September 04, 2004
Open Thread
I won't be posting until later . If you have anything that you want me post about leave it here and I'll see what I can do.
Posted by rosemary at September 4, 2004 03:56 PM | TrackBackIn africa thousands of children die from starvation (and aids) every day and you talk about 150 dead children in russia;). Sorry guys thats not really bad its just 150, think about that
Posted by: Dave at September 4, 2004 05:08 PMWhile that may be true, the starvation and aids thing is not as easy to stop as the terrorist issues. While there are no simple solutions to any of them, there is no direct obvious individual person or group to blame for the starvation and disease (unless you are a liberal, then everything is George W. Bush's fault, even if it happened before he was born).
If you feed a child, or supress a disease, it can return, and continue to grow. If a terrorist is killed, that one individual can never return to terrorize again.
And the starvation and AIDS issues are far larger in scale than one religious fanatic with a bomb strapped to his waist. The US could jump up and drop all it's monitary resources into fighting the famines, but if the people at the top in those countries are corrupt, none of the food will get to the people.
Right now, as it stands, there are a number of corrupt governments that stand against the US in the eradication of terrorism. Yet we still are ratting them out.
The willful torture and murder of children is far more .. evil than a group of politicians fighting over who gets to skim off the top of money being sent to help feed people.
Until the Africans have our Western-style freedoms and values, including a capitalist economic system, they will continue to starve and to die of AIDS, malaria, and all manner of diseases. They must reject Communism, socialism, tribal collectivism, and totalitarian Islam. And so must we.
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 4, 2004 05:59 PMI openly boast that I admire Vice President Cheney and his daughter Mary Cheney. His stand is the only stand that deserves to be dignified with the noble title of "religious", i.e., spiritual, sacred, or "conservative", i.e., conserving individual freedom and holy absolute values and our Constitution which protects these.
I openly boast that I hate and despise the fucked-up so-called "Family Research Council" for attacking the Vice President and his daughter. I openly boast that I hate and despise Alan Keyes for attacking the Vice President's daughter. I openly boast that I hate and despise all those who share their sex-hating, self-hating, collectivist, totalitarian, Communistic ideology.
I openly boast that I am selfish and that I love sex and that I love homosexuals and homosexuality, Lesbianism. I openly boast that I will never surrender my freedom, therefore I will never surrender my right to keep and bear arms, nor will I ever submit to any "sodomy" laws, censorship, or any other form of slavery. I openly boast that I am dogmatic and that I am intolerant toward all enemies of my freedoms and values. And, conversely, I admire any man or woman who defends my freedom and values.
We are at War. These two maps, of the United States and of the world, show that the Enemy within is the same as the Enemy without.
It is the War between the individualist values embodied by Sappho and by Pim Fortuyn against the totalitarianism advocated by Santorum and by Osama bin Laden. Ultimately the one side or the other must emerge from this apocalyptic struggle, the one completely triumphant, the other completely destroyed.
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 4, 2004 08:02 PMAnd one of Africa's biggest problems is that tribal collectivism is a very rational response to a severe lack of resources. When there's only just barely enough to go around, is it better for everyone to have just enough not to starve, or for a half the people to have a comfortable lifestyle while the other half literally die of starvation?
But collectivism also leads to a lack of motivation to do the long-term work that leads to lasting improvement. If I plant some mango trees now that will grow up and bear fruit four years from now, that's three years when my work will be unrewarded. When the fourth year comes around, I'll have plenty and I'll be able to sell some to my neighbors and enjoy the (literal) fruits of my labor. But wait -- if the social system says I really *must* give most of my fruit away, because everybody else needs it more than I do, then where's my reward? (And the killer is that they really *do* need it more than I do).
There's little motivation for anyone to improve their situation. That leads to a distinct lack of basic resources. That, in turn, leads to strong social pressure towards sharing the few resources around -- because it really is a matter of literal life and death. But that strong social pressure towards sharing one's resources around helps destroy motivation to improve one's situation.
That's the trap that most of Africa has been caught in for years. Getting out will take even longer.
Posted by: Robin Munn at September 4, 2004 08:07 PMSMA -- Your description of the Family Research Council and their like as having a "sex-hating, self-hating, collectivist, totalitarian, Communistic ideology" makes it obvious that you truly do not understand them.
Remeber, there is a large group of people who genuinely believe that heterosexual sex is good, or right, or natural (pick your adjective according to whether you place a moral value on this or not), while homosexual sex is unnatural, or wrong (again, pick your adjective according to how you feel morality is tied into the issue).
Would you still call such a group "sex-hating"? Why? After all, they have nothing against heterosexual sex. Why "sex-hating"? And why "self-hating"? Explain how the FRC could possibly be described as self-hating, please, because I truly do not understand how you can really think that.
