On 2002-02-22 22:43, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-22 09:51, Eric A Meece wrote:

With reference to Europe, you refer to the situation after WWII. Guess what, there's no Hitler or Stalin to threaten them now. What decade are you living in, Cynic?

Eric, there is and will always be a potential Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Shi Huangdi, Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Attilla, Alexander, etc, etc, waiting in the wings.

These were, by the way, very ordinary men in their essences for the most part. Every Generation in every time and place contains a few of the sort, who usually get no chance to implement their malice.

Today, places such as Nigeria and Iraq are governed by autocrats as cruel as any you would wish to compare them to. They are held in check, not by 'progress' but by the threat of force. Within the nations of the West, similar men (and women) are held in check by the knowledge that if they try to act on their desires, they will be stopped by force, not persuasion. It's not a question of what decade, Eric. The only thing unusual about those decades (1930s 1940s) was that several of these sorts did manage to obtain power at once. They're always around.

We could have joined Europe in moving ahead all these years later, socially, culturally, environmentally, but we chose to elect Nixon, Reagan and Bush instead. Or should I say, the red zone chose these leaders and foisted them upon us. That was our choice, not Europe's.

And the correct choice, at that. No, Eric, if we had tried to join Europe in their actions, we would have been forced to divert money away from defense, and the USSR would not have had to back down as far as they did.

The USSR was prevented from invading Western Europe by the threat of retaliation, not international law or progress. If America had not defended them, the European nations would have been forced to divert money from their social 'evolution' to defend themselves. In a sense, our huge military budgets, I suppose, did consitute a sort of foreign aid to Europe's projects, by enabling them to spend less on defense.

If America tries to go that route, there's nobody there to backstop us the way we protected and upheld Europe. You're simply wrong, Eric.

Why do you assume that Americans are the only people who understand right from wrong, and are willing to contribute men and money to maintain collective security? On what basis do you believe that America must do this alone? And have you considered what Pat Buchanan reported? It turns out that America, by being the world's policeman, ends up being just another dictatorial power that enforces stagnation and repression on many parts of the world. The last half century proved that beyond any dispute.

Actually, I do vigorously dispute it. And I don't say that only America can do it. I do say that only America can do it for America. There is no other specific single power large enough to do it, unless it first grows greatly in strength.

If America were removed from the picture, the 'more enlightened' societies would have two, and only two, choices: arm up and start operating along roughly American lines, or learn to like living under the rule of dictators. That's it. That's the entire range of alternatives

Again, what do you base your assumption on? Don't you think the whole world together could provide the necessary means to keep the rogue states in check?

Only if some specific government first assembled enough power to impose some level of organization on the natural chaos of international affairs. Some power would have to step into the roll America was absent from, or the ways and means to check the troublemakers would not exist. There's no such thing as leadership by committee.

That's increasingly what's happening already. Who has the most troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, for example?

True, a lot of the peacekeeping personnel are European, but that actually means very little.

America was and is responsible for most of the action to keep the rogue states in check, Eric. Even when we are averse to casualties and use other powers to do our ground work (and that is a potential weakness of ours, I admit), America has provided the impetus.

Kosovo was fundamentally an American show from the word go, specifically a Clinton show. We provided the vast bulk of the air power, most of the intelligence work, almost all of the organizational activity, and if America had done nothing, nothing would have been done at all.

Blue America and Red America could continue to contribute. But blue America would not waste as much money on useless Pentagon projects. We would contribute what other states contribute.

Unless the other states upped their contribution considerably, there would then be insufficient resources to do the job.

If you want the Red Zone to compromise, you'd better be prepared to sacrifice some of your dreams along the way. If your dreams don't
include pragmatic compromises with reality, than you're a disaster waiting to happen if you ever gain any real power.

First, dreams don't have to be sacrificed. They do need to be implemented pragmatically. Second, it is you guys in the Red Zone who have the impractical dreams; dreams of a utopian yesterday where noone has to pay taxes, non-whites don't exist, and people mindlessly obey their preachers on Sunday.

As usual, Eric, you completely misunderstand the Red Zone culture and right-wingers in general. That is not even close to what we are all about!

That world never existed and will never return.

True, and since it's not what we are all about, it doesn't really have any relevance to us.

There can only be one objective reality, and it's the same for everyone. It might conceivably be that all opinions about what that reality is are wrong, but there still can be only one objective reality.

True, but there is no objective reality without subjective reality (see philosophy threads)

Likewise, morality that is not universal is ultimately a shell game. The dream society you hope for will either have enforced moral rules, or will collapse in chaos. No other alternatives exist.

You are the dreamer. The hope that everyone will live under one enforced moral reality is utopian and impractical. Sounds like Communism to me. Get real, Cynic.

I am real. The universal morality I am talking about refers to the Higher authority.
And I know you don't believe any more than I do that human beings are an accidental natural phenomenon.

As for living on Earth, yes, people in a given nation do live under an enforced moral code, called the law. Not all morality can or should be legislated, but basically all law is indeed legislated morality.

Because taxes are too high already.

See! You guys are irresponsible and you don't want to do your part to make society viable. Fine, go live in your world of individual "self-sufficiency" out there in the sticks, and live off the land-- and despoil and ruin your own lands. See where that gets you. The fact is that we already pay lower taxes than other developed countries, and most of it goes to the military.

True, American taxation is not as bad as that of Europe. Further, it's perfectly legitimate for large amounts of tax money to go the military. That's one of the basic purposes of the Federal Government.

No, we don't begrudge taxes for maintaining the roads, the defenses, those parts of the communications system that are best handled publically, and we don't begrudge taxes for aiding the needy (the really needy, that is).

Of course there are individual exceptions, but this idea that conservatives hate all taxes alike is silly. We do maintain that America already takes in sufficient money through its taxes for most needs, and that the tax structure is itself organized in an inefficient and immoral way.

Eric, the world you dream of is impossible. I'm not worried that it'll come to pass, I do fear that the government might eventually try to make it happen, and in the process of failing destroy the West.

The world I dream of will come through education, awakening, and consensus, not by coercion.

If it does, it'll be the first time in history that such a thing has occurred!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-22 22:54 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-22 23:02 ]</font>

HC, my hat's off to you for holding your temper as well as you did in the face of Eric Meese's smug arrogance and political hubris, and answering him point by point with reasoned, logical replies, even if you had to break your reply into three posts to do it. Also for your knack for being able to express ideas we both seem to have in common so much better than I can. You can count me as being in your corner. :grin:

On 2002-02-22 09:18, takascar2 wrote:
...
I am sick and tired of you liberals with your holier-than-thou attitude,looking down your noses at the people who have the values that made this country great and continue
to make it strong.

You liberals think that your victory is inevitable - don't count on it!

From the Heartland - we "God fearing conservatives" will not yield - EVER. If you want a second civil war, you are heading in the right direction.

Didn't you post this same message last month or something?

And yes, I may be a radical anarchist anti-corporatist atheist liberal, but I don't look at ENTIRE value systems. I only care for the fundamentals.

What are your fundamentals?

On 2002-02-22 21:51, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Incidentally, in various tests run after the election, using the same type of ballot with other items as a test, people ranging from grade schoolers to nursing home residents managed to use them with nearly 100% success.

I understand that some of the butterfly ballots were misprinted so that the names of the candidates were not properly aligned with the box you were supposed to punch. That type of printing error would not get caught in a test. Nor would it show up if Democratic and Republican party officials were okaying a "clean" butterfly ballot prior to the election.

On 2002-02-22 18:30, mmailliw wrote:
1) I saw Sarah Hughes' pictures online; her face looks so withered and wrinkled that she seems closer to 37 than 17 (although back in 1999 at Worlds when she was 13 turning 14, she didn't have that problem...) - this phenomenom DOES actually seem to happen to more than a few people of my (80-86 and possibly 87) generational wave. As the teenagers in HS get more millennial I guess we'll see this more and more from stress, etc. (at least getting alcohol or R-rated movie tickets would be easier...)

I always liked Michelle Kwan and Sasha Cohen better anyway. I guess that wrinkling always happens when you wear too much makup.

2) While the entire election recount process was a sham (with both parties not working for the TRUTH but to get their guy in the White House), it is obvious (IMHO) that
A) Bush did a lot more manipulating than Gore with the votes (e.g. even the military votes; while Bush's team secretly fought to suppress the military votes from Gore precincts, they loudly campaigned for the ones from the Bush precincts - they went as far as to get overvotes counted in certain cases as a vote for each candidate!) "Under one conservative recount standard, Gore would have won by over 50,000 votes." (probably misquoted; from Jews for Buchanan)
B. Tracy, Jenny, etc. are all right in concluding that more people went to the polls in FL to vote for Gore than for Bush.

