Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

All things outside of Burning Man.
Locked
User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:39 pm

There is only one number that matters: it is the number ONE

One Israeli has died
One Palestinian has died
One Irish Catholic has died
One Irish Protestant has died
One Shiite
One Sunni
One Black South African
One White South African
One Native American
One Naturalized American
One Illegal Alien

All injustice is the same no matter what the body count ... numbers are not justification, they are merely statistics.
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:09 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:Rian thanks for posting this....multiply this times 10,000 and you still woulnd't have a picture of Israeli brutality in the occupied lands......more folks have to hear these things.....
how about we place the number of Israelis killed by homicide/suicide bombers alongside your suggestion... then we would get a true accounting how stupid the conflict has been.... ignoring Israeli deaths due to terrorism undercuts your argument for a Palestinian state... IMHO.

have a nice terror-free weekend.
no it doesn't.....Israeli deaths are just as tragic as Palestinian deaths...the point here is that Israeli deaths receive far wider media coverage than do Palestinian deaths. Most people in the US are unaware of the daily atrocities that are committed by Israeli troops and settlers against Palestinians. The foreign press tends to offer better reportage on this than does it enemic American counterpart, that's why more folks in foreign nations have more empathy for the Palestinian struggle than you find here in the US. Besides, the number of Palestinian deaths is 6 to 7 times higher than those of Israelis.........so whose argument is really "undercut" here ole Joel ole man?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:53 pm

cites for ratio you refer to?
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10247
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:06 pm

Simply Joel wrote:cites for ratio you refer to?
It's posted in this thread somewhere. I posted here.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10247
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:14 pm

Found it. It was'nt in this thread, it was in camp Lizwiz.


some more accurate information by librarians
http://lii.org/search?searchtype=subjec ... ct;subsear
ch=Arab-Israeli+conflict

the tracking of Palestinian deaths statistics by the red cross.

http://www.palestinercs.org/Latest_Cris ... Graphs.htm
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:01 pm

Gov't proposes shake-up of prostitution laws

Fri Jul 16, 8:30 AM ET


LONDON (AFP) - Brothels in Britain could be decriminalised and given official licences under proposals published by the government.






"Licensing arrangements and other relevant regulations could be set up so that local authorities could control prostitution in their areas," the Home Office said in a consultation paper.

The government proposed also registration of sex workers and "tolerance zones" for street prostitution.

The consultation paper said there was already enthusiasm for creating managed zones for prostitution in several parts of England, including Liverpool and Doncaster in the north.

"In both the places it is suggested that managed areas could bring significant benefits, providing greater safety and fewer stigmas for those who engage in prostitution by choice," the paper said.

"What is proposed is a formalised 'red light' area, where those involved in prostitution and their users are permitted to trade in a defined area regularly monitored by the police and provided with drop-in health services and other facilities."

But the government's report ruled out a previous proposal that call girls under 18 should no longer be treated as offenders.

"We believe there are compelling arguments for retaining this offence in respect of those under 18 to underline the message that prostitution involving children and young people is wholly unacceptable," the consultation paper said.

The government is asking the public to offer its views on the proposals by November.


...now the brits had us beat on abolishing slavery, suffrage....maybe some other stuff too.....so lets hope they get this one "in" too
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

AuldAne
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:22 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by AuldAne » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:22 am

cowboyangel wrote:Besides, the number of Palestinian deaths is 6 to 7 times higher than those of Israelis
http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/mrates.asp

Seems like a reasonable source. "From Sept. 29, 2000 to July 13, 2004: Israeli Dead: 908 Palestinian Dead: 3095". A little macabre to be keeping score I think, but there you are. They also say:
Please Note: The above numbers do not include Palestinian suicide bombers (or other attackers) nor do they include Palestinians targeted for assassination, though bystanders killed during these assassinations are counted. However, IDF soldiers killed during incursions into Palestinian lands are counted.
Not quite 7:1, but I'm nonetheless a little surprised. It would be interesting to do a media survey, a la iraqbodycount.com, and get the statistics for reported Israeli and Palestinian deaths and see what ratio you get. This could also serve to prove or disprove the claim about american vs other media sources.