Posted by: Robin Munn at September 4, 2004 08:18 PMDave,
First of all, let me set aside my pastoral demeanor for a moment to call you an overly-analytical, inhuman, inhumane, number-crunching machine. I should also add that if you can't start caring about 200 kids you've never met, you're a great candidate for a cult, or a concentration camp prisoner-gassing specialist.
Every one of those kids had a mom. Yes, the Russians love their children, too. 150 moms lost their kids and you say that "it isn't that bad." I say that if it was just one kid, it would be an indescribable horror.
Maybe you've never experienced personal pain. Maybe you've experience so much that you turn a cold heart to it now. I hope one day you learn that it was just a trick of fate that put you in a safe place, with access to a computer and comfort. But for the grace of God, one of those kids could have been yours.
Yes, thousands of kids die from starvation. But when you start sorting individual lives into stacks and require that "X" number die before it's worth your time and notice, that says more about you than it does them.
How many individuals have to die before you care?
What a monster you are. I NEVER resort to personal attacks, but you have launched an attack against people who love other people across the globe.
If, God in Heaven forbid, something happened to Rose's perfect little boy, it would rock this place like no trauma ever could. Now consider that every one of those 150 kids was loved just as fiercely.
You are a monster. I cannot repeat it enough. My God, you're worse than the killers... they at least realized the kids had enough worth to be used as political tools. They're less than numbers to you... they're insufficient numbers to you.
Love one person. Then realize that everyone on this planet is worthy of that same love, just by being human.
Did everybody just MISS what you said? Or is everybody else just as uncaring.. why am I the first to respond to this evil?
Posted by: Big Dan at September 4, 2004 08:25 PMBig Dan,
Your the first because none of us could have been so eloquent. I read his comment and something in me just went numb. Perhaps when the numbness wears off I will be able to react. Right now I'm still in the process of crying for every one of those children, their parents and families. Not just the ones that died either, I am crying for every single one of them.
Be conforted, Big Dan and Rosemary. You are not alone in mourning. Pray, if praying is what you do, for the repose of the souls of the dead and the comfort of the all the grieving. And put aside anger at what is, in all probability, the cold greeness of youth. For all the evil that is in the world, there is still more mere ignorance and inexperience.
We see death so little these days that such ignorance is almost universal. It takes a long time to truly understand the meaning of John Donne, "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
Pray even for those who do not understand it yet, that they come to comprehend it before life leads them to do genuine evil.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall at September 4, 2004 09:28 PMwords fail me right now.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 4, 2004 09:51 PMBig Dan, some of us did not know what to say. I could not even know where to begin. You said it very well. I still cannot comprehend anyone with the least bit of humanity adhering to such a Stalinistic view. Her Majesty is quite right. Such inhumanity is numbing.
By the way, Robin, one thing I would point out. Suppose you are that grower, and it takes four years as you say. What happens when, during those four years, civil war breaks out, and your crop is wiped out? Or what if you get one or two years and then it is wiped out? Until they get political stability and protection of basic human rights, no one has any incentive or chance for anything but self-preservation, let alone the type of development you spoke of. Try being a farmer in Zimbabwe. They had real development there. Now look.
Steven Malcolm Anderson, keep up the good posts. Zwingli's Geneva and Stalin's Moscow are not in essence different. In both, the state is everything, handles any matter of any importance, and dictates to its citizens how they shall run their lives. Both were collectivistic and authoritarian. In both the group was supreme and the individual was subordinate to the collective good. The Zwinglian/Calvinistic types are self-hating insofar as they hate human nature. Calvinism is at heart Manichean, with the flesh and material things being evil and corrupting. Steven Malcolm Anderson, you are quite right in what you said.
I think you define selfish differently than I and some others would. I do not consider it selfish to love sex. I may lie at times, but I am not going to pull an Al Gore here. ;-) It is not selfish to exercise one's freedoms. It is not selfish to find joys and pleasures in one's most intimate relationships. Selfish, in my view, consists in using another as a means to an end, rather than an end in and of him or herself. What is your definition?
Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 4, 2004 09:56 PMThis seems a respectful discourse so permit me to say that Big Dan is quite right. Certainly the events in Beslan are tragic and worthy of our profound compassion and prayers. I don't always have the time to comment here as my day's activities preclude that. But that doesn't mean my heart isn't in the right spot. And sometimes I reply to those with whom I may disagree or I perceive that they disagree. So I add my comment as much to stimulate and foster further discussion and also to get feed back on whether my comments merits exposure to this kind of forum. I respect all of the above commenters but it doesn't mean I will agree with all their opinions. This issue of Beslan and the relationship to all our lives overrides my personal opinions. Thanks. This is a good discussion group.