Lenin once said that voters do not decide the outcome of the election. Instead, it is the people counting the votes who decide the outcome of the election.

Hi, Robert! You been busy offline? I miss the variety of articles you dig up...

On 2002-02-23 09:32, madscientist wrote:
Lenin once said that voters do not decide the outcome of the election. Instead, it is the people counting the votes who decide the outcome of the election.

If true, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, eh? :grin:

On 2002-02-23 05:20, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I've seen a bit about Milliken. But I find the more startling evidence for a viable Buchanan-Nader (paleocon-Green) alliance) in the person of Virgil. Here is a guy who is so paleocon, it isn't funny.

Personally the number one reason why I distrust extermists on both sides of the political fence. They both act in similar ways and could develop an alliance to destroy moderate politics.

For example, that happended in France during the French Revoultion. France went through and the struggles going on for generations after the Bourbon restoration, through the Orleanist monarchy, through the 3-year Second Republic, the Empire, the 3rd Republic (riven from its inception by the denial of many of its constituents that it was legitimate), down to Le Pen's National Front today.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke's elegant prose, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."

Legitimacy can only arise by a slow, organic process. Once broken, it's very difficult to repair and the streets run with blood.

"Hands off except in the most desperate of circumstances" is a good motto.

We in the Anglo-Saxon world have a great tradition of political legitimacy and that has made our political system work so wonderfully and smoothly. That allowed our political system and parties to survive through the last 4T and will probably last through this 4T.

Extremists on both sides seek to destroy that and they need to be fought whereever we can.

America needs another FDR who is a moderate at heart and can turn people away from the extremes by enacting a necessary agenda to meet today's issues and problems. I use Al as a example of a potential FDR like characther, Gore for all his faults could be such a person along with others. I used Al Gore because he was ideas on the environment which can turn people away from the Earth First crowd.

Wonder why the notion of a 'third way' are important to some people, because it is a way of marginalising the extremists and keeps our political system and legitimacy intact.

He is not an enthusiast. He is not a progressive. He speaks of fallen man who is wicked. He is about the most unlikely sort to be found cavorting with anarchists. Yet Virgil voted for Nader.

Exactly the sort of thing I fear. I would keep a eye out for people like him.

_________________
It's left-wing ideologues who've presided over the great slaughters of the 20th
century; that's the true heritage of political utopianism. Compared to idealism, capitalist greed is a benign force.

S.M Stirling

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-02-23 14:46 ]</font>

America needs another FDR who is a moderate at heart and can turn people away from the extremes by enacting a necessary agenda to meet today's issues and problems. I use Al as a example of a potential FDR like characther, Gore for all his faults could be such a person along with others. I used Al Gore because he was ideas on the environment which can turn people away from the Earth First crowd.

GWB is not an extremist. He is a moderate who has shown he has what it takes. I strongly beleive in my heart that he is Our Gray Champion and will go down in history with the likes of Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

Our nation is in good hands. God made sure that the American People saw through the political lies of the Democrats and elected President Bush. You all should count yourselves lucky that you are alive in these times with GWB to lead you.

On 2002-02-23 14:38, Tristan Jones wrote:

On 2002-02-23 05:20, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I've seen a bit about Milliken. But I find the more startling evidence for a viable Buchanan-Nader (paleocon-Green) alliance) in the person of Virgil. Here is a guy who is so paleocon, it isn't funny.

Personally the number one reason why I distrust extermists on both sides of the political fence. They both act in similar ways and could develop an alliance to destroy moderate politics.

For example, that happended in France during the French Revoultion. France went through and the struggles going on for generations after the Bourbon restoration, through the Orleanist monarchy, through the 3-year Second Republic, the Empire, the 3rd Republic (riven from its inception by the denial of many of its constituents that it was legitimate), down to Le Pen's National Front today.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke's elegant prose, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."

Legitimacy can only arise by a slow, organic process. Once broken, it's very difficult to repair and the streets run with blood.

"Hands off except in the most desperate of circumstances" is a good motto.

We in the Anglo-Saxon world have a great tradition of political legitimacy and that has made our political system work so wonderfully and smoothly. That allowed our political system and parties to survive through the last 4T and will probably last through this 4T.

Extremists on both sides seek to destroy that and they need to be fought whereever we can.

America needs another FDR who is a moderate at heart and can turn people away from the extremes by enacting a necessary agenda to meet today's issues and problems. I use Al as a example of a potential FDR like characther, Gore for all his faults could be such a person along with others. I used Al Gore because he was ideas on the environment which can turn people away from the Earth First crowd.

Wonder why the notion of a 'third way' are important to some people, because it is a way of marginalising the extremists and keeps our political system and legitimacy intact.

He is not an enthusiast. He is not a progressive. He speaks of fallen man who is wicked. He is about the most unlikely sort to be found cavorting with anarchists. Yet Virgil voted for Nader.

Exactly the sort of thing I fear. I would keep a eye out for people like him.

Ew, Tristan. Sadly, you might perhaps fear me, too, then. :sad: I hope not. I share some of Virgil's view of Man Unfettered. I wish it wasn't that way, but it seems to always prove the point when Man is given enough free reign.

I see it as an ebb and flow throughout history (a give and take would I guess be more appropo here :smile: ).

So, in those times of too much gravitation towards the edges or extremes either way, I can see Government's good use to equalibrium-ize (and when Government goes extreme, since Government IS Man, this is another occurence of Man Unfettered). The Rule of Law to steady the Rule of Man, if you will.

I don't fear Virgil's view. Curiously perhaps, I see it as him wanting similar to what you say you want, just going about it differently.

I do also agree with alot of what you've said, too. I guess it might boil down to how one views one's Government as far as if it is "too hot, too cold, or just right" in the moment.

Take your example of FDR as a moderate. Lots of people consider him to have been a leftist radical, not a moderate. :wink: I do think, though, that in the context of that moment in time, seeing as how economically and morally unfettered that Man had become leading up to him, one can view him as you do. Moderating influence, perhaps. And that influence did moderate for 20 years foward. The ebb and the flow thing....

For me, I think American Government (Man) has for some time tried to control personal moral and economic behavior too much, without adjusting when behavior changes, or the attempt is futile or successful. (I count both the progressive and the conservative waves of the last 40 years, for example, as equally guilty. I'm not just talking about this minute. But I also see that both had value in bringing about lasting changes that weren't all bad, too.) I do think a minimum set of constraints is needed, though, and that's the bugger, because we cannot agree to even some minimum level on what these would be. That I think will be the challenge and I hope the crowning achievement of the next High, to again find that moderating balance.

On 2002-02-23 15:31, takascar2 wrote:

GWB is not an extremist. He is a moderate who has shown he has what it takes.

Well, I see GWB as an extremist in moderate's clothing.

The US Government is preparing to create the "Office of Strategic Influence."
They want to rerun, like in comedies, the last Fourth Turning. It's almost as if people who lead our Government have read Generations and TFT. They know what motivates the American public for war.
The 911 attacks, the anthrax attacks, the Pearl case. Gore and galore. Then the government may spread lies in the press to confuse us. What is remarkable is how the liberal press is acting all "holier than thou". Why, they're shocked, shocked. As if the government has always told nothing but the truth when it comes to war. In the Awakening and Unraveling the government lies but it's challenged and to some extent discredited. That's why people don't trust the government as much during 2Ts/3Ts. The pattern reverses in the Fourth and the lying becomes more blatant. The lying is so blatant that the government is even willing to admit that it's lying. Just not where.
My suggestion. Turn off the mainstream new and tune in to anti-war or socialist groups. They're the ones writing the real truth. Everything else is lies thrown up either by American fascists or Islamic ones.


http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j022202.html

February 22, 2002


ANTHRAX COVER-UP?
We know who the suspects are ? so why no arrest?
The news that the US government has set up a special department, the "Office of Strategic Influence," to plant false news items has liberals and journalists (or do I repeat myself?) in a funk: this is terrible, they whine, why it's unprecedented. To which the only possible reply is: Oh really?




