funds—that doctors and counselors will be prohibited from providing safe sex counseling to HIV-positive patients.

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,710335,00.html
http://www.feminist.com/news/news163.html

Charlie

03-24-2003, 02:11 AM

More Bush policy on AIDS:

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/02/09/1044725671018.htm

Here is a choice excerpt from the article:

According to the Planned Parent Federation of America, on his first day in office, Bush restored the Reagan-era "global gag rule" on international family planning assistance.

In May 2002, Bush Administration representatives at the UN Children's Summit opposed the use of condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention.

In July, Bush withheld from the UN Population Fund $US34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child care and HIV/AIDS prevention. In August, he withheld more than $US200 million in funding programs to support women and tackle HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan.

Last month, the US killed a deal agreed to by 143 World Trade Organisation members to allow developing countries without the ability to produce cheaper generic drugs for HIV/AIDS and other diseases to import generic drugs at lower prices from countries such as India, rather than the more expensive patented drugs from the US and Europe.

daniel

03-24-2003, 05:48 AM

Michael,

It is difficult for me to address your post, because any attempt I make will probably be futile. You have accepted the media’s incredibly short-term, self-serving, and fragmented vision of history. You have given into the industry of manufactured mind.

When you write, "Our past policy is irrevelant to what we do now," I would ask that you pause a moment and think about this statement. Such a complete denial of history and responsibility is extremely convenient, isn’t it? Have you ever known anyone capable of convenient amnesia about his own bad behavior in the past? What tends to be the continued behavior pattern of such amnesiacs?

A basic wisdom teaching: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Forget Bush and Saddam. Whether one "likes" or "dislikes" the Bush image makes no difference. Forget your instinctive fear-reactions when faced with the spectacle of terrorism and global chaos. That fear-reaction is the most potent brainwashing tactic employed, constantly, with all the subtelty of a jackhammer, by the media, to keep us from thinking for ourselves.

As an experiment, try to look at things objectively, not as a citizen of the US, but as a member of a planetary Biosphere or as alien intelligence. Try to look at it without fear.

Ask yourself this: What is the basic reason that we are in this situation now?

The United States is less than 5% of the world population consuming 25% of the world’s energy and, by some accounts, 40% of the world’s resources. We are a vast machine of entropy breaking down worldwide ecosystems and indigenous cultures to continue our unsupportable lifestyle. Now the resources are running out and the planet’s life support systems are starting to buckle, but we do not want to give it up. Among the resources that we need to keep our party rockin’ and our SUVs cruisin’ are those which are inconveniently found under other nation’s deserts and jungles. To facilitate the continued extraction of said resources, the US decided to build the largest military machine in the history of the planet – something like $353 billion last year, more than the next-largest 15 countries’ military budgets combined.

Your initial reaction may be that this perspective makes me "anti-American." This is not the case. Instead, I would say the following: At the current level of human psychic evolution, any region put in the US’s position of dominance would have behaved in exactly the same way. It is our "karma" to be in this position. Given that, we now have a choice. We can either seek to evolve to a higher understanding, and act from that, or we can continue on the current path of militarism, adolescent arrogance, and repression, tending toward totalitarianism, which is bound to fail in a spectacular fashion.

There are no evil people. Bush is not evil. The terrorists who want to drop a dirty bomb in NYC are, also, not evil. As the filmmaker Renoir put it: "Everybody has their reasons." Some are more short-sighted and deluded and frightened than others. Strategically, it is important to try to understand the reasoning of the "Other," rather than demonizing them. To take one example, I recognize Bin Laden as a classic revolutionary personality. If he was born in Cuba in the 1930s, he would have been a Marxist. As part of the ruling class of Saudi Arabia, he saw that the revenue of the oil resources of that country were going into the pockets of the ruling oligarchy and US oil corporations – and it would all be over in thirty years when the oil runs out, and his country would be nothing but a desert again, and the people would be destitute. His extreme measures are based on a desire to stop this outcome – they are, he recognizes, the only measures that might succeed. "Assymetric warfare" is the only recourse of revolutionary opponents of Empire. Of course Bin Laden is also a zealot with a martyr complex, but so are all revolutionaries. I am not saying I like him – I am saying it is possible to understand the terrorists without calling them "evil."

From a mystical or psychedelic perspective, there is no "us" versus "them." There is only "us." The social and environmental collapse of the next few years will, hopefully, make that clear to everyone. It is only by mass moral revulsion from the current "suicide system" that we can hope to make a better world.

michael heany

03-24-2003, 08:00 AM

Daniel,

When I said the past is irrelevant, I should have made this analogy: if someone made a mess, and it is agreed it has to be cleaned up, what's the point of talking about who made the mess? The *immediate* thing to do is to clean it up, so it doesn't spread. We can simultaneously ask questions about how to prevent such things in the future.

You refuse to reply to my question. I must assume you think the question of whether we are attacked is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and a higher view makes the point moot. That may be.

Governments act in the real physical painful world, as it is now, they must take concrete actions to protect their citizens. You are saying they should be worried more about their karma than about this basic fact of civilization: it is meant to provide physical security.

You put karma above physical security. If that's so, then surely if someone killed a member of you family, and threatened to kill more, you would acquiesce? You would have no obligation to protect their physical selves? That is what you are telling me to do: to not take any actions, through the government, to protect my person and those of my family. But if you reply those actions will *not* protect my person, then we're back on my ground and you should reply to my question.

You cannot preach that others should follow Gahndi if you're not ready to practice it yourself. Would you be willing to? You would be the first person I know of.

You see history as heading towards a telos, and I hope it does. But if you are willing to bear your neck and any of those people you protect with shelter now, then I suppose we have so little in common that debate is not possible.

daniel

03-24-2003, 08:36 AM

Michael,

Do you really think that Cheney, Rumsfield, etcetera, are going to clean up the mess that they, in fact helped to make over decades, and from which they and their friends continue to profit enormously? To take one of many examples, have you looked into how much Halliburton, Cheney’s old company, is already making and will continue to make from this war and its aftermath? It is utterly obscene. Have you been paying attention to the stories of Richard Perl’s conflict of interests, a pattern endemic to this bunch of pirates?

This government is not acting in my interests and probably not in your interests (can’t say for sure as I haven’t seen your stock portfolio). They are acting in the interests of a very narrow oligarchic group fixted in grasping hold of global resources for power. Even their pursuit of terrorism is peculiar and ambiguous.

As for security, I feel less secure every day with every decision that this government makes, as their entire agenda is based on lies and propaganda to fulfill their own increasingly authoritatian purposes. The information that Iraq was trying to buy 500 tons of uranium from Nigeria for instance, was a complete fabrication. This info was crucially used last year to convince the Congress to give away war authority to the President.