-Nikolai
[A man] would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. - Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:45 am

July 17, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Values, Values Everywhere
By DAVID BROOKS

I know that John Kerry shares my values. I know that John Kerry shares your values. I know that John Kerry shares John Edwards's values, who also, by the way, shares my values. I know they both share your accountant's values, your butcher's values, your mechanic's values. If a Martian showed up from outer space, they'd share its values, too.
They're just really into value sharing.

I know that because they say so. In speech, in rapid responses, in interviews, Kerry and Edwards remind us these days how darn tootin' chock full of values they really are. They've got heartland values, middle-class values and even conservative values, according to themselves. They are to values what Donald Trump is to gilt: they've got it; you're gonna see it.

Of course, if Kerry really shared our values, he probably wouldn't have to tell us so every minute, and once, just once, he might actually say what the values we share actually are.

But never mind, because focus groups show that we voters like a presidential candidate who shares our values. We Americans are not really sure we have virtues, convictions or principles, which seem kind of demanding. But you get a pollster to ask us about values, which seem so much friendlier, and we're just over the moon.

And, of course, the candidates can't just go be themselves and let us draw our own conclusions about their values. These days all campaigns are based on the consultants' conviction that voters are like particularly slow-witted sheep who have to be told exactly what to think.

This is the age of meta-narrative politics. Candidates become the narrators of their own campaigns, and they pummel the moral of every story into our heads: Hi, I'm running for president and I share your values.

This is like going on a date with someone who spends the whole night telling you what a great personality he or she has.

"What are your hobbies?"

"I've got a great personality."

"But what are your interests?"

"Have I mentioned my personality, which is really, really great?!"

Kerry and Edwards are going to keep using the word "values." And, given the overmanaged structure of their campaign, they probably have a Values and Spirituality Task Force. I see a values teleconference: Oprah on the speakerphone, Joseph Campbell coming in through the Ouija board, the Dalai Lama patched in by satellite.

When Kerry uses the word "values," it's meant to send a message: I am not who I am. I am not the blue-blooded prep-school kid who married two millionaires, dated a movie star and has a prenup and umpteen homes in tony locales; who has spent the past two decades as a moderately liberal senator from Massachusetts; and who likes to snowboard at Sun Valley and windsurf off Nantucket. I'm just your back-fence neighbor in Mayberry, out there in overalls, sidlin' over to the fence to chat: "Howdy neighbor! Would you like to come visit for a spell and hear about my values of faith, hope and opportunity?"

This campaign's version of middle-class values is like the Cracker Barrel restaurant version of a small town: a manufactured replica of a wholesome, down-home America that never existed. A realistic portrait of middle-class values would include tattoos, carb-counting and the purchase of voluminous amounts of lottery tickets by people who dream of escaping from the middle class.

But, of course, this campaign has to insult our intelligence while it condescends. Personally, I long for the day when rich people were free to be rich people, when Franklin Roosevelt could cruise around in that roadster with that big cigarette holder jutting from his mouth. I long for the day when rich people left morals to the middle class because they were too busy worrying about manners, which are more glamorous.

Yet here we are on the cusp of one of the greatest episodes of spiritual slumming since Marie Antoinette built that fake village and played at being a shepherdess. Both John Forbes Kerry and George Walker Bush — who, let's face it, ain't exactly John-Boy Walton — are going to compete furiously over the next three months to see who is the most spiritually middle class. Because that's what we apparently want in a president is a really rich guy who worships our middle-class pabulum.

I say if these upper-class types want our values, they can have them. Just so long as they give us their real estate.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10247
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:35 am

DAVID BROOKS wrote:Yet here we are on the cusp of one of the greatest episodes of spiritual slumming since Marie Antoinette built that fake village and played at being a shepherdess. Both John Forbes Kerry and George Walker Bush — who, let's face it, ain't exactly John-Boy Walton — are going to compete furiously over the next three months to see who is the most spiritually middle class. Because that's what we apparently want in a president is a really rich guy who worships our middle-class pabulum.
Both share the same values......they both are Skull and Bones.


This is such a farce.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

GO GREENS!!!!!!!!

Post by cowboyangel » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:49 pm

well...if I were in a close state...I'd vote for Kerry, but seeing that I live in California where a Kerry victory is assured, I'll probably continue to vote Green
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
Last Real Burner
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:34 am
Location: Heaven
Contact:

Post by Last Real Burner » Sat Jul 17, 2004 7:57 pm

thanks for sharing...