DISINFORMATION: A SHORT HISTORY
The US government has been playing the same game since the dawn of the cold war, when the Congress of Cultural Freedom was run as a CIA operation to influence world opinion in the struggle against the Soviet Union: A whole raft of ostensibly "private" individuals, such as Irving Kristol, a CCF stalwart, and assorted other intellectuals-for-hire, were on the CIA payroll, although they may not have known it (or wanted to know it) at the time. The Agency cultivated "mainstream" journalists, planted news stories, and routinely used the media to mislead, misinform, and confuse. Do you mean the government is lying to us, scream the liberals, who are shocked ? shocked! ? that such a thing is possible. Fer chrissake, what do you think they've been doing all along?

THE BIG LIE

The US government is spreading lies. Why is this considered so unusual? After all, our entire foreign policy is based on a structure of lies, the central one being the inevitable beneficence and altruism of the United States as a world power; and this, in turn, is based on the Biggest Lie of Them All, the one that seeks to justify and explain every bit of self-aggrandizement on the part of our great and glorious leaders: the lie of "democracy," which rubberstamps, every four years or so, decisions that have already been made by those who really rule.

EMANATIONS OF UNTRUTH

So they're lying to us: but lies come in all sorts of colors and shades of prevarication, including the more subtle emanations of untruth that might be called lies of omission. Liars must always cover their tracks: indeed, government officials spend a lot of their time, energy ? and your money ? doing exactly that. It isn't what they're telling us that matters so much: any halfway conscious human being is smart enough to discount that right off the bat. It's what they're not telling us that counts.

GATE-KEEPERS

Of course, in this day and age, for a lie to go over, government officials must have at least the passive cooperation of journalists ? or at least those relatively few gatekeepers who pretty much still determine what gets reported and what is relegated to the Memory Hole. This doesn't mean that journalists are recruited to write lies, but, somehow, they know what not to write about.

TWO SPIKED STORIES

A good example is the four-part series on Fox News reporting on an extensive Israeli spy operation in the US that was discovered, apparently, prior to 9/11 ? and raising the possibility of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks. After four days of one stunning revelation after another ? the Israelis had penetrated US government communications systems, they had been watching Al Qaeda cells in the US, and had sent agents to penetrate US military facilities ? the story dropped like a stone in a bottomless abyss, noiselessly and seemingly without leaving so much as a ripple of air in its wake. Another example: the story about how the stocks of certain companies with a 9/11 connection were dramatically manipulated in the days and hours prior to the attacks. Who profited? What became of the promised Securities and Exchange Commission investigation? So far we have heard not a peep out of the news media on this, nor has anyone in Congress bothered to ask questions.

AT LOOSE ENDS

But the most dramatic loose end left conspicuously hanging in the aftermath of 9/11 is undoubtedly the anthrax story. For a few weeks in October, and into November, the anthrax letters sent to media outlets and prominent elected officials were the top story: but when the attacks stopped, and the media ran out of scare stories on the possibilities of bio-terrorism (after all, how many documentaries about smallpox and ebola can you run without sending the audience fleeing?) the coverage sputtered out rather quickly, and soon came to a complete dead end. The investigation, too, seemed to have reached a similar blind alley: the authorities were baffled, or so they said. But they were lying: indeed, as the investigation proceeded, usually voluble government officials, eager to be seen as "on the job," were laconic in their public pronouncements. On November 19, John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, averred that "We don't know?at the moment, in a way that we could make public, where the anthrax attacks came from."

Of course they can't make it public: because, at the very least, the truth points to their own incompetence and passive complicity. And, at worst ?

WHY THE FOOT-DRAGGING?

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, director of the Federation of American Scientists' chemical and biological weapons program, says the US government has "a strong hunch" about who is behind the anthrax letters, but is "dragging its feet" in the investigation because the chief suspect is a former government scientist with knowledge of "secret activities that the government would not like to see disclosed." Rosenberg has written a very interesting analysis of the anthrax attacks that leads to one and only one ineluctable conclusion: that the chief culprit was not some Arab terrorist, associated with Al Qaeda or similar groups, but an American, a former US government employee ? one who, furthermore, is a middle-aged "insider" in the biodefense field, with a doctoral degree, who probably worked in the USAMRID laboratory, at Fort Detrick, Maryland, still has access ? and had some dispute with a government agency.

PLEASE TRY THIS AT HOME!

Furthermore, given the information compiled by Rosenberg, and with the aid of Google.com, anyone with computer access can identify by name the person or persons in possession of the key to unlocking the mystery of the anthrax attack.

POISON PEN

The strain of weaponised anthrax used in the attacks narrows the search for the perpetrator(s) down to a few US labs: but law enforcement agencies have yet to issue a single subpoena for employee records at the four labs with a history of working with this strain. We know about the anthrax letters, of course, and the several hoax letters, but a major clue in this investigation is an anonymous letter, sent before the anthrax hysteria, in late September, to the military police at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, accusing a US government bioengineer, Egyptian-born Dr. Ayaad Assaad, of being behind a bio-terrorist plot. The letter-writer revealed a detailed knowledge of Dr. Assaad's life and work at USAMRID, including details of his personal life that only someone who worked with him could have possibly known: indeed, the poison-pen author claimed to have formerly worked with Dr. Assaad.

FBI TAKES A PASS

While FBI spokesman Chris Murray confirmed that Assaad was not under suspicion, he also stated to reporters that the FBI is not trying to find out who sent the anonymous hate-letter ? which the FBI won't show to Assaad. The odd timing of the letter ? sent after the anthrax letters were mailed, but before their deadly contents were known ? doesn't even have them mildly curious.

WHERE THE ANTHRAX TRAILS LEADS

Rosenberg believes that the poison-pen missive was written by the real perpetrator of the anthrax attacks, who sought to ride the wave of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hysteria that swept the nation after 9/11. This also fits the pattern of masquerade that characterizes the anthrax letters to NBC, Daschle, Leahy, et al, with their anti-Israel, pro-Muslim slogans neatly printed in block letters. Indeed, the one thread that seems to run throughout this story is anti-Arab animus, as the astonishing ? and truly frightening ? story of what happened at Ft. Detrick in the early 1990s makes all too clear?.

IT CAME FROM FT. DETRICK

Things were turning up missing at AMRIID, and Lt. Col. Michael Langford was baffled. He suspected that someone was tampering with records, perhaps in order to conduct unauthorized research. He told a lab technician to "make a list of everything that was missing," and "it turned out that there was quite a bit of stuff that was unaccounted for," 27 sets of specimens, including anthrax, hanta virus, simian AIDS virus "and two that were labeled 'unknown' ? an Army euphemism for classified research whose subject was secret," as this chilling Hartford Courant story by Jack Dolan and Dave Altimari puts it. One set of specimens has since been found: the rest are still missing?.

CAUGHT ON TAPE

An investigation was launched that exposed the shockingly lax security measures at the lab, and raised the possibility that some specimens may never have been entered in lab records. Also uncovered was a tape from a surveillance camera showing the entry of an unauthorized person into the lab, at 8:40, on January 23, 1992, let in by Dr. Marian Rippy, lab pathologist. The night visitor was Lt. Col. Philip Zack, a former employee who had left as a result of a dispute with the lab over his alleged harassment of Dr. Assaad. The Courant reports:

"Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, [lab technician Charles] Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They had formed a clique that was accused of harassing the Egyptian-born Assaad, who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination."

THE KAMEL KLUB KIDS

According to Assaad, in the week before Easter 1991, he found a poem in his mailbox, described in another Courant story:

"The poem, which became a court exhibit, has 235 lines, many of them lewd, mocking Assaad. The poem also refers to another creation of the scientists who wrote it ? a rubber camel outfitted with sexually explicit appendages. The poem reads: 'In (Assaad's) honor we created this beast; it represents life lower than yeast.' The camel, it notes, each week will be given 'to who did the least.' The poem also doubles as an ode to each of the participants who adorned the camel, who number at least six and referred to themselves as 'the camel club.' Two ? Dr. Philip Zack and Dr. Marian Rippy ? voluntarily left Fort Detrick soon after Assaad brought the poem to the attention of supervisors."

Charming, eh? This kind of organized harassment has an ideological edge to it not completely attributable to personal antipathy, and seems politically inspired, a possibility that is intriguing given the political repercussions of the anthrax scare.

SULLIVAN SAYS: 'NUKE 'EM!'