Posted by: Catch 22 at September 4, 2004 10:51 PMThanks, Big Dan, for yur response to Dave. I didn't reply as cynics like Dave don't seem to have the prerequisite emotional development to understand simple caring and empathy. Callous bastards.
Posted by: jane m at September 5, 2004 12:31 AMWhat now though...what next...what can we do next to prevent the same thing or something worse from happening again? Does Putin now have cart blanc to fire storm Chechnya? Part of me wants revenge, but that isn't the answer. Russia isn't playing the democracy card as an option for the Chechens. Just brute force ala USSR style. This will only lead to more terrorist volunteers since there is no carrot, but just a stick.
Terrorism needs to become unnecessary or not worth the cost to ultimately stop it IMO. Democracy in Iraq, if successful will make it unnecessary in Iraq, which may spread to the surrounding countries, but realistically not quickly...which leaves not worth the cost. The problem here is what level of response is appropriate and effective. Also are both sides rational when determining the cost is not worth it. The Cold War comes to mind. Taking this to an extreme, if Russia or the US said the next terrorist attack will set in motion an automatic nuclear response would that stop terrorism? Is that cost worse then terrorism? Both Russia and the US rationally recognized that an all out war between the two powers would result in MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction). How would Muslims receive a threat to Mecca? About as well as one to Rome would be by Christians I assume. All Muslims allies helping us track terrorists would probably protest and cease helping and their help has been invaluable(Pakistan come to mind). Muslims would unite and terrorists would say, "See they want to destroy our religion. It's a crusade against Islam. We were right all along."
They may say this anyway when the Israeli’s or we attack Iran within the next year to prevent them from acquiring nukes.
OK...I'm tapped...making it not worth the cost appears to not be worth it. I talked myself out of it.... so we're back to trying to establish democracy in the region. The Imams are not stupid...ok...I think they are, but anyway they are smart enough to realize what a successful Iraq will mean to their future. They will keep financing terrorists to disrupt the rebuilding in Iraq and use the terrorists to fight a proxy war against the West in the hopes they can discourage us enough to give up and leave before the job is finished. I think they are hoping to leverage the mainstream media's obvious displeasure with the current Bush administration and constant slow loss of soldiers lives to pressure America to bail out of Iraq, perhaps creating a power vacuum that Iran can step into if only by proxy through Al-Sadr.
This war needs to be fought in the media as much as on the ground...reporting for duty your :)
Doh!
...Reporting for duty your Majesty :)
repeat as needed....preview...preview...preview is your friend.
Posted by: Matt S. at September 5, 2004 01:50 AMThe tragedy of Africa is no less tragic after the slaughter of innocents in Russia. The impact is more immediate, though. Naive as I am, I just thought Dave wasn't communicating well.
The disease and starvation of Africa is precisely why I am not a Darwinist. Were I such, I would have to say that it was just the natural order of things, that man has not adapted well to the environment, shrug and move on. Does it sound callous, or heartless? Then you understand why I rejected the philosophy.
Regarding the murders in Russia, there is no easy means of reacting to this crime. The question before Russia is "How will Russia react to terrorism?" Can they find the men responsible and punish them? Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the question. They could capitulate, but that becomes an endless cycle of demanding and ankle-grabbing. Can they go to the source, the group claiming responsibility, and negate their ability to do further harm? Perhaps, but then Vladimir Putin will have to face the United Nations, hat in hand, and confess that the 30 nations of the Coalition were right, and the four nations that stood against them were wrong. Putin is a proud man, and I don't know if he has the fortitude to make such an admission.
I know how I would like to handle it, but I am on no position to do so at the moment, and it wouldn't stop someone else from stepping into their place.
Posted by: Mr. E. at September 5, 2004 03:19 AMsorry i was too laysy to read all but to the 1st answer: do you think terorism is realy so easy to fight? if you kill osama for example, than there come 100 other terrorist teenager and blow their selves up. Anyway what i wanted to say is that with this war against terorism you forget other, more important conflicts, and because you say you are somehow the peacekeapers in this world(USA)(what is somehow true) you forget some duties. Because spending 50billion on a war is quiet crazy you could for example try to fix the starvation problem with te half of this money.