Apparently, the papers were so obviously false that an official from the UN took them apart in a few hours – anyone using Google could have proved them false in minutes. Yet these were used repeatedly in Powell’s and Blair’s speeches, foisted on Congress as fact, and disseminated widely. A good piece on the forgery is in The New Yorker this week. Who created those forgeries? Who benefited from them? You figure it out.

As for your question: "Is it *reasonable* to believe (absent action, absent inspectors (which need to be backed up by action)) that these weapons will just sit there, unused, and somehpw hopefully come into friendly hands when the scene eventually changes? It's certainly possible. Is it likely?"

This is totally beside the point, and completely takes its contorted logic from the media’s distortions of reality. There are terrible weapons spread all over the world, many of them made and sold by the US. Scientists have told me that anybody with a Ph"D in biochemistry can manufacture biological "WoMD" in a few weeks. There are also credible reports from Scott Ritter, a former inspector, that the Iraqis did destroy much of their stock of these weapons – but even that is beside the point.

What is the point? The world needs to evolve beyond its present level of consciousness. It will likely take a series of cataclysms before that can happen, and it is quite possible that I, as well as you, will perish in the meantime. Of course, I sincerely hope that will not be the case. Incidentally, that is one reason it is good to have a larger, karmic, and spiritual perspective on the current situation - which is not at all a position of resignation, but one that allows, for more profound engagement. Gandhi is definitely a good model, wouldn't you say?

Our only hope is to confront the truth of the situation with complete integrity and courage and intelligence, and fight for the change that must take place either way. If we don't do it, nobody will.

(I quote this in a piece I just finished): French strategic analyst Alain Joxe writes in his new book, Empire of Disorder: "The only benefit of the globalization of finance and military force for humanity is that it obliges us to think of a global means of equitable distribution, which is the only way to avoid the worldwide civil war that threatens to take the form of cold, barbaric violence."

The question is: How do we get there from here?

steve

03-24-2003, 10:35 AM

Michael says: “If that's so, then surely if someone killed a member of you family, and threatened to kill more, you would acquiesce? You would have no obligation to protect their physical selves? That is what you are telling me to do: to not take any actions, through the government, to protect my person and those of my family…You refuse to reply to my question. I must assume you think the question of whether we are attacked is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and a higher view makes the point moot.”

Michael, thoroughly dissolved in your discourse is the idea that we are striking back at an enemy that attacked us, and that any attack needs a response to prevent further attacks. Actually, I don’t think the second part, the general conclusion, is necessarily true, but its not the weak point in your argument. The fact is, IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE USA! Al-Qaeda has had nothing to do with a regime it considers godless and wishes to overthrow. It is true that, like the whole Clash of Civilizations thesis, it CAN be turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. But if we drive our enemies into each others’ arms, then we are creating dangers, not eliminating them.

Why do you think the war is not going as it did in ’91? Because after 10 years of sanctions for which the US is at least partly correctly seen as responsible, most Iraqis hate America EVEN MORE than they hate Saddam (sanctions killed more). Because the Bush administration from the start has dissed peoples, democracies, and the rule of law, and is perceived to be hell-bent on an “imperialist” (their word, not mine) new world order. The only decent argument for war is Blair’s, as I see it, to liberate a people from a ruthless dictator. But that is so transparently NOT the Bush administrations reason for going to war, that many Iraqis will probably risk their lives defending their honor, not Saddam, against the US, which is perceived as at least a great a danger, no more concerned about Iraqis’ welfare, and almost as immoral.

In short, paranoia underlies the whole push to war. Its true that some people ARE out to get the US (often with fairly reasonable motives), but paranoia thinks still others are, strikes out at them, and whaddya know, they’re pissed too (as well as reasonable people everywhere!)

michael heany

03-24-2003, 11:04 AM

Steve,

My argument hinges on weapons. I say we must presume they are there (if they haven't been moved), because they were established to be there after the Gulf War. Do you believe Saddam that has destroyed all these but somehow has no record of the destruction? I don't think that's likely.

The people who want to kill us want to kill us not because of our policies, but because of who we are. They find the Western world view detestable; it has infiltrated their countries not because of our policies but by the simple fact that our technology has become dominate, and when these areas take the technology, they let let in the world view, which includes all kinds of fearsome things, like the liberation of women. It seems to me that the terrorists that are active do not have economically tinged grievances so much as theological ones. These are not poor people. They simply cannot handle the fact that their religion is the "true" one and yet the infidels' culture dominates all around them.

Our policies will not remove the cultural infiltration that is afoot. Do you think they will stop their attacks if we remove our material interests entirely from the region, if we give money to aid groups from now on? Even if we no longer support Israel, the hate is still there, but our culture is all around them. It is the same hate we saw between Catholics and Protestants hundreds of years ago. There was no economic root there; what was sought was uniformity of belief. And this grievance will end either when "western culture" has infused the idea that uniformity of belief leads to endless suffering (as you saw in the Thirty Years war) or they have prevailed, and expunge our culture entirely. Our goodwill will not appease these people. They don't want your goodwill. They want you to pray to Allah or die.

So I see on the one hand meek submission, and on the other the imposition of a medieval mindset. I choose neither.

daniel

03-24-2003, 01:31 PM

This could go on and on. But Michael, as we sail along on the good ship Titanic, sipping our martinis in our barcaloungers, let me ask you this: If it is "all about the weapons," then why are we not, right now, attacking North Korea, who have announced they are creating a nuke conveyor belt, rather than Iraq, which is considered to have zero nuclear capability by all analysts?

Second point: If it is all about the weapons, and if some of the weapons are the size of a vial of smallpox, then what is this war likely to do? Is it likely to stop their spread or aid their spread to terrorist groups? Congress was told by the CIA- there were front-page articles on this - that the greatest danger of activating the WoMD was to assault Iraq in this manner.

You write: "The people who want to kill us want to kill us not because of our policies, but because of who we are. They find the Western world view detestable."

This is simplistic, media-brainwashed "thinking" on your part. To think that our policies have nothing to do with the situation is deluded. The US has actively supported many of the world's most repressive dictators around the world, including in that region (including Hussein and the Shah) as long as it was in our economic interest. How deeply have you explored Muslim culture? (I admit I have not done so very much) Also the vast majority of the Islamic people don't want to kill anyone. They just want to get on with their lives. And clearly there are moderate and progressive factions within Islam as well as reactionary ones.

It seems to me that the US is as eager to impose its "neoliberal" "free market" ideology on the world as you consider the Islamic Fundamentalists to be. The basis of our ideology is "we get your resources for dirt-cheap." By the way, if you want to understand the US ideal of the "free market," rent the video "Life and Debt," about the effect of economic globalization on Jamaica.

Woodpecker

03-26-2003, 02:49 AM

Michael,

Take a look at www.humanshields.org, (http://www.humanshields.org,) scroll down the page, and see the photo of what our tax dollars did to the back of that Iraqi kid's head. What, you say you can't see the back of his head, because it's been blown off? Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? That was someone's 10-year-old son, someone's nephew, someone's brother.