Bill Kristol, of the Weekly Standard, was positively gloating that, after years of neoconservative hectoring ? and with little to show for it except a few hundred thousand dead Iraqi babies ? the anthrax attacks had finally put the "get Iraq" lobby over the top in Washington: the Iraqis, he exulted, would now get what was coming to them. But Andrew Sullivan, for his part, wasn't content with a mere bombing campaign or even an invasion: Writing in his "weblog" for October 17 [01], he demanded that we nuke 'em without waiting for the evidence:

"At this point, it seems to me that a refusal to extend the war to Iraq is not even an option. We have to extend it to Iraq. It is by far the most likely source of this weapon; it is clearly willing to use such weapons in the future; and no war against terrorism of this kind can be won without dealing decisively with the Iraqi threat. We no longer have any choice in the matter."

I guess he must've taken an overdose of testosterone that day: what is astonishing is that, after having made such an obviously deranged statement in all seriousness, he was ever taken seriously by anyone again. Instead, he has been lionized and touted as the living incarnation of George Orwell ? a truly Orwellian claim, considering his recent defense of the Office of Strategic Influence plan to spread lies far and wide:

"Those kinds of lies are often necessary to ensure the success of military strikes, and pose no threat to the credibility of the American government or the domestic press."

What kind of lies Sullivan tells himself in order to evade the overwhelming evidence of his complete moral bankruptcy is open to speculation. But of one thing we can be sure: he has by now completely forgotten what he wrote about the anthrax attacks and the alleged moral imperative of immediately reducing an entire nation to a nuclearized cinder. As I wrote in a column some months ago:

"It kind of reminds me of the idiot who killed a turban-wearing immigrant from India, because, as he told his wife, 'all Arabs should be shot.' When the cops came to his Phoenix home to arrest him, he reportedly said: "I'm an American. Arrest me and let those terrorists run wild?" The differences between this drunken sub-literate wife-beating fool and the literary wonder boy of the neocon set are superficial: morally, they are brothers under the skin ? though at least the Arizona knuckle-dragger had the courage to act on his murderous convictions. All Sullivan can do is write in his little weblog ? and thank God for that!"

OMINOUS PARALLELS

There is an ominous and telling parallel with the 9/11 investigation here: that's another instance in which the authorities are being extra careful not to dig too deeply, at least in public. For the anthrax sub-plot was almost like an afterthought to the main mystery of 9/11: how did an underground terrorist network manage to operate in the US for as long as five years, and perhaps more, without being detected by law enforcement agencies? Multiple agencies of government were laden with multi-billion dollar budgets earmarked for "anti-terrorist" activities, yet they knew nothing of this operation, had not even a hint. The CIA and other intelligence agencies aren't to blame, says CIA director George Tenant, who testified before Congress that "intelligence will never give you 100 percent predictive capability."

Yeah, but how about 50 percent, or 30 percent? Perhaps even as much as 10 percent intelligence might have changed the course of events, and prevented or at least ameliorated the biggest terrorist attack in US history. At any rate, the investigation isn't going anywhere, no doubt for the same reasons the FBI refuses to move on the anthrax case: too much embarrassing and potentially explosive information could get out, exposing the US government ? or, perhaps, one of its closest allies ? as criminally negligent or even complicit in the attacks.

A DOMESTIC OPERATION?

Evidence that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind the anthrax attacks has failed to materialize: the evidence, and official suspicions, all point to a domestic operation. But that doesn't rule out an overseas connection. Iraq isn't the only foreign intelligence service that has the resources, methods, and most importantly the motive to pull off a stunt clearly designed to spread fear throughout the land ? and provoke a violent American military response. The mystery, to this day, remains unsolved ? and, if you don't believe that, then you'd better pay a visit to the Office of Strategic Influence. I'm sure they'd be more than glad to straighten you out?.

On 2002-02-23 14:38, Tristan Jones wrote:

He is not an enthusiast. He is not a progressive. He speaks of fallen man who is wicked. He is about the most unlikely sort to be found cavorting with anarchists. Yet Virgil voted for Nader.

Exactly the sort of thing I fear. I would keep a eye out for people like him.

Tristan, I hope you were writing this in jest because sometimes you really creep me out. Virgil is a yeoman farmer who raises cattle. He minds his own business and has no desire to interfere in or otherwise control the lives of others. The only type of person who would fear Virgil is one who desires to do exactly that: interfere in or otherwise control the lives of others. THAT is the type of person I fear and there are numerous examples of this type and their exploits throughout human history.

And as far as allying paleocons with Greens goes, that would be a step toward flouting a repeat of what happened throughout Europe at this point in the last saeculum. Conservatives then supported the fascists as the "lesser of two evils" in an effort to keep socialists out of power. On a purely trial and error basis alone, I would wish to see conservatives try to keep the fascists out of power this time. Then perhaps the efforts of socialists might be flouted by allied conservatives and libertarians and a return to liberty hastened. We already know where fascism leads. Only a crazy man repeats the same actions looking for a different result. But then man is indeed crazy because he never seems to learn a damn thing from the lessons of history.

On 2002-02-23 15:31, takascar2 wrote:
GWB is not an extremist. He is a moderate who has shown he has what it takes. I strongly beleive in my heart that he is Our Gray Champion and will go down in history with the likes of Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

I used Al Gore as an example of a leader who could or could have become a FDR style leader. FDR dealed with extermists by creating moderate necessary solutions to pressing national concerns,so that the extermists would be marginalised politically.

I did not accuse President Bush of being a extermist, however I have my doubts on him being a great Crisis leader.

Our nation is in good hands. God made sure that the American People saw through the political lies of the Democrats and elected President Bush. You all should count yourselves lucky that you are alive in these times with GWB to lead you.

Mr Bush is managing the USA pretty well for the time being.

_________________
It's left-wing ideologues who've presided over the great slaughters of the 20th
century; that's the true heritage of political utopianism. Compared to idealism, capitalist greed is a benign force.

S.M Stirling

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-02-23 16:32 ]</font>

On 2002-02-23 15:31, Barbara wrote:
Take your example of FDR as a moderate. Lots of people consider him to have been a leftist radical, not a moderate. :wink:

Compared to what was happening Internationally in the last Crisis (Stalin, Hitler, British Labour party) FDR was a moderate and that was a good thing :smile:

Americia could have gone worse with fascism or socialism. You were lucky to have a man like FDR.

This ranting about FDR being a leftist or socialist by Americian right wingers is pure B.S. The Americian Right and their sometimes fanatical obession with freedom of some sort or anothher, at times makes me look like a statist.

[quote]
On 2002-02-23 15:37, JayN wrote:
The US Government is preparing to create the "Office of Strategic Influence."
They want to rerun, like in comedies, the last Fourth Turning. It's almost as if people who lead our Government have read Generations and TFT. They know what motivates the American public for war.
The 911 attacks, the anthrax attacks, the Pearl case. Gore and galore. Then the government may spread lies in the press to confuse us. What is remarkable is how the liberal press is acting all "holier than thou". Why, they're shocked, shocked. As if the government has always told nothing but the truth when it comes to war. In the Awakening and Unraveling the government lies but it's challenged and to some extent discredited. That's why people don't trust the government as much during 2Ts/3Ts. The pattern reverses in the Fourth and the lying becomes more blatant. The lying is so blatant that the government is even willing to admit that it's lying. Just not where.
My suggestion. Turn off the mainstream new and tune in to anti-war or socialist groups. They're the ones writing the real truth. Everything else is lies thrown up either by American fascists or Islamic ones.
JayN:
1) Be skeptical, be *very* skeptical, whenever you read or hear something that gets you all riled up and wanting to run out and "do something" about this or that terrible thing. An extreme emotional reaction can be a very good indicator that you're being manipulated by someone for their own purposes. This is not advice to take no action regarding issues that you believe in. You should, however, do things based on your own decision making processes and analysis, not because someone else has stirred you up. (I guess that I just don't trust anybody"s agenda anymore, right, left, or middle).
and...2) If somebody in the government actually believes that they can call the shots and control the helpless mind zombies that comprise the population of the United States, well....they're just tragically lame. Dog lame.
This "Office of Strategic Information" thing is like a big red flag that is waving on the horizon, indicating that unpredictability and chaos are sweeping in our direction. Whenever a bunch of linear-minded control freaks attempt to do something like this its as if....they were some sort of indicator species that starts acting odd just as the hurricane is beginning to form and head towards land.
There will be no re-run of the last 4T. This administration may imagine that they can control events but they're just going to be looking puzzled and unhappy and saying "this isn't what we wanted!" :smile:
We will be getting our own brand new, unique, never seen before 4T.