And to Mr.E: why do you think in afica is starvation? I think because some stupid people had to conquer colonisms(to make more money) and after these people went away the blacks who lived there had sudenly kalaschnikovs and killed eachother.Its our responsibility.
just a couple of quick points:
we, meaning the citizens of the USofA, are not responsible for colonialism or Kalashnikovs.
starvation is caused by mismanagement of markets and laws, typically by governments. yes, it's a problem, but democracy and transparent government is the solution. read Amartya Sen if you're not too lazy. it is fortunate that the sources of terrorism appear to spring from the same problem, authoritarian government. the unfortunate part is that the Russian system of government seems to be heading in a more authoritarian direction.
and because you say you are somehow the peacekeapers in this world(USA)(what is somehow true) you forget some duties. Because spending 50billion on a war is quiet crazy you could for example try to fix the starvation problem with te half of this money.That's pretty low. Both policitcal parties in this country are responsible for the "policeman" reputation we have, but I think that the original concept remains with most of our people/citizens. It is our desire to help other countries and people. It is from our hearts where the desire to help others comes from. It is through our beurocracy where that desire gets twisted to serve the needs and addictions of whichever party currently has the item on their desks. Yeah, a number of my conservative friends and myself talk about using nukes and killing people, but, while we are compassionate, we also understand that in order to help some groups, we need to remove those who willfully stand in the way of those who work to provide assistance. If a child has been hit by a car, and needs help, and you stand in my way from helping said child, you'd better believe that I'll crush your head if you stand in the way (not a threat, an example, I'm assuming you wouldn't do such a thing). Now, does the fact that we, as a people, have a big heart excuse the way our government abuses our compassion? No, but from what I have seen, it is mostly our own people who stand in the way. They want us to use pillows and gently pick up the person who is preventing us from providing help, and move them off to the side where, because we used pillows, they will happily stay there and do nothing (Utopian dreams). They are afraid to beat the crap out of someone who is willingly preventing assistance (and many times they are deliberately beating the victim). This is why we have our current situation in Iraq. The left side of the fence wants to play nice and wanted to send Saddam a bunch of flowers and a nice card requesting him to stop being such a mean man. Worse yet, a lot of the lunatics on the left seem to think he's a nice guy in the first place, and have turned a blind eye to the thousands he was abusing, and the hundreds of thousands he killed (after all, they're dead right? So they must not count.) Reality: We shouldn't even have the bastard in jail. He shouldn't even have made it out of his "spider hole". He should have been executed on the spot. Instead, we have Saddam in jail, with the Red Cross making sure he is pampered like a prize winning poodle, and some ****ing lawyer bent on defending someone who isn't even a US citizen/national. And if you think that those left who are loyal to Saddam are not planning to try and break him out of jail, you are a fool. We aren't supposed to be the global police, yet everyone expects us to be the global nipple that every other nation can suck off of. It doesn't work that way. Just because everyone thinks we are all rich bastards who should be forced to give all our money to the UN so it can be dispersed, doesn't mean that it is right. You could drain every last penny, and leave the US as nothing more than a 3rd world country, and it would not solve the problems. Of course, all the lefties would be quite happy with that, until the food ran out. Posted by: JonB at September 5, 2004 10:49 AM
"If a child has been hit by a car, and needs help, and you stand in my way from helping said child, you'd better believe that I'll crush your head if you stand in the way (not a threat, an example, I'm assuming you wouldn't do such a thing)"
JonB you just summed up the way I see the American people, except for a few peacenik asshats. This is the most generous, giving country in the world, but don't fuck with us, we'll split your head. Assuming, of course that you don't run away and hide in a cave first
Posted by: caltechgirl at September 5, 2004 11:40 AMWhat she said.... :)
Posted by: Matt S. at September 5, 2004 11:50 AMAh, now I see...Dave is a European socialists. That explains his world view. And yes, it is correct. the world produces plenty of food. The miserable excuses for governments in Africa prevent the distribution of the food offered to stop starvation because the power of the food is political power. How many South Africans are starved? Not many, I'll wager. they, after a long and bitter struggle, have a decent government and in turn, their people have food.
Posted by: jane m at September 5, 2004 01:04 PMYou were right the first time - dave is missing the prerequisite emotional development.
In dave's world, we measure the depth of tragedy by numbers. There is a magic number, see if you can guess what it is, whereby the "not so bad" becomes "the tragedy".
THEN we pin the blame on America. Because after all, America is responsible for the disease and starvation (not the men who hack off limbs and use food as a weapon in Africa. We should just send more, until they get tired).
The Marshall Plan. Korea. Greece. Vietnam. Central America. We have bled for 50 years for people we don't know. We have given our youth, our wealth, our heart to the rest of the world. Even today, we give our blood, for a people who have endured far worse.
I don't give a damn about you dave, or your pathetic rants. You don't have a clue what you are talking about, you have no grasp of truth. You are a sad little agitator, who isn't even any good at it.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 5, 2004 01:56 PMMarshall plan! wonderfull! What about the regime in chile and argentinia? America helped them to come to power(if you dont know it was a dictatoric regime). Greece! you know what would have hapened if greece had gotten comunistic? the russians would have had a direct harbour in the mediteranian sea;) that means that it wouldnt be a problem for them to attck GB(with ships) and GB is your friend isnt it?
than to the fact that you say starvation is not a big problem as i say:
4000 children die per hour from starvation^^ that is 96 000 a day and about 32 000 000 a year;) yeah its not that bad.