Through committing acts of evil supposedly in self-defense, Bush and his mafia are creating the most massive wave of anti-American sentiment I've seen in my life, one that we, the people, will have to deal with, probably forever. I deeply resent the fact that they and their supporters have hijacked the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Speaking of freedom. For Janis Joplin, it meant nothing left to lose. For Bush, it seems to mean something more like a total lack of responsability and accountability, and a carte blanche to kill whomever he pleases.

steve

03-26-2003, 04:32 AM

Well, Michael, it is probably true that there are people out there, maybe hundreds, or even thousands of them, who want to kill us for religious reasons. But there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who may not want to kill us, but are increasingly overcome with a visceral hatred for what the US has done, directly or indirectly to them. They do not, as you imagine, hate us “for what we are”, as convenient as it is to think that. They do most definitely hate the U.S. government for its policies. (And, due to their own experience with unrepresentative government, they recognize far better than most of us, the difference between governmental policies, and people.)

They hate the US because of its support for sanctions which killed a million Iraqis, someone from almost every family, and left the dictator intact. This is why they do not regard the US as liberators, as they did in ’91. They hate the US because it supported Saddam when he was gassing Kurds in 89, and gassing Iranians earlier. They hate the US because it blindly supports a government which has ignored more UN resolutions than Saddam, has acquired weapons of mass destruction and represents a threat to its region, and that government’s illegal occupation of territory and brutal repression of the rights of a whole people. They hate the US because it has continually supported corrupt and authoritarian regimes who suppress the democratic ambitions of its citizens. It hates the US because we overthrew the Iranian democracy and installed a puppet dictator to do our oil business. It hates the US because the talk of “neo-imperialism” (that’s openly a Bush people term), and actions on the field outweigh talk of “liberation”, as the increasing abandonment of Afghanistan (now the liberated parts are down to Kabul, and that only precariously).

Michael, please, how can you not see that these are reasons enough to hate the US?

For what it’s worth, I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East, and have married into a Muslim Middle Eastern family. Most people there, like here, are not particularly religious, but I have met many who are, like my mother-in-law. Her Islam, like my own mother’s Christianity, helps her in some modest way to be a more sincere, compassionate, caring individual, who tries her best to see the people of the world as brethren who deserve love. Would that President Bush’s religion did the same.

Of course, I do know that there are Islamic fundamentalists, and Islamic fascists, but I have never met a single person who sympathises with them. By the same token I have never met anyone here who sympathizes with abortion clinic bombers and Tim McVeigh, but I know there are plenty of them out there. Let's try not to generalize about societies on the basis of their most extreme and violent individuals.

And with this post I formally withdraw from this wearying discussion. Think what you will.

whitewave

03-26-2003, 10:34 AM

Every Wednesday for the past three months a silent vigil for peace has been held next door to the cafe where I waitress. I have been shocked at the level of hostility and at the ridicule directed towards the vigil from most of my customers, who insist on calling these people "protestors," even though they themselves have been very careful to choose the non-confrontational word "vigil" to describe their weekly gathering. Since this is a small town, most people know I would be standing out there with them if I wasn't working, and since I am a waitress and supposed to be polite, they feel like they have the right to tease me about my views through trying to engage me in an argument about the "protesters." My point is mainly that the people standing in silence next door to the cafe are not acting aggessively towards anyone, or harrassing a waitress. There are times when I have almost lost my temper, but so far I have managed to stay calm while defending what I believe--which is, as has been pointed out in this thread--exhausting. I can only hope that the maxim actions speak louder than words will hold true in all regards in the current world situation, and hope that someday language will also be liberated from those who use it to oppress and lie in the name of a god who is beyond the word. In the beginning was the word, but what came before the beginning?

sidecross

03-26-2003, 02:12 PM

whitewave

You are as important as any peace movement vigil even in the role as waitress.

There are times when a well placed look of the eye can send a coded message, appearing innocuous as a Trojan Horse. Its impact to only take effect in its viewers unguarded moment.

Gandhi said, "what you do is not important, but it is important that you do it."

michael heany

03-27-2003, 08:36 AM

So much of our support for regimes in the past was done to counter the influence of communism during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and its totalitarianism were seen as the chief threat to liberal democracy's survival. We tried to counter that influence and had strange and even hideous bedfellows in the process.

That's done. That threat seems to have faded. Was our policy the right one or even necessary, in general? In this or that case? We can debate that but we have to look now to the future. Yes, with a mind to the past.

I suggest that the threat now is much greater than the threat of totalitarien communism. Theocratic terrorism does not play by the rules of nation states. It does not ask for respect and does not sign treaties. If it obtains a small nuclear device it will not ponder the moral quandaries. It will use it. It does not have grievances that can be assauged.

So what policy do we adopt towards this enemy? I would like to hear concrete strategy from some people on this board. To say "Don't go to war" is not good enough. The absence of action in itself is not a positive policy. What concrete action in its place?

PuristLove

03-27-2003, 09:11 AM

Strategy:

One, completely remove our dependency on oil. A nation with only one export is not a strong nation. It is like handing a homeless person a million bucks, but not teaching him anything about finances. He'll be rich, but not productive. Removing our dependency on oil would force Middle Eastern nations to evolve into stronger, more coherent nations. They would have to develop free markets to survive.

Two, send in humanitarian aid and educators. In places that are not accesible, drop back-pack sized packages filled with food, bottled water, ,medicing, books, and computers. When "your people" are going hungry, and sick and can't get food or medicine, it becomes pretty easy to convince yourself you have a moral obligation to kill those you blame for that.

Three, accept that the rest of the world may not want to be a democracy, and give them the education and means to become one if they want, but quit trying to shove it down everybody's throats. There are a lot of nation's in the world where most folks are not Islamic. Why do the extremists hate America and not those other countries? Foreign Policy.

Four, use the equipment we have that is sitting in warehouses unused, to better process people coming into the country. We have the means to scan people's finger and eye prints, and compare that against an enormous database of known terrorists, criminals, etc and we don't use it. I believe it was said that several of the pilots involved in 9/11 would have showed up if we'd been using the equipment. Instead, it sits and rusts. After we spent millions to buy it.

And while that's simplistic, I'll leave it to people a bit more educated than myself to flesh out.

sidecross

03-27-2003, 11:42 AM

We have not the time any longer for educational or logical explanations to the world's wealthy leaders.

My advise would be to take each of these leaders put them in a room by themselves and administer 500mcg of pharmaceutical LSD 25.

Before LSD 25 became illegal, the same 500mcg of this compound had a cure rate of 75% for chronic alcoholics with just one dose.

Possibly after passing this first initiation our worlds leaders will retire, explore other compounds, or get out of the way.

daniel

03-27-2003, 06:55 PM

Michael,

Thanks for your question.