Mr. Jones, what does this Gershwin tune sound like in Strine?



Thank you for your concern.
With apologies to Mr. Gershwin and Mr. Jones:


It should be understood,

That it's for my own good.

There's someone down in the Antipodeees,

Who'll mind my q's and p's.


To help me think,
as I should;

Islam is bad, Bush is Good.

Someone to watch over me.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-02-24 06:18 ]</font>

Never mind, Robert, I see you have been here all along and never left, just posting in other threads! :smile:

On 2002-02-23 16:31, Tristan Jones wrote:

Compared to what was happening Internationally in the last Crisis (Stalin, Hitler, British Labour party) FDR was a moderate and that was a good thing :smile:

Americia could have gone worse with fascism or socialism. You were lucky to have a man like FDR.

That was basically my opinion growing up under FDR, Tristan, and my gut still clings to it. I have of late, though, attempted to try to understand the "other" view of him. I can see it in a vacuum, but still not clearly when the whole picture of those times is painted.

This ranting about FDR being a leftist or socialist by Americian right wingers is pure B.S. The Americian Right and their sometimes fanatical obession with freedom of some sort or anothher, at times makes me look like a statist.

<center> :lol: :lol: :lol: </center>


As I am an avowed fan of Robert's online article finds, here is one of his I just found today on another thread that is SO appropriate to this topic it's not even funny:

GWB and the Incredible Shrinking FDR


I can tell you that the FDR quotes included in this article are quite representative of what those who lived then (and didn't hate his guts and/or his policies) remember best about his value as a leader during much of the 30's.

I'd be curious to know what others think about the FDR quotes in this article, if they are words representative of a Gray Champion(s), if they are words that GWB would or could say, etc.

To me, of course, they are exactly some of the words that someone ought to be saying now. :smile:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2002-02-23 19:26 ]</font>

My apologies for coming out of the lurking shadow, but this is too good to pass up. :smile:


Quotes from, "GWB and the Incredible Shrinking FDR"

"But -- moving beyond facile analogies between Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001 -- we should realize that the real Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke in ways that would horrify George W. Bush." --Norman Solomon

True, very true, Mr. Solomon. President Bush is too honest a man to stoop to the level of what America required of it's leaders in the Great Depression and WWII.

George Bush is not a "gray champion" for Mr. Reed's generation, but he is a "champion" for those of generation X.

"After five years of his presidency, in a formal message proposing an investigation of monopoly in the nation, Roosevelt said: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." --Norman Solomon

Ever studied the fascist principles behind the cornerstone of the New Deal, called the NRA, Mr. Solomon?



"It seems to me, to be very likely that Roosevelt will take a high place in American popular history - maybe even alongside Washington and Lincoln. He had every quality that morons esteem in their heroes. He was the first American to penetrate to the real depths of vulgar stupidity. He never made the mistake of overestimating the intelligence of the American mob. He was its unparalleled professor." --H.L. Mencken in his private diary on April 13, 1945, the day after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt

A reply to your "logical" responses, as your mystery ally jds1958 calls them...

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution applies a Federal limit to the authority of the States regarding how electors are chosen. It is not hypocritical to act on this. It might or might not be a good idea, but it isn't hypocritical.

Sure it is. The Court ruled in favor of states rights most of the time. There was no basis for them to take Bush v. Gore except to impose their will for political reasons. You can disagree but most experts agree with me.

And no matter how many times you say it, throwing insults around doesn't turn conservatives into fascists. Sorry, it just isn't so.

Not far away from it though, with your interest in supporting the private power of big corporations over government of the people.

The reality of unchanging human nature. The world is not particularly less dangerous now than in the past, and the general range of motivations for the actions of humans have not changed measurably in all of known history.

Your answer has nothing to do with your assumption that AMERICA must be forever the one to enforce its ideas on the world or a dictator will take over. That is an assumption with no basis at all. It is only based on fear and jingoistic, narrow-minded ignorance.

As for humans never changing, why are we not still living in caves? Are you a Creationist who believes that humans were specially created whole and entire and unchanging? Where is your evidence for this?

A belief that we can never have peace is a dangerous one that fuels wars. The opposite mistake is never to prepare for war on the belief that we can have peace. The right balance is what we need. American militarism is grossly out of balance toward your point of view.

Yes, our educational system is in disarray, and repairing it should be a high priority. But it is in disarray in much because of the liberal, emotional/psychological nonsense that has been worked into the system. It wouldn't actually be that difficult to repair, except for the vast array of interests vested in the current system.

More silly scapegoating. You think schools have to be back to basics, memorizing utilitarian facts, spare the rod, and just plain boring; whereas in fact the more creative and interactive involvement students have with their education, and the more creative freedom teachers have, the better the students learn. You think testing is the answer, when in fact it causes teachers to teach to the test, instead of to teach. Social promotion is not a good thing, but neither is mechanization.

The plain fact is, conservatives oppose school funding, and spend all their time blaming teachers instead of paying them what they're worth, so therefore our schools are lousy. They also oppose equalizing funds so schools in poor areas get as much as schools in rich ones. The only "reform" I see you guys promoting is your silly voucher idea, which just confirms your level of ignorance and ideological blindness every time I have to hear this nonsense. The purpose of vouchers is, as everybody knows, to kill the public schools, because conservatives believe in private power for the rich.

As for prisons, America is inherently more violent than Europe,

Then we are "inherently" inferior to Europe.

and imprisoning violent people is enlightened. It's the better choice than the alternative, which is to kill them.

You conservatives have this kind of limited vision, and that's all you can see. The fact is, rehabilitation worked and always did. We can't let violent people out of jail, as some of my liberal friends want. But prison is not the real solution to crime. The better choice is to have a society in which crime is not encouraged by poverty, racism, and commercialism, which gives people no higher goals in life. One reason we have more people in prison than other nations is the drug war, an hysterical but totally ineffective reaction to drug addiction, our leadership in which supports the narcotics business in the 3rd world. The answers are treatment and legalization, which conservatives oppose; thus perpetuating the problem. Another reason we have more people in prison, is racial profiling. A third is mandantory sentencing. But the main reason is that we have the most violent crime. Guns encourage this, poverty encourages this, drugs encourage this, TV encourages this; conservatives don't wish to deal with any of this, and would rather focus on Monica Lewinsky's dress.

True, America has more crime than Europe, but it also has more energy and vitality. They are two sides to the same coin. Further, the violent crime rate in America has been dropping steadily, as we get further away from the Awakening,

But you admit the fact. You conservatives can blame the 60s for everything all you want, but the fact is that crime peaked around 1990. If the economy continues to fall, crime will go up again.

Our "vitality and energy" apparently have not borne fruit in all the fields I mentioned! You guys think material or business success is all that counts, but you are just misguided in that respect. Business success and power is NOT all that counts in life, or in society, regardless of what you conservatives think. It's very incidental, in fact.

The social programs of Europe are straining its budgets already, and in the future are probably going to have to be cut back. In that respect, America's failure to go that route is probably more progressive, since Europe is likely on a dead end street.

But you admit that they have the programs. That is the progressive stand. It is only in red zone America that this is considered backward. Europe won't go our route, though they may have to cut back in tight times. In better times they can spend more. It is only we who refuse to get with the program and create adequate social programs at all.

Regarding health programs, it's true the European nations provide universal health care systems. They tend to be bureaucratic nightmares, providing inefficient service and long waits.

You conservatives say this, but have no proof. Our health system is a failure and a disgrace, and you guys aren't even willing to pass a meaningful patient's bill of rights, let alone take the insurance companies out of it and make it a simple single-payer system. We are not only behind in the kind of health system we have, we are behind in health, period. We lead the world in heart attacks and other degenerative diseases because of our inferior lifestyle and ignorant diet. Best country in the world indeed! No, worst country in the world! (among developed ones, that is)

Regarding energy waste, research and development continues on more efficient technology to use energy more effectively.

At a snail's pace compared to Europe.

We are ahead of Europe regarding guns. We have maintained and guarded the right of the individual to be armed, and the level of personal armament in America is much higher than that of Europe or Japan. This is a good thing.

The result of that "good thing" being that we have ten times more murders than other nations, at least. No, too many guns around is a bad thing. It means people kill other people unintentionally or in fits of anger. It means more crime, not less.

On 2002-02-23 21:09, Eric A Meece wrote:
A reply to your "logical" responses, as your mystery ally jds1958 calls them...