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Funny in a sad sort of way....

Post by Simply Joel » Sun Jul 18, 2004 5:29 pm

July 18, 2004
GUEST COLUMNIST
It's Over, Ralph
By BARBARA EHRENREICH

ll right, Ralph, I always knew we had issues: Me the Led Zeppelin fan, you the policy monk. Me the fervent feminist, you who once dismissed gay rights and abortion as "genital politics." But four years without even a phone call?

We had something going there once — you can't deny it. Remember that sultry August night at some exotic venue like the American Political Science Association's annual convention? Coming from months campaigning by rental car from one Motel 6 to another, you looked too frail to ascend to the podium. But you were brilliant — skewering the robber barons for 45 minutes with no more notes than fit on the back of an envelope.

I voted for you in, yes, Florida. I lost friends on account of you; I risked death by sporting your bumper sticker well into the reign of Bush. But you were irresistible — an Old Testament prophet wandering alone in the desert, thundering about all the ways we Americans are being sickened and scammed, deluded and defrauded, by the plutocrats who've hijacked our country.

So I will admit I was hurt when you didn't call me to discuss your plans to run again this year, although none of the other former Nader loyalists I know got a phone call either. Maybe you could guess what we'd say.

Because, Ralph, a lot of sewage has passed under the bridge since 2000. Back then, Al Gore was campaigning with the furious energy of an old-growth oak. George W. Bush looked like a dumbed-down version of Gerald Ford — a man who could be trusted to while away his presidency on the elliptical trainer.

Who could have guessed that within a year and a half, the genial Bush would morph into a figure invoked worldwide to scare unruly children? Or that a whole slew of candidates — Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Moseley Braun — would be preaching your vision of peace and social justice from within the Democratic Party?

You've changed too. If the first time was tragedy — and I will admit now, with hindsight, that it was — the second time is predictably farce. Maybe those years spent wandering in the wilderness — disdained by Democrats, excluded by arcane ballot access rules — have taken their toll, because there's been something grotesque about your campaign from the start, when you advised left-wing critics, in words no one knew your vocabulary included, to "relax and rejoice" in your run. This while casualties mounted in Iraq and civil liberties evaporated here.

In 2000, you could at least claim to be doing it all for the Green Party. This summer you didn't even bother to drop by its convention. You were in Portland, Ore., addressing an audience of 1,100 (you got almost 10 times as many there four years ago) that was heavily larded with conservatives eager to get you on the ballot to suck votes from John Kerry. When Howard Dean confronted you about your conservative "supporters," you lamely observed that "Republicans are human beings too."

Republicans are the least of it. You've been kissing up to the Reform Party, which ran paleo-right-winger Pat Buchanan the last time around. You've been caught dallying with the former New Alliance Party, described by Christopher Hitchens, with his customary restraint, as a "zombie cult." I loved you for your principles, not your lean hot bod, and now you've tossed them for a few more moments in the sun.

And what about that love fest with Kerry in May? You came out of your hour of face time "almost effusive" with praise, according to The Times: He's "very presidential," you said of Kerry, and unburdened by a "squeaky voice." Maybe he is all that — I certainly hope so. But somehow your star-struck response made you seem more eager to get a seat at the table than to even out the portions.

So, Ralph, sit down. Pour yourself a Diet Pepsi and rejoice in the fact that — post-Enron and post-Iraq war — millions have absorbed your message. You're entitled to a little time out now, a few weeks on the beach catching up on back issues of The Congressional Record. Meanwhile, I've thrown my mighty weight behind Dennis Kucinich, who, unnoticed by the media, is still soldiering along on the campaign trail. In the event that he fails to get the Democratic nomination, I'll have to consider my options.

joel says
I guess she didn't think to call him first, eh?
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10247
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jul 18, 2004 6:37 pm

passin it on as requested.


THE IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM

By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Free Inquiry Magazine / Spring 2003
http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', and appears in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need". The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections -- Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
Sensei
Posts: 2878
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Sensei » Sun Jul 18, 2004 9:39 pm

Nipples? Are you in here? Anyone seen Nipples? No? Thanks...