First, on the domestic front, which is completely tied to our foreign policy situation:
We need an immediate "Apollo Program" or "Manhattan Project" for renewable energy and for restoring the environment – I mean really restoring it, which would be very labor intensive work and employ millions in a WPA style program. Wasteful use of non-renewable energy at this critical juncture would have to be systematically discouraged and heavily taxed, while public transporation infrastructure would be subsidized and rebuilt. No more mindless roving of SUVs, etc. Obviously this would require a tremendous effort at educating people who have been systematically disinformed by the present system. Rethinking and reworking our educational system is obviously an immediate priority. Steiner’s Waldorf Schools might provide a good model.

The legalization of drugs – some would have to be controlled substances for a few years until the positive empowerment of good education took root in the general populace – would immediately end a lot of sticky foreign policy situations in Latin America and elsewhere, and liberate funds for education and social programs.

Corporations have become so completely tied into the negative aspects of our society that there would have to be nationwide effort to decertify them on a state level. We would revoke the freedom that corporations now enjoy to destroy the natural capital of the planet, and make them pay for the destruction they have already caused. Probably the legal fiction that is a corporation would have to dismantled and put back together in a new way that would be beneficial to communities. The success of any business would be based on how much it dignified and uplifted the people involved with it. I am interested in the idea of "alternative currencies" presented in Bernard Letiaer’s book The Future of Money – money is also a human invention and it can be systematically redesigned to work in a less Darwinian manner. "Negative interest" is one way of doing this.

International:

Instead of gutting international organizations such as the United Nations, they should be tremendously empowered. The War Crimes Tribunal seems like a good early step. A progressive move would be to declare the next ten years "The First Decade of Peace." A focused international community could work quickly toward the elimination of all armed conflict anywhere in the world. War criminals will be exiled to a forboding colony on the Moon. Personally, I like the idea of using MDMA as a conflict resolution tool in tough situations.

In the short term, recognizing the unity of the human community and the Biosphere is absolutely necessary. The critical life support systems of the planet are in danger of breaking down. A global effort to take care of the impoverished and the ill, and to mend the Biosphere would supplant Medieval territorial conflicts as a goal. We would also need to restore the Medieval concept of the "Jubilee," a day when all debts are forgiven.

Jose Arguelles’ 13 Moon Calendar provides a standard under which we can unify the seemingly opposing tendencies of the world’s monotheisms – not to mention indigenous shamanic cultures. In the first years of the paradigm shift, psychedelics administered in therapeutic or spiritual settings will help "decondition" people from the one-dimensional linearity of the materialist dominator mindset, which will be recognized as hypnotism caused by negative imprinting. After reconditioning, they can move into the pursuit of one of many esoteric disciplines and arts of their choice.

A special session of the UN would recognize the extraordinary damage inflicted on the indigenous people across the planet during the centuries of Colonialism, and finally admit the necessity of learning from their archaic wisdom about how to have a proper relationship to the earth and the spirit. Where traditional "landkeepers" still exist, they should probably be given particular positions as bioregional counselors of their particular area, and their words heeded as absolute environmental law. You probably know that the Hopis tried several times to get the attention of the UN focused on their ancient prophecies – all soon to come true, of course – but of course, nobody listened.

The UN would also have to recognize that nations, as they have been conceived, are for the most part a tragic and artificial legacy of Colonialist greed and territorial warfare. Recognizing the essentially fictive nature of nations, and the delusion that is patriotism, the international community would begin to move towards more sensibly organized bioregions. Within twenty years, most borders would be dissolved. Eventually, a system of direct participatory democracy will become the norm.

PuristLove

03-27-2003, 11:26 PM

Daniel, you mentioned the Waldorf schools, but have you looked into Montessori philosophy? I think it's a better education program, although there are elements from the Waldorf program that could be easily implemented and strengthen it. (I REALLY like the Waldorf idea of having one teach through all twelve grades, developing a mentor relationship with the students is a big part of what's missing from the education system now)

sidecross

03-28-2003, 04:54 AM

While the possible solutions of PuristLove and daniel are eloquent and doable, the problem we are facing is not one of solution, but one of will.

Anyone, who has ever experienced the pull of heroin or has known someone under this addiction, knows that the intellectual solution and knowledge of solving the problem is just pissing in the wind. What is always in very short supply for this affliction is the will.

Our fascination with wealth and accumulation is as addictive as heroin. Anyone, who has lived a life where wealth and accumulation is a major focus, will do almost anything to keep it up. You need only look at the war in Iraq, which while dressed up in a cloak of high moral doing, is in fact a tactical solution to keep things exactly the same relative to wealth and accumulation for those who have it.

Proteus

03-31-2003, 04:41 PM

What a great thread!

While i don't want to pick on our friend Sidecross, i do want to play with his/her addiction metaphor a little and challenge him/her to something a bit more active and hopeful than a wistful sigh about how addicts can only get clean if they really want to.

If we're going to say that the Industrialized world is addicted to its toys and comforts, then let's really push the metaphor to the limit and make the kind of distinction that therapists and biochemists would make. Our addiction to "stuff" isn't "type-A." That is, our dependance on "stuff" is psychological and not a literal physical dependance in the way that nicotine and heroin can be. Therefore, there's a very good reason to think hard and quickly about alternatives to the current world system: the cure for what's about to kill us is as simple as convincing a critical mass of people that the path we're on has not future unless we work together right now to engineer a survivable and sustainable future.

The ideas already shared in response to Michael's question aren't impossible ideals, though there's no denying that it will take a combination of the right circumstances and intense effort on the part of those who aren't deluding themselves to change enough minds to save ourselves from extinction. We saw an amazing outpouring of community-feeling in the immediate after-math of 9/11. A critical mass of people were poised to undertake any amount of sacrifice and effort to help each other and to create a world where an atrocity of this kind could never happen again. Had Bush's response been to define the 9/11 madness as a criminal act instead of an act of war, had he told the people to steel themselves to create a nation independant of foreign oil for its energy and announced sweeping tax and legislative initiatives that would have accomplished this goal, enough of the type-B "stuff" addicts would now be thinking globally and environmentally to pave the way for many of the reforms that Daniel suggested. What a squandered opportunity!

sidecross

04-01-2003, 03:32 AM

Proteus

Thank you for addressing sidecross in the “his/her” format; sidecross is a surname, artemis is a first name.

It has been said that the problem is not finding a solution; the real problem has always been facing a solution. The analogy I used to heroin dependence was to demonstrate that particular monkey on ones back was not one of finding solutions, but one of the will to face the solution.

[ April 01, 2003, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: sidecross ]

michael heany

04-01-2003, 09:51 AM

I suppose the disconnect here is at base a disagreement about what the greatest danger on humanity's horizon.