Article Two of the U.S. Constitution applies a Federal limit to the authority of the States regarding how electors are chosen. It is not hypocritical to act on this. It might or might not be a good idea, but it isn't hypocritical.

Sure it is. The Court ruled in favor of states rights most of the time. There was no basis for them to take Bush v. Gore except to impose their will for political reasons. You can disagree but most experts agree with me.

Which experts? I've seen opinions by legal scholars siding each way.

OK...let's step back a bit here. The U.S. Supreme Court actually took Bush vs. Gore twice. Both times the proximate cause was the...unusual action of the Florida State Supreme Court.

In the first instance, Gore filed for recounts only in four counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. Under Florida State law, there was a 7 day time limit, and Gore filed suit to have this set aside.

Judge Sanders Sauls heard the case, and in essence ruled that it was up to the discretion of Katherine Harris as to how to apply the law when the case was unclear. She then proceeded to certify the earlier automatic recount that had Bush in the lead.

Gore then appealed the ruling, which went through circuit court of appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. No problem with that, by the way, filing an appeal was perfectly natural and well within Gore's rights.

The Florida Supreme Court (FSC) ruled in Gore's favor, on a complicated basis involving a conflict in Florida law between the words 'may ignore' and 'shall ignore'. The FSC then ordered the 7 day deadline extended to 12 days and ordered Katherine Harris to accept manual recounts within that frame.

Drawing on the Declaration of Rights in the Florida Constitution, which requires that manual recounts may be rejected only in special cases, the FSC then opted to, by their own admission (Because of our
reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to fashion a remedy.)

Bush then proceeded to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. As with Gore's action, this was natural and within Bush's rights. The USSC granted cert. for the case, and ruled that the FSC had overstepped itself, since in applying the Florida State Constitution, it had violated Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1: ...each State shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...

Now, when a State Legislature acts under this clause, it is wielding Federal power, and the respective State Constitutional restraints and mandates are not applicable.
That's the gist of the Federal Supreme Court ruling in Bush vs. Gore, which vacated the FSC ruling.

This decision, BTW, was not particularly controversial in itself.

Team Gore then went back to the Florida Supreme Court (to make a long story short), which tried to rework their earlier decision to make it fly again. Late in the game, and facing a time limit mandated by Federal statute, the so-called 'safe harbor' provision, the FSC ordered manual recounts again!

Back to the U.S. Supreme Court, which stopped the recounts, citing the voter protection clauses of the U.S. Supreme Court. They ruled, in essence, that the fact that each county would be recounting with its own standard produced an unacceptably unfair count standard. They also ruled that the FSC could conceivably find a way to rewrite its decision again, except that facing the safe harbor law, they were all out of time. Therefore, the U.S.S.C. stopped the recounts.

The first two decisions by the FSC and the USSC were perfectly straightforward, especially the federal one. The second two are iffy.

The FSC probably knew that anything they did involving the Florida Constitution would not pass muster, but they went foward anyway.

The USSC made a dual ruling on the second appeal. That the Florida Court action violated the voter protection rules of the Federal Constitution was agreed by 7-2. Two of the usual 'liberals' agreed with the conservative justices here.

On the matter of a remedy, the Court broke down on its old, familiar 5-4 split, with the two liberals who agreed that the FSC had gone outside the lines still wanting to go forward somehow.

Out of all this mess, which leaves neither side looking all that great, the media constructed the nation that the Supreme Court somehow 'handed' Bush the presidency.

This is fantasy. Had the recounts gone on, the Florida Legislature had made it clear that they would nullify them, and send their own slate of Electors to the College. This was their absolute right under Article II.

Had Gore somehow managed to prevent that, keeping the Florida Electors out of the vote (that can happen under some legal circumstances, or if the deadline is missed), then neither he nor Bush would have had enough Electors to win, and it would automatically dump to Congress, which was in GOP hands. Assuming a party line vote, Bush still would be president.

The most that could plausibly have happened, if it had gone to Congress, would be a Senate vote on 50/50 lines with Gore, as vice president, casting the tie-breaker. If Congress must decide a presidential race, then the House picks the president and the Senate the vice-president. Thus, just conceivably, there could have been President Bush and Vice-president Gore or Lieberman.

That's the best that could be expected for the Democrats, had things gone that far.

The only real option to fight it at that point would have been for Democratic-controlled Legislatures in Red States to have overturned their own slates in protest, which would have been radically unlikely, and probably produced further retaliation by other GOP Legislatures in Blue States. At that point, nobody has any idea of what would have occurred. It probably would never have gone that far, since there was already growing Democratic pressure on Gore to drop out of the race. I don't think his own party wanted to back him through political Armagedden.

As for political bias, bear in mind that even though 2 'liberal' US Supreme Justices agreed with the conservatives that the recounts were too flawed to be legal, they still voted to keep the whole thing going, knowing it would violate the 'safe harbor' provisions, and kick off a political and legal nightmare. Why are they any less partisan than the conservatives?

Also, somehow the media rarely seem to mention that the FSC, which tried twice to rule for Gore, was made up of 6 Democrats and one liberal-leaning GOP judge. Why are they rarely accused of partisan leanings?

Basically, after late November, all roads led to Bush winning. It was just a matter of how long it would take, and how bizarre the matter would become. The only real chance Gore had was to produce a clear popular vote victory in Florida. Not a debated marjority within margin of error, not disputes about voting access or intent, but a clear, undeniable, voting majority.

Absent that, he just didn't have the cards to win the game, in early December. The Supreme Court did cut the process short. The conservatives may or may not have been trying to get 'their guy' into office. It doesn't matter. The outcome would have been the same either way, though it would have taken longer.

On 2002-02-23 21:09, Eric A Meece wrote:

And no matter how many times you say it, throwing insults around doesn't turn conservatives into fascists. Sorry, it just isn't so.

Not far away from it though, with your interest in supporting the private power of big corporations over government of the people.

Corporations are of secondary relevance. I do want to see some restrictions on their behavior, for what it's worth, but they are not primary to the debate.

The reality of unchanging human nature. The world is not particularly less dangerous now than in the past, and the general range of motivations for the actions of humans have not changed measurably in all of known history.

Your answer has nothing to do with your assumption that AMERICA must be forever the one to enforce its ideas on the world or a dictator will take over. That is an assumption with no basis at all. It is only based on fear and jingoistic, narrow-minded ignorance.

[/quote]

I didn't say that America was the only one who could EVER do it, I said we're the only one's in a position to do it now or in the immediate future, which is true.

As for humans never changing, why are we not still living in caves? Are you a Creationist who believes that humans were specially created whole and entire and unchanging? Where is your evidence for this?

Human nature, in terms of motivation and action, is little different now than it was when our ancestors lived in caves. Even a cursory reading of ancient records reveals people who are eminently recognizable to moderns in behavior and motivation.

A belief that we can never have peace is a dangerous one that fuels wars. The opposite mistake is never to prepare for war on the belief that we can have peace. The right balance is what we need. American militarism is grossly out of balance toward your point of view.

I did not say there could never be peace, I said that would-be dictators will always exist. Certainly there can be peace, though it can never be permanent.

You're responding to things I never said!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-23 22:27 ]</font>

Every Generation in every time and place contains a few of the sort (dictators), who usually get no chance to implement their malice.

Your foreign policy depends on them, yes.

Today, places such as Nigeria and Iraq are governed by autocrats as cruel as any you would wish to compare them to. They are held in check, not by 'progress' but by the threat of force. Within the nations of the West, similar men (and women) are held in check by the knowledge that if they try to act on their desires, they will be stopped by force, not persuasion. It's not a question of what decade, Eric. The only thing unusual about those decades (1930s 1940s) was that several of these sorts did manage to obtain power at once. They're always around.

Because of progress, there are fewer of these types around. More states are democratic today, did you notice? I think BTW Nigeria has moved toward democracy recently. The 1930s and 40s WERE unusual indeed, but we've based our foreign policy ever since on the notion that it was the norm. It is not.

[quote]

It turns out that America, by being the world's policeman, ends up being just another dictatorial power that enforces stagnation and repression on many parts of the world. The last half century proved that beyond any dispute.

Actually, I do vigorously dispute it. And I don't say that only America can do it. I do say that only America can do it for America. There is no other specific single power large enough to do it, unless it first grows greatly in strength.

What on earth does that mean, for America? Sure, only America can enforce its ideas on the world. My point is, we don't need to.

Only if some specific government first assembled enough power to impose some level of organization on the natural chaos of international affairs. Some power would have to step into the role America was absent from, or the ways and means to check the troublemakers would not exist. There's no such thing as leadership by committee.