User avatar
Bob
Posts: 6748
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by Bob » Sun Jul 18, 2004 9:48 pm

As a matter of fact, I have one of nipple's five-foot detachable whale penii right here in the new house... just haven't figured out where to hang it yet.

Hope this helps. That's about as political as I can get.
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10247
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jul 18, 2004 10:13 pm

Bob wrote:As a matter of fact, I have one of nipple's five-foot detachable whale penii right here in the new house... just haven't figured out where to hang it yet.

Hope this helps. That's about as political as I can get.
knew it was too strange of Bob in politics.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:50 am

July 19, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Sixteen Truthful Words
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

— George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003

WASHINGTON — Those were "the 16 words" in a momentous message to a joint session of Congress that were pounced on by the wrong-war left to become the simple centerpiece of its angry accusation that "Bush lied to us" — or, as John Kerry more delicately puts it — "misled" us into thinking that Saddam's Iraq posed a danger to the U.S.

The he-lied-to-us charge was led by Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat sent in early 2002 by the C.I.A. to Niger to check out reports by several European intelligence services that Iraq had secretly tried to buy that African nation's only major export, "yellowcake" uranium ore.

Wilson testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he had assured U.S. officials back in 2002 that "there was nothing to the story." When columnist Robert Novak raised the question of nepotism by reporting that he got the assignment at the urging of his C.I.A. wife, Wilson denied that heatedly and denounced her "outing," triggering an investigation. The skilled self-promoter was then embraced as an antiwar martyr, sold a book with "truth" in its title, appeared on the cover of Time and every TV talk show denouncing Bush.

Two exhaustive government reports came out last week showing that it is the president's lionized accuser, and not Mr. Bush, who has been having trouble with the truth.

Contrary to his indignant claim that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" of selecting him for the African trip, the Senate published testimony that his C.I.A. wife had "offered up his name" and printed her memo to her boss that "my husband has good relations" with Niger officials and "lots of French contacts." Further destroying his credibility, Wilson now insists this strong pitch did not constitute a recommendation.

More important, it now turns out that senators believe his report to the C.I.A. after visiting Niger actually bolstered the case that Saddam sought — Bush's truthful verb was "sought" — yellowcake, the stuff of nuclear bombs. The C.I.A. gave Wilson's report a "good" grade because "the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium" — confirming what the British and Italian intelligence services had told us from their own sources.

But a C.I.A. analyst opined "the Brits have exaggerated this issue" because "the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

State Department intelligence also was dubious, reports the Senate, more so in October when an Italian journalist brought in a bunch of phony documents somebody was trying to sell him about a Niger uranium transaction. This outweighed the report of a top security official in the French Foreign Ministry, who told U.S. diplomats in November 2002 that "France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger."

Two months later, with no objection from C.I.A., the famous 16 words went into Bush's 2003 State of the Union.

But when word leaked about the fake documents — which were not the basis of the previous reporting by our allies — Wilson launched his publicity campaign, acting as if he had known earlier about the forgeries. The Senate reports that in his misleading anonymous leak to The Washington Post, "He said he may have misspoken . . . he said he may have become confused about his own recollection. . . ." The subsequent firestorm caused the White House to retreat prematurely with: "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address."

That apology was a mistake; Bush had spoken the plain truth. Did Saddam seek uranium from Africa, evidence of his continuing illegal interest in a nuclear weapon? Here is Lord Butler's nonpartisan panel, which closely examined the basis of the British intelligence:

". . . we conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that `The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:06 am

DVD Burner wrote:passin it on as requested.
THE IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM

By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Free Inquiry Magazine / Spring 2003
http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', and appears in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
So, China, the former Soviet Union, Britain, France...oh hell, the entire western world can be viewed as facist if those are the only criteria you look at.... yet I see another USA... one of kindness, harmony, and people actually getting along, or at least long enought to get a days work in, eat some supper, relax and sleep...

of course, Saddam was a great guy, wouldn't harm a fly.