I understand the arguments that contend that a rapacious global capitalism is ignoring signs of an impending social/environmental disaster of which it is the direct cause. As far the environmental aspect goes, I'm suspicious of the party line. I have seen evidence that a different picture can be drawn on the state of the environment, and the alternative is not merely a reflection of a knee-jerk reactionary ideology. The scientists who have given us the gloom and doom picture of our future are not robots, ones and zeros, true, false. They feel the gravity of orthodoxy, being part of a community. Since they "know" the enviroment is headed for disaster, the data they choose will reflect that.

But let's suppose that the ills facing us are really of that sort. How long will it take us to correct them? Several decades at least. And why bother trying to correct them if we don't at the same time fend off another mortal threat, Islamism and the terror behind it?

What I fear most is the proliferation of weapons that can throw societies into anarchy in one blow; I fear that these weapons will increase greatly in number and avaibility. And while we attempt to reform our systems we will turn our back to this other threat; if we are struck, that will end all reform and set us back quite a ways. Daniel, you think that is acceptable, from the global point of view. To my mind and to many others it is not.

You might contend that the two threats are related, and the concerns you have, properly addressed, will eliminate this terror, which is merely a secondary threat, an off-shoot. Once again, I doubt that. One way of looking at the situation: they turn to extreme religion because of the injustice they face. Another way: the fundamentalist element of Islam has always been there. But now it sees itself facing its extinction as the Chrisitian legacy permeates even into every living room. And your policies of reform, even well-meaning for the whole world, will only enflame that further.

paul

04-01-2003, 10:26 AM

michael

going back to yr previous post for a moment id just like to point out - that despite the reported opinion of the american public and the best efforts of the cia- there is no proven link between iraq and bin ladens terror network

incidentally, far fr being in decline islam is statistically the worlds fastest growing religion,although admittedly due in part to demographics

sidecross

04-01-2003, 10:47 AM

I hate to sound like a broken record, but let me quote again a passage from John Lilly:

“…“in the providence of the mind, what is believed to be true is true or becomes true, within limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the providence of the mind there are no limits.”

We are prisoners of our own beliefs; the jailed beings of the confines of our language. All the military insanity is built upon a worldview based on language.

I will say this again, and not so tongue in cheek: 500mcg of LSD25 taken by those in power pulling the levers will certainly provide, at least for a few hours, pause to reconsider what they are doing.

In terms of the environmental degradation our most serious problem for our planet is and will be fresh water. While the population continues to grow and science manipulates even greater crop yields; no one in science has yet solved the limits of fresh water.

paul

04-01-2003, 10:50 AM

civilian deaths in iraq
-fr sources independent of both governments-
www.iraqbodycount.org (http://www.iraqbodycount.org)

PuristLove

04-01-2003, 01:32 PM

michael, how does war with iraq, or any other middle eastern country prevent weapons of mass destruction from getting into the hands of terrorists or prevent terrorists from using them?

These people are only loosely tied to any of the governments over there, and quite capable of finding funding/safe haven somewhere else if it is necessary.

Russia has had WOMD on the blackmarket for the last decade.

Chemical and biological weapons can be made in an underground lab, by anyone with the right knowledge and fairly limited equipment (as evidenced by the rash of anthrax mail shortly after 9/11 which wasn't tied to Islamic terrorists at all, but rather, crazy american cookes instead.)

How does taking Saddam's do anything to stop terrorism?

It seems to me that the only way to ever stop something like this, is to get to the root of the problem. Why do they hate us, and what can we do to stop that hatred?

I've suggested again and again, that if the people of the Middle East weren't suffering, there would be a lot less recruits for the terrorists. Think about how gangs work, they get kids from broken homes, with no hope for a future, and they offer them "love" and a chance to make more money than they'll ever see. I'm fairly certain terrorism works in a similar way. They find people who have watched other muslims be slaughtered by Israel, starve in countries we've got sanctions against, go without medical supplies... and they blame the United States for these things. Probably, much of that blame is misplaced. But it doesn't change it. So then the terrorist comes along and "empowers" them by saying, hey, you can strike back.

Want to end this, get to the root of it, find the source of the hate and eliminate it. Send food and medicine into the Middle East, along with education so they can feed and doctor themselves. Force Israel to come to terms with Palestine, by threat if necessary. Help the people see that many of their problems come from dictators like Saddam, and also help them see that they are many and he is few and can be thrown off. Drop books and food and medicine, computers and cell phones, send teachers and doctors, not soldiers and marines.

michael heany

04-02-2003, 03:28 AM

daniel

04-02-2003, 05:11 AM

MH: I suppose the disconnect here is at base a disagreement about what the greatest danger on humanity's horizon. I understand the arguments that contend that a rapacious global capitalism is ignoring signs of an impending social/environmental disaster of which it is the direct cause. As far the environmental aspect goes, I'm suspicious of the party line. I have seen evidence that a different picture can be drawn on the state of the environment, and the alternative is not merely a reflection of a knee-jerk reactionary ideology.

What evidence? Lomborg’s "Skeptical Environmentalist"? A vast quorum of environmental scientists agree that global warming is an accelerating catastrophe. The few who don’t are generally corporate sponsored.
The polar ice caps are melting, there are few fish in the ocean, the colar reefs are disappearing, and all of the world’s tropical forests will be gone in four decades or less. Deteioration leads to faster ruin, as poor populations get desperate – there are no forests left in Haiti or Indonesia. We are pumping over 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. We are also hastily introducing new chemicals and now bioengineered species that may have ruinous effects on what is left of the "natural world." Meanwhile, fresh water is becoming rare, and "water wars" are on the way. The Saudis are apparently designing huge Ziploc Bags to tow icebergs to their parched land. That is another short term solution.

MH: The scientists who have given us the gloom and doom picture of our future are not robots, ones and zeros, true, false. They feel the gravity of orthodoxy, being part of a community. Since they "know" the enviroment is headed for disaster, the data they choose will reflect that.

I totally disagree. Few are those who want to be in the position of planetary doomsayer. The writers of books such The Heat Is On and God’s Last Offer are reluctant to follow through on the actual logic of their arguments. You might also enjoy Thom Hartmann’s "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight."

MH: But let's suppose that the ills facing us are really of that sort. How long will it take us to correct them? Several decades at least.

If we wait too long we may not be able to correct them at all. Certainly when the oil is runnning out is not going to be the best time to build a renewable energy infrastructure. But it is probably already too late to prevent a huge amount of social chaos on that score. Still we could try, rather than continuing in the completely wrong direction.

MH: And why bother trying to correct them if we don't at the same time fend off another mortal threat, Islamism and the terror behind it? What I fear most is the proliferation of weapons that can throw societies into anarchy in one blow; I fear that these weapons will increase greatly in number and avaibility.