You know what would help?(After some struggle; you re right jane) a decent government.
Great! What are we waiting for?
And i forgot great britain was also willed to give its youth and its blood for americans and whole Nato that means turkishs, germans, frenchs, italians, etc have been willed too.
Posted by: dave at September 5, 2004 02:23 PMOK, I am now declaring dave a troll. He's not interested in actual conversation, he just wants to reiterate a litany of past American evils, to "prove" that America can do no good.
The best response to such trolls is to just ignore them. They'll continue to post for a while, but when nobody responds, it becomes pointless and they eventually give up.
Anyone want to talk about Africa or Russia? Those seem to be the two real, coherent conversations going on in this thread once you ignore the troll.
Posted by: Robin Munn at September 5, 2004 02:55 PMBig Dan and Edmond the Libertarian:
Thank you both. I ought to have been more emotional in my response to that little Stalinoid troll except that the only emotion I fell for him is contempt.
Edmond the Libertarian is, as usual, extremely perceptive and exactly right in his analysis. FRC, Keyes, Santorum, Bork, etc., derive their whole argument against homosexuality and homosexual marriage, as well as against contraception, masturbation, sexual fantasy, etc., from the premise that the only permissible purpose of sex is to breed more chattel for Big Brother, and that sex for any other, any higher, purpose is immoral, sinful, perverted, etc. -- "deviant" -- and to be banned. In their view, all those who do not conform to a norm set by the collective and who do not exist solely in order to serve the collective are evil and to be punished. I totally oppose that all the way down. And I submit that such a debased view of sex stems from a profound self-loathing.
What I mean by "selfish" is to pursue and to hold one's own values (including one's country, one's loved ones, one's Deity or Deities) above all else, and to refuse to renounce one's values or to surrender one's values to any collective, to refuse to be used as a means to the ends of others or any collective. Each man or woman is an end in himself or herself, created in the image of the Divine.
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 5, 2004 03:37 PM"The institution of marriage necessarily entails the complementarity of husbands and wives who participate in God's creative activity through the raising of children,"
"Spouses thereby ensure the survival of society and culture, and rightly deserve specific and categorical legal recognition by the State."
"Any attempts to change the meaning of the word 'spouse' contradict right reason: legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, cannot be applied to unions between persons of the same sex without creating a false understanding of the nature of marriage."
John Paul II
Posted by: Catch 22 at September 5, 2004 04:11 PMWhy do you say that Robin? I said its good that america is trying to keep peace. And like all lands it did (and still does mistakes) thats normal. But if somebody comes and says america is perfect than sorry robin hes talking shit. No ones perfect and i just answered texasdaves thread.
He only said:
We have bled for 50 years for people we don't know. We have given our youth, our wealth, our heart to the rest of the world. Even today, we give our blood, for a people who have endured far worse.
And i said thats not right. Now what is wrong about that?
You don't have a clue what you are talking about, you have no grasp of truth. You are a sad little agitator, who isn't even any good at it.
Is it me who doesnt want to make a conversation or is it you mister?I didnt shout on anybody you are the one that reacts that alergic in everything that criticises USA
Your not a patriot
Youre just blind
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to SECURE these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers FROM the CONSENT of the governed..."
Re: We the people = the legislative collective
Posted by: Catch 22 at September 5, 2004 04:19 PM"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Our rights come from our Creator, they are inalienable. No power on earth, not even "we, the people", has the authority to take or restrict these rights.
"That to SECURE these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"
The purpose of governments is to protect the inalienable rights of its individual citizens, not to tell them how to run their lives, or instruct them in virtue, or protect individuals from their own follies or weaknesses.
"deriving their just powers FROM the CONSENT of the governed..."
Yes, an important part. Government has its authority from our consent. If it is not doing the purpose for which it was established, to protect our inalienable rights, we can exercise our right to change that government. Hopefully, that means elections at regular times. Sometimes, that means armed resistence and change of government by force.
Somehow, instructing the people on the nature of marriage does not appear to fall under the purpose of government.
Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 5, 2004 07:23 PMSomeone had mentioned about Byrd being a former KKK member. I think it was Her Majesty. On that note, here is an interesting quote:
"Robert C. Byrd in my view, Mr. President, would have been right at anytime. You would have been right at the founding of this country. You would have been in the leadership of crafting this Constitution. You would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.“
Right for the country during the War of the Rebellion? What could Sen. Christopher Dodd mean by that? Is that REALLY much different from Lott's dumb comment?
Let us not forget about Hollings and how he lovingly called Bush II a "dirty Jew lover." He blamed the Gulf II on the Jews as well.