This isn't a facist country, not from my perspective... there is an election in less than 120 days... make your voice heard... but if your votes are in the minority and your candidate doesn't win... you can still complain and whine until the NEXT ELECTION...
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:34 am

well I would agree with you Joel.....the glass being _______full...I like to see the good things going on in this country...I think there are actually more good things going on...they just don't get reported on.....the article is referring to governments I believe...people are generally the same all over...I have alot of friends in Ukraine now..... and in the iron curtain days these same folks used to be "our enemy" they're really not different from us. Most governments suck...and some of the points in the article sadly appear to be happening in ours.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Rian Jackson
Posts: 3903
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
Location: In Rob's Head

Post by Rian Jackson » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:15 am

The IDF shot an unarmed 20 year old in Balata this weekend. International and Palestinian medical workers tried to get to him. The victim was unable to move. The soldier, standing over him, shot him 9 more times. He was dead by the time they could get him into the ambulance.

*sigh*
surlier than thou

User avatar
G.W.B.
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:13 am

Post by G.W.B. » Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:13 pm

Rian.....cites?

Also, can anyone explain what a repatriotion team is?
Grand Whopping Bastard.

User avatar
G.W.B.
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 12:13 am

Post by G.W.B. » Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:14 pm

repatriation team.

sorry.
Grand Whopping Bastard.

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:49 pm

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

Rian Jackson
Posts: 3903
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
Location: In Rob's Head

Post by Rian Jackson » Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:36 pm

G.W.B. wrote:Rian.....cites?
My friend. Who heard it from the ground and also read it on 2 news sites.

We tend to get a lot of information from word of mouth..... You know how it goes. I call up Pete, Pete says, 'I have bad news. They just gunned down your neighbor.' Or Muhammed tells me the beat the crap out of his brother. That sort of thing.

But, that said, i will look for cites when i get a chance. My friend is meant to be sending me the link.
surlier than thou

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:43 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
of course, Saddam was a great guy, wouldn't harm a fly.
As long that that "Fly" was bigger then his "fly"!

I think we losed out on using Saddam to do our dirty work- Iran!

Now Bush wants to go after Iran.

Its too late now.

A II Z

User avatar
Lark
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:26 am
Location: Detroit Rock City
Contact:

Post by Lark » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:14 am

July 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Arabian Candidate
By PAUL KRUGMAN

n the original version of "The Manchurian Candidate," Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting to put in the White House, is a right-wing demagogue modeled on Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert wrote, the plan is to "use anticommunist hysteria as a cover for a communist takeover."

The movie doesn't say what Iselin would have done if the plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he wouldn't have openly turned traitor. Instead, he would have used his position to undermine national security, while posing as America's staunchest defender against communist evil.

So let's imagine an update - not the remake with Denzel Washington, which I haven't seen, but my own version. This time the enemies would be Islamic fanatics, who install as their puppet president a demagogue who poses as the nation's defender against terrorist evildoers.

The Arabian candidate wouldn't openly help terrorists. Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending to be their enemy.

After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist base, a necessary action to preserve his image of toughness, but botch the follow-up, allowing the terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public's attention shifted, he would systematically squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid. Soon, warlords would once again rule most of the country, the heroin trade would be booming, and terrorist allies would make a comeback.

Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear weapons.

Again, he would take care to squander a military victory. The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators would block all planning for the war's aftermath; they would arrange for our army to allow looters to destroy much of the country's infrastructure. Then they would disband the defeated regime's army, turning hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers into disgruntled potential insurgents.

After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied country's reconstruction, simply by failing to spend aid funds or rein in cronyism and corruption. Power outages, overflowing sewage and unemployment would swell the ranks of our enemies.

Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.

At home, the Arabian candidate would leave the nation vulnerable, doing almost nothing to secure ports, chemical plants and other potential targets. He would stonewall investigations into why the initial terrorist attack succeeded. And by repeatedly issuing vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure public indifference if and when a real threat is announced.

Last but not least, by blatantly exploiting the terrorist threat for personal political gain, he would undermine the nation's unity in the face of its enemies, sowing suspicion about the government's motives.

O.K., end of conceit. President Bush isn't actually an Al Qaeda mole, with Dick Cheney his controller. Mr. Bush's "war on terror" has, however, played with eerie perfection into Osama bin Laden's hands - while Mr. Bush's supporters, impressed by his tough talk, see him as America's champion against the evildoers.

Last week, Republican officials in Kentucky applauded bumper stickers distributed at G.O.P. offices that read, "Kerry is bin Laden's man/Bush is mine." Administration officials haven't gone that far, but when Tom Ridge offered a specifics-free warning about a terrorist attack timed to "disrupt our democratic process," many people thought he was implying that Al Qaeda wants George Bush to lose. In reality, all infidels probably look alike to the terrorists, but if they do have a preference, nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make them unhappy at the prospect of four more years.