The US is the greatest proliferator of the most horrendous weapons. We are currently using depleted uranium shells in Iraq that remain radioactive for more than 4 billion years. DU used in the first Gulf War led to Gulf War Syndrome and huge spikes in child cancers in Iraq – including kids born without eyes. We sold Iraq its Anthrax and etc. We funded the Taliban. The US company GE (NBC) has been supplying India and Pakistan with the necessary tools to build their nuclear arsenal. The system we have exported across this once-green Earth is a suicide system.
The US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons -- and on civilian populations at that. Recently, the US has withdrawn from the major international arms control agreements and nuclear nonproliferation treaties. We are currently constructing "tactical nukes" and no doubt will use them when we feel like it. God knows what chemical and biological weapons we are currently cooking up. We have supported guerrilla insurgents and state-sanctioned terrorism wherever it has been in our interest.
Also you completely ignore that this war is going to feed world terrorism exponentially – Egypt’s President said yesterday it would create "500 Bin Ladens." You are siding with the Monsters in the Executive Branch against their own Generals and Intelligence Agents and Career Diplomats.
Why do you give this administration any credit? Enron was Bush’s biggest supporter. Bush was a failed businessmen who slid by on the grease of his family connections. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice see the world through the distorted prism of the oil corporations and the military industrial complex.

MH: And while we attempt to reform our systems we will turn our back to this other threat; if we are struck, that will end all reform and set us back quite a ways. Daniel, you think that is acceptable, from the global point of view. To my mind and to many others it is not.

It is not a question of one being "acceptable" and the other not. The current direction, the one you prefer, will, without doubt, lead to total planetary meltdown in a few years. You can’t lock down the whole planet. It’s not going to work.
Go back and reread my previous posts, as you don’t seem to have understood them or allowed them to register on your closed mind. If Iraq had reasons not to sell off its vials of small pox to terrorists before, it doesn’t anymore. If moderate Arabs still had the possibility of moving those societies toward progressive values, the US assault assures that they will not. Hatred breeds hatred. Murder breeds murder. War breeds war. Arrogant use of overwhelming military force naturally breeds "radical assymetric warfare" – terrorism and guerilla movements. The only way to stop perpetuating the cycle is to be the one who ends it.
A turn toward basic sanity and rational idealism by the "world’s only superpower" could cause a worldwide revolution in human consciousness – especially considering the reach of our media machine. This current direction is irrational and apocalyptic – and of course you know that the Bush you so approve of is also in the throes of Fundamentalist Apocalyptic delusions, as dangerous as any Islamic notions?

MH: You might contend that the two threats are related, and the concerns you have, properly addressed, will eliminate this terror, which is merely a secondary threat, an off-shoot. Once again, I doubt that.

You only doubt it because you are incapable of admitting the extent to which this war is based on one thing: Our desperate need for Middle East oil to maintain our insane and ecologically suicidal lifestyle. Few want to talk about it, but the world oil supply is running out at a fast clip. Check out the book Hubbert’s Peak (excerpts available on line). For me, one sign that there is a larger noospheric "program" at work is that the oil is running out as global warming picks up – if we had another 50 years of oil, there would be no way to stop the eco-cide.
The US and Britain wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about the Middle East if it wasn’t for the oil. Why do you think the boundaries of Iraq were constructed in the way they were by the British Colonialists? To ensure they would remain in a state of permanent dependency.

MH: One way of looking at the situation: they turn to extreme religion because of the injustice they face. Another way: the fundamentalist element of Islam has always been there. But now it sees itself facing its extinction as the Chrisitian legacy permeates even into every living room. And your policies of reform, even well-meaning for the whole world, will only enflame that further.

I don’t see Islam facing extinction. Where did you dream that up? The modern West is closer to facing demographic "extinction" or at least demotion due to failure to repopulate. But I don’t see that as a cause to be anxious. There seem to be plenty of people around.
The book Empire, an important work of post-Marxist theory, discusses

Fundamentalisms, theirs and ours, as being a particularly Post-Modern phenomenon. They are ideological constructs based on the model of an earlier pure state that is completely fictititious. And yes, they are a reaction to the fragmenting, fractallizing forces of the post-modern world. I think Arguelles is correct that the only logical way to stop them from annihilating each other is to harmonize them through an act of magical reinstatement (i.e., a new calendar, which is also a new covenant). This could be done through the dramatic reempowering of the UN, etc.

The only response to the insane, paranoid, dystopian vision which has become the mainstream position is a rational, well-reasoned, fearless, and utopian one.

daniel

04-02-2003, 06:15 AM

Once again, Osama bin Laden doesn't want your food. Did the Taliban want our food? Were the 9/11 hijackers poor? The 9/11 hijackers did not make statements about starving fellow Muslims, as far as I know. They refered to the Koran. When you bring up economic factors as root cause, I think you're mistaken.

MH: You see religious fundamentalism as a mere byproduct of a materially degraded society. Give the society aid and it won't have to rely on the "crutch" of fundamentalism so much. I don't see it that way. I see this fundamentalism as a given; it has always been opposed to our ideas but now it can offer a real threat.

Why does the answer have to be only one way or the other? That is reductive thinking. It is, of course, due to economic factors and local cultural factors. But fundamentalism, like everything else, is not a "given." It is evolving response to changing conditions. See my last post: Fundamentalism is particularly a post-modern response, creating an ideal early condition that never existed. Christian fundamentalism does this as well.

MH: "Imagine the situation reversed: imagine if our Christian fundamentalists lived in a world that was steadily being overtaken by Islam."

Demographically, we do live in that world! Probably part of the underlyingconditions for this war.

Once that influence had reached a critical mass, they also would strike out. Your fundamental belief tells you Christ is the lord, and yet Allah pervades the world. Some of those who truly believe will give their lives to stop that.

MH: (Back to Iraq. If it is so easy as you say to create biological weapons, why haven't they been used on us yet? Why didn't we find them in the Al Qaeda camps? There should be a plethora of them by now.

The only user of Anthrax, so far, seems to be a "rogue element" of the US intelligence community, suspiciously targeting the NY Times and Daeschle a few days before the vote on the US Patriot Amedment. Other countries and interests haven’t used them for various reasons: 1, they are inhuman. 2, they are not so effective. 3, they might lead to attack, even nuclear attack, on their own population.

MH: But lets grant that there will be other sources for this stuff. Do we then allow Iraq to be a factory while we sit by? You want to argue that this stuff is ubiquitous, so let's throw our hands in the air, or hope diplomacy contains it. I see the situation as much more desperate.)

Go back to earlier posts: Scott Ritter the former UN inspector says they were just not making this stuff anymore – probably for the reasons cited above. There has been no evidence of factories, etc. But once again you keep pushing the discussion back to the CNN mainline arguments, even though we have demonstrate in previous posts that the logic is not there at all.

MH: The only hope is that secularism spreads in this region. The war will accelerate that.