You don't remember the Congress of Vienna then? The Treaty of Westphalia? NATO? Of course there is. Multi-lateralism is not only feasible, it's normal. Go it alone American militarism is abnormal. It is foisted upon us by the red zone.

True, a lot of the peacekeeping personnel are European, but that actually means very little.

Why aren't we doing it then? Why not give the other nations credit?

America was and is responsible for most of the action to keep the rogue states in check, Eric.

It doesn't have to be that way. We are not the only nation with concerns about rogue states. If we didn't assume so, other nations would do it, as they did before. This is not 1938. That was an entirely unique situation, with Europe weakened by WWI. Your policies are and have been for 40 years based on an out-of-date Munich-based foreign policy.

Also, keeping the rogue states in check is not a big job. We aren't talking Hitler or Stalin. However bad a Saddam may be, he has much less power. The developed democracies have enough resources to check the small rogue states and to make social progress. Your idea that there must be a powerful state that is socially backward in order for there to be world peace is as absurd as it sounds.

We could have gone the route of Europe; indeed should have. Reagan's militarism did not end the Cold War; that is a myth. Gorbachev decided to end it for the good of his country; he did it unlaterally. That's all there is to it. It would have happened had Carter won re-election. Communism runs out of gas eventually; it was almost out of gas 10 years before it collapsed. It was stagnant.

Even if we did not reduce our military substantially, we could have instituted many, many more reforms than we did. They are far less expensive than the military we wasted so much on. The fact that we are still waiting 30 or 40 years to do what we could have done then, is due entirely to the red zone conservatives and their unwillingness to change. Not to the needs of the world. We simply elected the wrong leaders; we failed to alter our lifestyle. These are the only relevant facts. That is why the Crisis is not coming because of Sept. 11th; the Crisis is our own stagnation due to red zone intransigence and ignorance.

Second, it is you guys in the Red Zone who have the impractical dreams; dreams of a utopian yesterday where noone has to pay taxes, non-whites don't exist, and people mindlessly obey their preachers on Sunday.

As usual, Eric, you completely misunderstand the Red Zone culture and right-wingers in general. That is not even close to what we are all about!

Not so. You are the ones electing right-wingers to Congress who vote to institute religious repression, and whose only program is to lower taxes. Polls I read show that people in the red zone want their small town life to remain in place where no foreigners come in to complicate things. I know the voting record of your legislators. It reflects exactly what I said. We have the most right-wing Congress in history, and its because you guys in the red zone put them there! So don't try to weasel out of the facts of who you are.

The universal morality I am talking about refers to the Higher authority. And I know you don't believe any more than I do that human beings are an accidental natural phenomenon.

Unfortunately, you folks in the red zone think that "morality" consists in mindless obedience to Christian preachers, whose ideas you want to impose on the rest of us in the blue zone, and this is your version of a higher authority. People in the blue zone more closely understand that the Higher Authority is ultimately found within each person, not merely enforced by the church and state.

As for living on Earth, yes, people in a given nation do live under an enforced moral code, called the law. Not all morality can or should be legislated, but basically all law is indeed legislated morality.

I agree. However, it is you conservatives are the ones these days who are saying the state should be reduced, and that greedy people should get away with corruption and violation of peoples' rights in the name of "freedom". It is you guys who want to cripple our legislatures with term limits and with insults toward all politicians who try to make reforms. You are the ones who are creating the climate of the 3T that hates all "government." We liberals want democratic laws instituted to protect peoples rights, not to protect the property of a few. You are opposed to these laws.

True, American taxation is not as bad as that of Europe.
Further, it's perfectly legitimate for large amounts of tax money to go the military. That's one of the basic purposes of the
Federal Government.

Because we think erroneously that we are the only good people in the world and thus have to be #1. It's not so. As I've pointed out, other nations are if anything better than we. They are more democratic too. They have up to date parliamentary systems with proportional representation. We have an elected king and an outdated two-party system that represents those who already have the power.

No, we don't begrudge taxes for maintaining the roads, the defenses, those parts of the communications system that are best handled publically, and we don't begrudge taxes for aiding the needy (the really needy, that is).

Of course there are individual exceptions, but this idea that conservatives hate all taxes alike is silly. We do maintain that America already takes in sufficient money through its taxes for most needs, and that the tax structure is itself organized in an inefficient and immoral way.

Of course you say this, because you don't acknowledge the real needs of society. You just assume the need is not there. From that point of view, of course the "money is sufficient." What do you mean by an "immoral tax structure," other than what we liberals point out is the fact that the rich get away with not paying very much?

If it does, it'll be the first time in history that such a thing has occurred!

Actually, many reforms have come about non-violently in the past two centuries. Wage laws, child-labor laws, etc. There was unrest in society beforehand, but the reforms were passed democratically, as a result of an awakening populace. Thanks to you guys today we have a populace that is asleep.

You think nothing new can ever happen. But I have news for you. Just 200 years ago there was no democracy anywhere in the world. Now the majority of nations are democratic. Change can happen if we realize that it can. There just have to be enough liberals around to have the guts to make the changes.

Don't begrudge us liberals our dreams. It is these that make better living possible. Where there is no vision, the people perish, it says in your holy book.

On 2002-02-23 21:38, Eric A Meece wrote:

Yes, our educational system is in disarray, and repairing it should be a high priority. But it is in disarray in much because of the liberal, emotional/psychological nonsense that has been worked into the system. It wouldn't actually be that difficult to repair, except for the vast array of interests vested in the current system.

More silly scapegoating. You think schools have to be back to basics, memorizing utilitarian facts, spare the rod, and just plain boring;

Partly right. Yes, early education pretty well has to be based on a lot of memorization and rote repetition. In later stages, it can become more creative, but the first requirement is mastering basic skills such as reading, writing, basic math, and so on, and 'creative' approaches don't work well in these basic areas.

whereas in fact the more creative and interactive involvement students have with their education, and the more creative freedom teachers have, the better the students learn.

Evidence?

You think testing is the answer, when in fact it causes teachers to teach to the test, instead of to teach.

When did I say that? I don't remember even mentioning testing.

The plain fact is, conservatives oppose school funding, and spend all their time blaming teachers instead of paying them what they're worth, so therefore our schools are lousy. They also oppose equalizing funds so schools in poor areas get as much as schools in rich ones. The only "reform" I see you guys promoting is your silly voucher idea, which just confirms your level of ignorance and ideological blindness every time I have to hear this nonsense. The purpose of vouchers is, as everybody knows, to kill the public schools, because conservatives believe in private power for the rich.

Eric, conservatives do not necessarily oppose school funding. We do maintain that much of the money going into the educational system is being wasted, and the facts back this up.

As for blaming teachers, no, I actually tend to rank them as among the second-order victims of the same problem that messed up the schools in the first place. No matter how much funding they get, if the problem isn't corrected it's just pouring more money into a bag with a hole in it.

Not long ago, the head of a major public school system went back to the state legislature to ask for a supplemental appropriation, the second in a short time. The earlier one had amounted to about 9 billion, and when asked where it had gone, he responded, "We don't keep track of such expenditures."

There is an attitude problem that afflicts American education, and it isn't caused by a shortage of funds.

As for the public schools, no, we DON'T want them destroyed. I was a late convert to vouchers, charter schools, and the rest, and I would still greatly prefer to repair the public schools.

America has too few common experiences as it is. The common experience of the public school systems used to be one of the little bits of glue that helped different parts of the country find common ground.

The conservative support for vouchers and the other ideas are in fact almost acts of desperation, since every other attempt to fix what's wrong with the public system has been balked by the vested interests! In this case, BTW, those vested interests are not the rich, not corporations, and not the religious right.

No, in this case it's the teachers' unions, the administrators of the schools, the ideologically driven faculty at some of the educational colleges for training teachers, and a whole gaggle of other Blue Zone liberal interests.

If you want us to shut up about vouchers and the rest, then all you have to do is fix the public schools, or let us do it! BTW, that doesn't have to mean getting rid of the unions, either! I for one would be content if they'd just be willing to acknowledge that a problem exists other than a funding shortage!

Vouchers, BTW, are most strongly supported by poor and minority parents, Eric, living in Blue Zone hardcore areas.

The rich already have and will continue to have access to good education. The people who push for vouchers are those who have kids in the lousiest schools.