Maybe Lott still was a Dixiecrat who became a Republican for all the wrong reasons, not being supportive of Republican principles, but angry at the 'unrighteousness' of the modern Dems. Maybe so, but there obviously a hell of a lot of Dixiecrat or Dixiecrat-minded members who never left the Dems, and are even amongst the Dems' Senate Caucus. So far, the Dems are leading 3-1 in current Dixicrats. Anyone care to add to the total?
The act of entering into a marriage has both civil and religious aspects. Civilly, it is a lifetime revocable (sp?)contract that guarantees certain things to both parties legally. Religiously, it is a commitment to live together under the laws and customs of your faith and to build up one another and your community of faith and to raise your family under the institutions of your faith. I don't see why the government keeps trying to insinuate itself into what I consider to be part of the religious aspect of a marriage: who you choose to marry. If your marriage is blessed by your faith, why should the government care?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is willing to make a lifelong commitment to another person and be an example of love and service in their community by their relationship with that other person is strong and courageous and deserves all the legal benefits that my marriage engenders, no matter whether they're gay or straight.
Sometimes I wonder how much of this debate is caused by homophobia/predjudice and how much is due to the mistaken perception that much of the straight world has that all gays are promiscuous and gay relationships are incapable of being deep, loving, or committed. Does anyone else have any idea on this question?
Posted by: caltechgirl at September 5, 2004 07:55 PMDave
Americans are just not in the mood to be vilified by European socialists who have had the benefit of our leadership, financial sacrifice and vision to rebuild what was left of Europe after the SECOND time in the twentieth century you all were fool enough to blow yourselves and other continents all to hell.
You think communism marching across western Europe would have been a pleasant outcome for Austria, Italy, Greece, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and yes EVEN the UK? Without NATO that's what you would be today - Communist satellites of the USSR. Who gained more by removing the threat? Europe or America? Well, guess what? EVERYBODY won! A rising tide lifts all boats. However, it's sure plain to see that as soon as the USSR is no threat, then you folks got no more use for the Yanks. A few Arab terrorists attack the US? So what, only 3000 of 'em died and two big buildings came down. Big deal.
Yeah, right. Big Deal. Now go protect your own borders from now on. The US isn't going to make sure your borders are safe anymore. Doing so for the last 50 years allowed you folks to have 6 weeks off every year from your job, work a mere 35 hours a week and build a very nice social welfare society where work appears to be optional. Now find a way to pay for it and a meaningful military for defense without giving up your cushy, easy lives.
And Chile and Argentina are so not relevant to the events of the early 21st century, after the fall of the USSR, it's laughable to mention them. Better you keep your eyes on the future and what India and China will do to your prosperity in the the coming years. Those people are working 80 hours a week and you all better start figuring out if you can get your puny bodies to work for 40 hours a week before YOU become a third world economy. They say the 20th century was the American Century. Now we hear the 21st century will be the Asian century. Better get prepared if you don't want to be the people on the bottom of the heap. America will keep up because we are going to resist socialism, the killer of the human spirit.
Posted by: jane m at September 5, 2004 07:58 PMWell, my little ole suggestion seems rather insignificant after seeing that there are soooooo many others on here, but, HRH, I want to know where you went to college, your major, if you finished, etc.
Posted by: Rae at September 5, 2004 08:40 PMJane M., they are a bunch of spoiled brats who have relied solely on the US to defend them for way too long. They are not mature nations. They are mere weak dependencies of the US pretending to be fully independent nations. They resemble spoiled teenagers. When we threaten to pull our troops out, then they love us.
They do not want to do one of the basic duties of a sovereign nation, defending itself from external enemies. They want the benefits of being sovereign without the problems. They are the teenage children, the United States are the parents. You are right, we should force them to take on all of the burdens of being a sovereign people. Until they do, we should treat them as they deserve.
Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 5, 2004 08:45 PMEdmond
Quite so. France is reduced to sticking its fingers in the American eye whenever the opportunity arises in order to feel powerful. As far as defense, they have a military but an outmoded one. Europe as a whole decided in the aftermath of WWII as I just read SOMEWHERE on a blog today (soo many sites, can't remember what I saw where!) to focus on their social service network, low working ours, looong vacations for everyone, lots of time off for working mothers after birth, easily approved unemployment, etc, etc and forget about military technology as the Americans would look after that, wouldn't they?
IN the meantime, American are working their tutus off to pay for the defense of Europe. All those nuclear weapons, all those hi-tech fighter jets at about 50 - 100 million a copy, all those nuclear subs, not to mention the Bradley and the Abrams. Untold billions of hardearned American tax dollars so the Europeans were safe and prosperous for the last 50 years. Bah, humbug.
This inequity didn't bother me all that much until our President became the laughing stock of the effete and condescending European community. I know they are not all that way but waaay too many are. I will always admire the Brits especially (always have and always will), the Poles, the Danes, the Italians (AND the Spanish - the military)and I've probably left out a few others for joining with us and supporting us but the others can rot as far as I'm concerned. I can't wait to get out troops out of there.