You share the ungrounded arrogance of our leaders, who believe they can, willy nilly, remake whole civilizations as they would want them to be. Good luck!

Yes it will accelerate the hate, but that is going to be there anyway until the idea of a secular state has pushed out the yearning for theocracy. Compare the younger generation in Iran to the older. They are much more Western in outlook. The idea of theocracy combined with the reality of weapons of mass destruction spells disaster.

You are right. The idea of the "nuclear football" being in the hands of an apocalyptic theocratic fundamentalist alcoholic like Bush is deeply terrifying.

paul

04-02-2003, 07:22 AM

mh
im not sure where yr getting yr information- if you have visited iran or not- but my impresseion of the country was certainly not that the young are becoming more westernised.

in fact everyone i met, stated whatever thier problems, things were still better than they had been under the shahs american backed puppet government.

if yr referring to the odd recent newsweek/cnn reports covering the current political liberalisation in iran , part of a process that has been going on unreported for nearly a decade( and which is definately not the same as americanisation ) id suggest the sudden attention has more to do with rumsfeld and co,s plans for futher expansion after iraq.

try running a search for the phrase ' new american century' - you,ll find much of whats now unfolding
on the world stage, laid out in detail way before 9/11

Charlie

04-02-2003, 11:53 PM

George Bush: "An apocalyptic theocratic fundamentalist alcoholic".

I have to remember that one...

dragonfly

04-03-2003, 06:53 AM

Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists
Wed Apr 2, 9:01 PM ET

By Lee Douglas

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.

The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.

Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.

The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall.

"We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.

Larson said protesters should be protected by free speech laws, but not given free reign to hold up ambulances or frighten people out of their daily routines, adding that police and the court system could be trusted to see the difference.

"Right now a group of people can get together and go downtown and block a freeway," Larson said. "You need a tool to deal with that."

The bill contains automatic sentences of 25 years to life for the crime of terrorism.

Critics of the bill say its language is so vague it erodes basic freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism under an extremely broad definition.

"Under the original version (terrorism) meant essentially a food fight," said Andrea Meyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the bill.

Police unions and minority groups also oppose the bill for fear it could have a chilling effect on relations between police and poor people, minorities, children and "vulnerable" populations.

Legislators say the bill stands little chance of passage.

"I just don't think this bill is ever going to get out of committee," said Democratic Senator Vicki Walker, one of four members on the six-person panel who have said they oppose the legislation.

michael heany

04-03-2003, 07:53 AM

It is not a strong response to refer to majority opinion in science. Most scientists will tell you psychic phenomena do not happen. But you probably have seen evidence to the contrary.

Think what it says that you don't want to read this book, "The Skeptical Enviromentalist" or related literature. I think you don't want to confront anything that contradicts your core values. That's understanable. Most people (including myself) operate the same way. But I don't think you're ready to admit this. Why is it important to admit this? Because it might temper your opinions a bit. When we realize that our theory is driving us, and not the data (which can't exist without a theory) we will be more open to reason. We will take an occasional glance at the opposing view, and without passion. Or if we don't take that peak, at least we will realize our current confidence is quite conditional.

Once again, your venom against Bush seems unbalanced. You can't seem to find a single good aspect to his person. Look closer.

I disagree that the evidence certainly states that we are running out of oil. Once again, I refer you to this book.

To call Bush a "theocrat" is rhetoric. You are being equivocal here, mixing figurative with literal. A government under a religious Bush is not a theocracy in any important aspects of the word. Under a theocracy you have no freedom of speech. This board, these ideas would be supressed. Has Bush at any point threatened to impose his religion on you? No. That is the crucial distinction.

I don't see fundamentalism as a post-modern phenomenon. The Puritans of England were certainly fundamentalist, were they not? And one could name other movements throught history that demanded strict adherence to the book.

Sorry I haven't been able to respond to all points. It makes this debate piecemeal, I agree. But I am getting a better pictures of where we disagree fundamentally.

dragonfly

04-03-2003, 09:39 AM

Michael, I agree that it's important for us eco types to know what Lomborg has to say. But that raises the question: Have YOU read what HIS critics have to say?

For more on that all in one handy spot, click here: http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/lomborg121201.asp

paul

04-03-2003, 09:59 AM

mh

havent read lomborgs book but i did catch the interview by jeremy paxman on bbcs award winning newsnight programme...the interviewer just shredded him

to 'hear" lomborg hang himself with his own words visit;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight
and enter lomborg in the archives search

smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

michael heany

04-03-2003, 11:36 AM

Also, Daniel, in Lomborg's book he doesn't deny that global warming is happening. He does point to the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the extent of the danger; and he makes important points about the various ways we can deal with the problem.

dragonfly

04-03-2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by michael heany:
To call Bush a "theocrat" is rhetoric. You are being equivocal here, mixing figurative with literal. A government under a religious Bush is not a theocracy in any important aspects of the word. Under a theocracy you have no freedom of speech. This board, these ideas would be supressed. Has Bush at any point threatened to impose his religion on you? No. That is the crucial distinction.
Under a theocracy one lacks freedom of *religion*, and in fact Bush has spoke of his desire to limit the free religious practice of those whose religion he has a problem with: namely, pagans.

In 2000, while campaigning for election, George W. Bush said the following: "I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it."

Given the fact that Bush is constantly promoting the role of religion in government (e.g., his faith-based initiative), his stance on Wicca shows that he is not an objective promoter of the benefits of spirituality in general (which I imagine the nonreligious among us find disturbing enough), but an advocate for a specific religious viewpoint.

As a pagan, I *do* feel Bush has threatened to impose his religion on me by promoting policies that favor monotheism.

sidecross

04-03-2003, 12:10 PM

We humans have been in our form for 60,000 to 100,000 years depending on who is keeping score. The bifurcation into the use of art and symbols is but 50,000 years old; writing can be traced to 9,000 years ago. The greatest hallucination is our sense that any current belief system is true.

June Singer said it best; we humans are but ants on the cosmological doorstep. We have been full of grand ideas and counter ideas. Until we can return to becoming a partner with nature and not its master we will follow folly over the cliff with our thoughts for wings.

No golden parachutes will be available.

michael heany

04-03-2003, 01:10 PM

I think I understand where the sticking point is.

Daniel,

Let's grant for the sake of argument that the environemental and economic ills described are real and that the solutions for addressing them you offer are good ones. Let's assume people can be made to see this, and society starts moving in this direction to start correcting them. If someone asks "What do we do about weapons of mass destruction and the terrorists who want to use them on us?" What is the response? Once again, if you say your policies will make that question moot, surely it won't be moot immediately, or for a while to come. And specifically:

Do we end our support of the current dictatorship in Pakistan; and if it is then overthrown do we accept the inevitable theocracy in its place, with the nuclear weapons still there? In the short term at the very least that sounds very dangerous.