Likewise, middle class and suburban professional parents (and many rural parents) have access to decent public schools, and tend to oppose vouchers as well.

In opposing vouchers (and related ideas), you're standing with the rich and upper middle class against the poor, Eric!

As for prisons, America is inherently more violent than Europe,

Then we are "inherently" inferior to Europe.

No, just more energetic.

and imprisoning violent people is enlightened. It's the better choice than the alternative, which is to kill them.

You conservatives have this kind of limited vision, and that's all you can see. The fact is, rehabilitation worked and always did.

Eric, show me some evidence, any evidence that rehabilitation works! I'd love to believe it! I don't LIKE having people spend their lives in a cage, any more than you do!

But in all history, there is little or no evidence of it working! If there is, tell us about it! I'd love to be proven wrong about this, even though I know all too well that I'm not going to be so proven.

We can't let violent people out of jail, as some of my liberal friends want. But prison is not the real solution to crime. The better choice is to have a society in which crime is not encouraged by poverty, racism, and commercialism, which gives people no higher goals in life.

Eric, the 'root causes' theory of crime has been utterly discredited. It isn't poverty, recism, and commercialism that causes crime, especially violent crime!

Prison does have one solving power over crime: over and over, it's been discovered that by a huge proportion, most crime and especially most violent crime is committed by a small percentage of regular repeaters. Lock up that small percentage, and the crime rate falls sharply.

True, America has more crime than Europe, but it also has more energy and vitality. They are two sides to the same coin. Further, the violent crime rate in America has been dropping steadily, as we get further away from the Awakening,

But you admit the fact. You conservatives can blame the 60s for everything all you want, but the fact is that crime peaked around 1990. If the economy continues to fall, crime will go up again.

[/quote]

I admitted nothing of the sort! You keep saying I admit this and said that, and I didn't!

No, crime is not rising and falling in synch with the economy. It did peak in 1990, in part because of the number of Boomers and Xers in the high-crime age bracket, and started falling steadily afterward, exactly as Strauss and Howe predicted.

I doubt very seriously if a worsening economy will drive Millennials into a passionate criminal frenzy.

The social programs of Europe are straining its budgets already, and in the future are probably going to have to be cut back. In that respect, America's failure to go that route is probably more progressive, since Europe is likely on a dead end street.

But you admit that they have the programs. That is the progressive stand. It is only in red zone America that this is considered backward. Europe won't go our route, though they may have to cut back in tight times. In better times they can spend more. It is only we who refuse to get with the program and create adequate social programs at all.

They're only progressive if they actually WORK, Eric. They don't work if they can't be sustained.

Regarding health programs, it's true the European nations provide universal health care systems. They tend to be bureaucratic nightmares, providing inefficient service and long waits.

You conservatives say this, but have no proof. Our health system is a failure and a disgrace, and you guys aren't even willing to pass a meaningful patient's bill of rights, let alone take the insurance companies out of it and make it a simple single-payer system. We are not only behind in the kind of health system we have, we are behind in health, period. We lead the world in heart attacks and other degenerative diseases because of our inferior lifestyle and ignorant diet. Best country in the world indeed! No, worst country in the world! (among developed ones, that is)

The proof is in the very statistics those European health organizations publish, and in the fact that those who can come to America to use our system do so. There is almost no traffic of wealthy Americans rushing to get to Europe or Canada's system!

Regarding energy waste, research and development continues on more efficient technology to use energy more effectively.

At a snail's pace compared to Europe.

No, Eric, considerably faster than Europe. And even so, it's going to be necessary to increase supply.

We are ahead of Europe regarding guns. We have maintained and guarded the right of the individual to be armed, and the level of personal armament in America is much higher than that of Europe or Japan. This is a good thing.

The result of that "good thing" being that we have ten times more murders than other nations, at least. No, too many guns around is a bad thing. It means people kill other people unintentionally or in fits of anger. It means more crime, not less.

We would have the higher murder rate with or without the guns. Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, the UK and Japan have broad gun bans, all three have lower murder rates. The two are only barely connected.

Further, if the price of freedom is a lower level of safety, so be it. That was implicit in the foundation of the United States, BTW.


Those who sacrifice liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and in the long run they will have neither. Ben Franklin.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-23 22:59 ]</font>

Corporations are of secondary relevance. I do want to see some restrictions on their behavior, for what it's worth, but they are not primary to the debate.

So you conservatives think, because you want them to continue to wreak their havoc, because of course, they are "free enterprise." Nothing could be further from the truth on both counts. It IS important that you conservatives oppose all attempte to reign in the power of corporations and the damage they do. If corporate power is "not important," why is your whole set of policies geared toward maintaining it??

I didn't say that America was the only one who could EVER
do it, I said we're the only one's in a position to do it now or in the immediate future, which is true.

But you are scared of making any kind of change, for fear that some "liberal" policy will cause "the decline of the West" (whatever that means). We are not the only power in a position to do it now either. A shared power among the democracies can do what's needed. I'm not saying America should disarm; that's not necessary. We don't need the huge buildup being proposed by Bush as an over-reaction to Sept.11th. We don't need to return to Cold War defense levels. What we had under Clinton was not far off the mark. We were running a surplus and could afford guns and butter. I don't know what you are so afraid of. You should be afraid of how Bush is screwing up the budget.

{quote] Human nature, in terms of motivation and action, is little different now than it was when our ancestors lived in caves. Even a cursory reading of ancient records reveals people who are eminently recognizable to moderns in behavior and motivation.
[/quote]

The problem, Mr. Cynic, is that you refer to some abstraction called "human nature," assuming it is bad to the core, as justification for American militarism. It doesn't matter what has or has not motivated people. History shows that we can improve the way we treat each other. That is what we should be about. The red zone doesn't want to do this. It is blinded by ignorance and fear into thinking we should make things worse instead.

I did not say there could never be peace, I said that would-be dictators will always exist. Certainly there can be peace, though it can never be permanent.

Why do you assume then, that America must always remained armed to the teeth? Can't the people have a break during more "peaceful" times?

On 2002-02-23 22:56, Eric A Meece wrote:

Corporations are of secondary relevance. I do want to see some restrictions on their behavior, for what it's worth, but they are not primary to the debate.

So you conservatives think, because you want them to continue to wreak their havoc, because of course, they are "free enterprise." Nothing could be further from the truth on both counts. It IS important that you conservatives oppose all attempte to reign in the power of corporations and the damage they do. If corporate power is "not important," why is your whole set of policies geared toward maintaining it??

There are some specific restrictions I do favor, and no, the corporations would not like them. To begin with, I would limit their ability to operate across borders, for example.

I didn't say that America was the only one who could EVER
do it, I said we're the only one's in a position to do it now or in the immediate future, which is true.

But you are scared of making any kind of change, for fear that some "liberal" policy will cause "the decline of the West" (whatever that means). We are not the only power in a position to do it now either. A shared power among the democracies can do what's needed.

The other democracies, right now, have no meaningful power to share, Eric!

I'm not saying America should disarm; that's not necessary. We don't need the huge buildup being proposed by Bush as an over-reaction to Sept.11th. We don't need to return to Cold War defense levels. What we had under Clinton was not far off the mark. We were running a surplus and could afford guns and butter. I don't know what you are so afraid of. You should be afraid of how Bush is screwing up the budget.

I would be, except that the budget was never really not screwed up. The economic boom (which was just the up phase of the economic cycle combined with a stock bubble) increased tax revenue without requiring huge tax rate increases (for the most part). When the natural cycle turned down again, and the bubble broke, the budget problem which was always there reappeared in the open again.

America's budget problems actually date back to the early sixties and the JFK administration.

As for defense spending, Clinton was lucky, and able to get away with low spending. The luck is over. Just the cost of maintain a large enough force to be useful, complete with the infrastructure for transportation, communication, and intelligence, is far more than Clinton had to deal with. As the 4T gets closer, it's a good bet that military expenditures will have to go up further.

I did not say there could never be peace, I said that would-be dictators will always exist. Certainly there can be peace, though it can never be permanent.

Why do you assume then, that America must always remained armed to the teeth? Can't the people have a break during more "peaceful" times?

No, and that's the real tragedy, Eric. The peaceful times are maintained mainly by the threat of the use of force against those who would end them. That's why large-scale disarmaments have usually occurred not too long before large wars. It's not a coincidence, the disarmaments tend to make wars more likely, by making potential targets look more vulnerable and tempting.

And yes, as I said, that is a great human irony and tragedy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-02-23 23:12 ]</font>