Posted by: jane m at September 6, 2004 12:31 AMEdmond:
Quite right about Byrd and Hollings. That bit of flattery was every bit as inane as what Trent Lott got called on the carpet for. And as for Hollings, he's as anti-Semitic and fascist as Pat Buchanan. I've never liked him. I like Buchanan better, even though he is my enemy. He has more _style_.
Europe and America. Europe is Greece. America is Rome. We are now as in the 1st century A.D. or later. What were the glorious city-states of Greece then? The age of Pericles, of Praxiteles, of Sophocles, of Empedocles, had lobg passed. The age of Homer was as remote to them as the Middle Ages are to us. Only Rome remained standing. Europe, that is the rest of Europe (for America is intrinsically and integrally a part of Europe), is in decay. We, the United States of America, alone remain to stand guard over whar remains of the High Culture of the West.
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at September 6, 2004 12:51 AMJane
Why do you say europe doesnt give a fuck about the US? German soldiers died for example in afghanistan, there are europeans troops all over the gulf. A good friend reminds you if you do something wrong and howle europe was against the irak-war(except poland)+(95% of the spanish and italians have been against sending troops to irak).
Anyway i don't think european borders have to be protected anymore, because the new enemy is terrorism and borders dont stop it. 20 years ago they had to defend russia with heavy tanks and nukes.What do you need a abrahams tank now for, if youre attacking nobody and nobody is attacking you? You say socialism is the killer of human spirit. I say any kind of politic is the killer of human spirit, when its radical. Thats why comunism cant work, thats why any dictatory is dammed to fail when its radical(for example north korea, for example china)(because china stoped being radical with its politics, now its rising up)
Steven malcolm
you sound to me quite fashistic. And what do we remember of rome? You just listed 20 greek genious people, but tell me some romish people you can remember(except caesar^^). Rome had no culture, it had the colosseum where people have been slaughtered, nice culture!(and it build many roads that was really good)
Posted by: dave at September 6, 2004 04:54 PMDave
The war was not wrong. So thanks for nothing.
Steven is a reflection of the militaristic spirit that developed in the US since 1950 when we took over the protection of the west. And he is right. Greece had the superior culture compared to Rome. Same with Europe, the superior culture compared to the US. Western culture was born and is dying in Europe. What remains is what is left in America where our pragmitism is the hallmark of our version of Western culture. We copy but are not the same. We are a different people. Our relative youth as a country makes all the difference. A mere 150 years ago our people were carving our nation out of a hostile wilderness with families risking everything to eke out a living on their own land. We welcomed the dispossessed of Europe in the 19th century who fled a history of centuries of unrelenting wars based on the egos of a few of the ruling class. Kaiser Wilhelm caused the death of untold millions because of his jealousy of his cousin Edward the VII. The progeny of the great Queen Victoria played out their family drama at the expense of millions of lives.
When you say Europe has no enemy except terrorists today, you should look farther into the future. It takes time to build a superior military and you all may not have that time. The Islamic fanatics are marching your way. Bin Laden says that restoring the rightful power of Islam means taking back Spain. He means it and so do his teachers the Saudi Wahhabis. They are coming, my friend. The 21st century hold many threats to Europe politically and economically. France has a significant looming problem with the greates Muslim minority in Europe within their borders. If Europeans remain complacent, the future if fraught with peril. Communism is the past. Islam is the future political and security threat Asia is the future economic threat. Wake up Europe or the 22 nd century will find you on the bottom of the heap.
Posted by: jane m at September 7, 2004 12:08 AMNow lets say in 50 years there is an islamic majority in, lets say spain. What does an army help you still then? Do you want to kill this people? i guess you cant What does an army help you if you have a latino majority in the US? The Us system is helpless with this problem rightnow too.
Posted by: dave at September 7, 2004 06:01 AMWell, if you want to live under Shari'ia, Dave, then by all means ignore the need for some kind of meaningful defense against those who would impose their form of religious rules on yours and your grandchildren's lives. You sound like a typical European socialist who believes in nothing and will do nothing to perserve your beliefs. You're defeated before you even are threatened. With your attitude, Europe will indeed be the first step in world-wide Islamic domination and rule by theocracy.
There is not much to talk about with you, it seems. You are incapable of this discussion with an American who instinctively knows that the preservation of individual liberty balanced with the good of the entire society is worth defending to the death. What an insipid bunch you Europeans have become. My only hope is that you have some leaders in some countries who wll fight against such defeatism and the end of Western culture in the land of its birth.
Posted by: jane m at September 7, 2004 11:30 AMLatest Bushism, since this is an open thread, I shall incude now.