Do we remove CIA operations in all of these countries where terrorist networks are active, and so lose an advantage we have in protecting ourselves? That sounds foolhardy too, in the short term.

If you say we have to accept those dangers, I grant you may be right. But I feel more inclined to accept the uncertainties that result from engagement rather than those that will arise from withdrawl. And there argument ends, because we don't know the future and the past is no good guide for this new terrain.

So once again let's grant that the chief danger consists of the issues you have raised, and let's grant a critical audience ought to accept them. This shift, if undertaken, does not address these immediate problems. And you can't expect people to accept your grand design if the immediate issue of physical security is not addressed.

One thing we do need to do is to demonstrate more even-handedness with the Palastinian/ Israeli issue. We need to stop reflexively siding with Israel. That is a valid complaint from the Arab world.

michael heany

04-03-2003, 01:13 PM

Dragonfly,

The fact that you were able to write that post without any fear establishes that we are not in a theocracy.

daniel

04-03-2003, 01:50 PM

Michael,

This whole system of thought you are invested in is a death trap. Read Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man. It is the best analysis I have found of the system's "irrational rationality" and it has never been so pertinent. There is no real logic to be found within the system, nothing that is going to plug all the holes.

Do you think the eminently corrupt governments of Pakistan, India, Russia, not to mention Iran and North Korea, and so on, can be stopped from selling nuclear or biological materials over the long term? Where is this system going? How do we see ourselves living twenty years down the line?

Who is going to lock down the entire planet? At what cost to any kind of world that you or I would want to live in? And then what?

Believe me, I have gone through all the arguments you make before, all of those options, and many more.

I have reached the only logical conclusion: The only hope for humanity is a revolution in consciousness.

Or as Arguelles puts it, by 2012 the choice is clear: "noosphere or necrosphere."

dragonfly

04-04-2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by michael heany:
Dragonfly,

The fact that you were able to write that post without any fear establishes that we are not in a theocracy.As you see, I don't post under my real name. As someone living in the so-called "Bible belt," I am fearful about publicly proclaiming my beliefs, unlike my Christian neighbors. Pagans do face discrimination in schools, in the workplace, in the courts.

The dictionary defines a theocracy as "a government ruled by or subject to religious authority." It’s true that the United States is not a theocracy in the same sense that Iran is a theocracy, or Israel is a theocracy. But it’s also true that we don’t live under a government that embraces the free practice of religion for all.

The fact is, George W. Bush promotes prejudices that oppress people like me. His statement on Wicca shows that he would like to have this nation move towards an environment where there is less religious freedom, not more.

As long as GWB wants to subject people like me to his religious authority, I can't help but see him as a wannabe theocrat.

dragonfly

04-04-2003, 05:33 AM

Right after posting my last remark, I ran into this...

Bush Mix of God and War Grates on Many Europeans

By Tom Heneghan

PARIS (Reuters) - The religious overtones in President Bush's speeches increasingly grate on many ears in Europe, where leaders invoking God in times of war are widely suspect of misusing faith for political purposes.

No less than the German president, French prime minister and Belgian foreign minister have joined religious leaders in expressing concern about Bush's beliefs and the place of religion in U.S. politics.

Media commentators, especially in northern European countries with Protestant heritages, have branded Bush's evangelical views as Christian fundamentalism, with some even comparing them to the Islamic fundamentalism of Osama bin Laden.

The discussion reflects both the widespread popular anti-war sentiment in Europe and the deeper gulf between a continent where faith is on the wane and an America where religious values probably play a more prominent political role than ever before.

German President Johannes Rau, a Protestant preacher's son who makes no secret of his own faith, reacted sharply this week on n-tv television to press reports that Bush believed defeating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was part of a divine plan.

"George Bush has got a completely one-sided message. I don't think a people gets a sign from God to liberate another people," he said. "Nowhere does the Bible call for crusades."

Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, a vocal critic of the war, said before hostilities broke out last month that he saw Christian fundamentalism gaining influence in Washington and added: "That is, of course, a dangerous point of departure."

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, asked about a U.S. weekly's cover story on Bush and God, told Le Point magazine: "In no way can God be called on for a vote of confidence."

UNEASE AT GOD TALK

Bush's firm faith, rooted in an evangelical Protestantism that reflects an important voter bloc in his Republican party, has also prompted questions in mainstream U.S. media about how much it colors his stand on Iraq and his war on terror.

In his speeches, he has asked for guidance from "the loving God behind all of life and all of history," hinted he believed there was a "divine plan" for the world and warned Americans that "we are in a conflict between good and evil."

These references may not seem so out of place in the United States, where all presidents say "God bless America" and "In God We Trust" is emblazoned on dollar bills.

But they stand out and sometimes even shock many Europeans who remember how German soldiers trooped off to World War One with "Gott mit uns" (God with us) stamped on their belt buckles.

"I believe George Bush's religious views are genuine," Cardinal Karl Lehmann, head of the German Bishop's Conference, told the Catholic weekly Rheinischer Merkur in an interview on Thursday. "But this careless way of using religious language is not acceptable anymore in today's world."

In Sweden, invoking God in politics is so unusual that parliamentarian Hans Lindqvist told Reuters: "I've never seen anything like this before."

Commentators in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair's firm but discreet Christian beliefs have also aroused critical attention, have described Bush as "chaplain in chief" and analyzed his use of religious phrases and images in detail.

"For world-weary Europe, the presidential language evokes mirth and queasiness in equal measure," The Independent wrote.

In France, where even practicing Catholic or Jewish politicians shrink from mentioning religion, the daily Le Monde reacted sharply last week to the news that the U.S. House of Representatives had called for a day of national prayer and fasting to secure divine blessings for U.S. troops in Iraq.

"This bizarre approach shocks Europeans," it said in an editorial. Its religion correspondent accused Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of "gross misuse" of religion.

"One is tempted to say the destiny of America is in the hands of a small group of Protestant bigots," Henri Tincq wrote.

The religious side of Bush's thinking has attracted much less public attention in traditionally Catholic countries such as Ireland, Italy and Spain, where the Roman church has lost most of the vast influence it used to wield in secular affairs.

Media there have focused mostly on whether the Iraq conflict is a just war, sometimes quoting the pronounced anti-war stand of Pope John Paul II.

Russia, which in its old communist days might have churned out caustic criticism about the White House and "the opium of the people," has also shown little interest in Bush's beliefs.

"Politicians now routinely invoke God and Orthodoxy for all sorts of things," one longtime foreign resident remarked. "You can't open a billiard hall without an Orthodox priest present."

(Additional reporting by Bart Crols in Brussels, Andrew Hay in London, Erik Kirschbaum in Berlin, Patrick McLoughlin in Stockholm, Ron Popeski in Moscow, Carlos Santamaria in Madrid, Estelle Shirbon in Rome and Kevin Smith in Dublin)