E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:20 am

Lark wrote:July 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Arabian Candidate
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Mr. Bush's "war on terror" has, however, played with eerie perfection into Osama bin Laden's hands...
how so unfortunately true.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
Sensei
Posts: 2878
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Sensei » Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:01 pm

* opening door while pinching nose shut *
Nipples? Are you in here? Anyone seen Nipples? No? Thanks...
* slamming door *

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10247
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:17 pm

yeah. This thread could use some Nipples huh?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Here you go, one republican brain explained...

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:55 am

Items in bold print identify points of which I agree with.


July 21, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Inside a Republican Brain
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington

What holds the five Republican factions together? To find out, I depth-polled my own brain.

The economic conservative (I'm in the supply-side division) opposes the enforced redistribution of wealth, advocating lower taxes for all to stimulate growth with productivity, thereby to cut the deficit. Government should downhold nondefense spending, stop the litigation drain and reduce regulation but protect consumers from media and other monopolies.

My social conservative instinct wants to denounce the movie-and-TV treatment of violence and porno-sadism as entertainment; repeal state-sponsored gambling; slow the rush to same-sex marriage; oppose partial-birth abortion; resist genetic manipulation that goes beyond therapy. However, this conflicts with -

My libertarian impulse, which is pro-choice and anti-compulsion, wants to protect the right to counsel of all suspects and the right to privacy of the rest of us, likes quiet cars in trains and vouchers for education, and wants snoops out of bedrooms and fundamentalists out of schoolrooms.

The idealistic calling grabs me when it comes to America's historic mission of extending freedom in the world. This brand of thinking is often called neoconservative. In defense against terror, I'm pre-emptive and unilateral rather than belated and musclebound, and would rather be ad hoc in forming alliances than permanently in hock to global bureaucrats.

Also rattling around my Republican mind is the cultural conservative. In today's ever-fiercer kulturkampf, I identify with art forms more traditional than avant-garde, and language usage more standard than common. I prefer the canon to the fireworks and a speech that appeals to the brain's reasoning facilities to a demidocumentary film arousing the amygdala.

Do these different streams of conservatism flow gently together to form a grand Republican river inside the head? "Do I contradict myself?" asked Walt Whitman, singing of himself and answering, "Very well then I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

If these different strains of thought were held by discrete groups of single-minded people, we would have a Republican Party of five warring bands. Social conservatives would fight libertarians over sex, who in turn would savage neocons over pre-emption, who in turn would hoot at the objections of economic conservatives (traditional division) to huge deficits.

But think of these internecine battles not as tugs of war among single-minded groups; instead, think of them as often-conflicting ideas held within the brain of an individual Republican. What goes on is "cognitive dissonance," the jangling of competing inclinations, with the owner of the brain having to work out trade-offs, suppressions and compromises until he or she achieves a kind of puzzled tranquillity within.

What helps me work out that continual internal skirmishing is a mind-set. That brings us to those "values" that every candidate talks about. My values include self-reliance over community dependence, intervention over isolation, self-discipline over society's regulation, finding pleasure in work rather than working to find pleasure. Principles like those help me gel a mind-set that reduces the loudest dissonances among my fistful of clanging conservatisms.

Another aid to resolve the dissonance is every partisan's need for a political home. Independence is fine for the occasionally involved, but if influence as a participant or commentator is desired, one political side or the other must be taken.

The political brain doesn't have to go all the way to conform to either side because each side - Republican and its loyal opposition - contains this conglomeration of nonconformity. I'm a right-winger who is hot for gun control, dismaying all but the wishy-washies called "moderates," but that specific dissent is made inside my Republican home. And home has been defined as the place where - when you have to go there - they have to take you in.

Finally, the dissonance inside my head will be forced into harmony by the need to choose one leader who reflects the preponderance of my views and my judgment of his character.

I will take my teeming noggin to both conventions, watch all the debates and cast my vote - careful, in the tradition of Times columnists, not to endorse anyone. But now you know how one Republican mind will be made up. I presume the liberal brain works the same way.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

Locked

Return to “Open Discussion”