"Too many Ob-Gyns aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
Now that's saying why those naughty lawsuits should be ended!
Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 7, 2004 06:49 PMBush fans are laughing over this one. Actually I laugh over ALL of them. There he goes again!! He is such a dear. Waiting for the anti-Bush crowd to go frothing at the mouth... ;-P
Posted by: jane m at September 7, 2004 07:34 PMWhat did he mean by that, anyway? Unless Bill Clinton is now his speech writer, he obviously did not mean what it sounds like. ;-)
Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 7, 2004 07:49 PMJane M., I have no problem with Bush that would not be solved by him being more Republican and more concerned with his own party members than with a bunch of disgruntled LBJ-style Democrats. I am not of the anti-Bush lefty crowd.
It is supposed to be the Party of Lincoln, of Teddy Roossevelt, of Robert Taft and Everrett Dirksen, not of FDR and LBJ. If you want a conservative to give the nominating speech, get a Republican, maybe Gov. Bensen of NH or the Governor of Colorado, not some Southern Democrat who admires Bush for all of Bush's more Democratic qualities. Bush can solve my issues with him. He probably won't though.
Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 7, 2004 07:58 PMEdmond
He didn't mean anything by it. He got his usual tongue tied tripping over his words syndrom going for him. The longer the campaign goes, and the more tired he becomes, the oftener we will hear these deliciously silly malapropisms. I just find them funny.
As far as the Republicans current state of ideology, it looks to me that as a party, things are not as they once were. Republicans used to be isolationists too. Democrats are now isolationists, it appears to me. There is a lot of role reversal in the two parties. I'm sure the Republicans today stand for a lot of things the party of 1860 and 1864 never thought of. Same as the party of Jefferson. Unrecognizable I'm sure to TJ and friends. That's the way it goes, I guess.
I like Bush as a leader. I always have. He stands for a lot I agree with but not everything. I'll take what I can get with this crop of pols.
Posted by: jane m at September 8, 2004 01:13 AMTrue, there are many things that those in 1864 would not have thought of today. However, Republicanism and Democratism are not a laundry list of political outcomes. They are both a set of political principles that will be applied differently in new situations and new times, but the principles themselves remain the same. That is why I complain about the Bush years turning the GOP more and more into the LBJ party.
Some of the changes in policy do reflect a change in the culture of the leadership. If you look at past wars, the South has been the most hawkish and New England the most pacifist. However, some of the changes are not merely cultural ones, which I can understand, but political ones.
Specifically, the changes reflect Democratic principles. One can be more hawkish than me, but give Republican reasons for being so. One can be less economically conservative, but give Republican reasons, and adopt programs based on Republican priniciples, not Democratic ones. One can be a right winger or a liberal and still be a Republican as long as one believes and applies Republican principles.
I do not care how conservative one is, if one's principles are that of the old Democratic coalition, one is a Democrat, not a Republican. Bush is not merely our president. He is the head of the Republican Party, and he is swaying the GOP in a specific direction, a very LBJish Democratic direction.
We have too many people who merely are in my party because they long for the old Dems, and others who think they can build up a powerful party on the basis of the longing of others for that, believing that those truly attached to the GOP have no where to go.
Zell Miller may be a good man or he may not. Bob Packwood was definitely not, but he was a real Republican. Their future destinations in the next life do not indicate which party they belong in now.
However, to give the nominating speech to someone who does not believe in Republican principles, does not pretend to, is completely insanity. Yes, reach out to Dems, by all means, but reach out to them by showing why Republican principles are best for their nation, their state, their community, and themselves and their families. Allowing Democratic principles to take over, and explaining why Bush supports their old time Democratic principles is not the way. I have voted for some far more conservative than myself and some more liberal. However, I felt in both cases the candidates in question stood for Republican principles, however they differed from me in their application. I do not see Bush as supporting them, nor does the party leadership.
Posted by: Edmond the Libertarian at September 8, 2004 10:02 AMI never fail to learn from your comments, Edmond. I find myself much too ignorant of the traditional party principles you speak of with authority to reply with any degree of intelligence. I think W is a conservative on many issues but I've learned many Republicans don't sooo I want to think more about all this.
I know what a "new deal Democrat" is, I think and I know what a "Reagan Democrat" is or was, and I think I know what LBJ was about (which didn't turn out to well, did it?) but I'm not so sure that I'm truly understanding the differences you are referring to and have decided as a result, I will do some reading in the days and weeks to come on the traditional political philosophical differences between the GOP and the Donks. Thanks for the incentive to sharpen up a bit.
Combine that with more reading on Calvin and I've got a full plate added to keeping up on the two campaigns, the War and the economy. I need more free time to manage all this, whew.;-)
Posted by: jane m at September 8, 2004 01:17 PM