November 10, 2004
Election 2004: Reaping What Was Sown
By Mathew Maavak
[Mr. Maavak can be reached at mathew@maavak.net. Or visit his site Panoptic World] Link to this piece on Panoptic World
I wasn’t surprised at the recent election results. The reasons given were predictable. Some of them had the usual themes like Diebold machines and a repeat of other tools of electoral fraud. They could be right on this, to an extent this time around.
The question is if Americans are being defrauded a second time, with American blood being spilt, and the promise of more carnage in store, why isn’t John Kerry at least demanding a full re-vote, at least for principle’s sake, and prevent this literally bloody fiesta from repeating itself? When many accused Al Gore of caving in too easily the first time around – when he had actually won — you’d expect the Democrat challenger this time around to go down fighting as if he (or the nation) had nothing to lose. If people are genuinely mad, they’d endorse that recount and not blame the Democrats for fuelling a sense of national insecurity, or indignation.
The party has nothing to lose. The business of state can go on, as usual, while electoral experts scrutinize all allegations of electoral fraud, and provide a vindication. A few hundred ballot inspectors, if appointed, aren’t going to generate public hostility for the Democrat party; instead, if the allegations are true, they’d really watch out the next time after this life-sucking double-whammy. The Democrats will score a real moral victory. Yet, Kerry conceded fast, as expected. He wasn’t the fighter the party presented. Bush certain was, however much, one dislikes him.
Kerry’s campaign had the familiar, pre-planned circus themes, and avoided all the real issues of the day, and if you read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of United States, this is nothing new. This tacitly agreed engagement of safe issues between both major parties– that only serves the ruling class – is a recurring feature of American politics. In the late 1890s, when there was strong dialectical backlash against the tyranny of money and class, many progressives, populists, and socialists hobnobbed with the Democrats and individuals of renown for what they saw was a chance to smash the electoral ransom by a few. They were betrayed time and time again. It’s the 21st century now, and “progressives” are repeating the same charade, thinking of short-term goals, which never really transpire, instead of just winning eventually by sticking to their guns.
Here is a really interesting question. How many votes that went to Ralph Nader during the 2000 elections went to George W. Bush this time? I’d be surprised if the Crawford Cowboy didn’t corral a chunk of them this time.
Upon observing the elections at close hand, India Today’s (Nov 15 edition) Aroon Purie felt like he “was back home” – yes, these things happen everywhere where there is a ballot box – and heard all the familiar raging debates “about voter disenfranchisement and intimidation, the inaccuracy of exit polls, money power and even electronic voting machines.”
He was confused over the “divided electorate” and a “plethora of opinion polls” and picked the winner two days before the results. He did it by observing Americans.
Many didn’t like Bush, but voted for him nevertheless. Why? Because they were goaded to make this decision by elements of the “so-called left” which later morphed to endorse Kerry on a big scale, dragging along individuals wary of the Democrat candidate.
An eventual win for Bush was plain to me, even a year ago, and what confused me equally was the opinion polls, which showed a strong support base for Kerry.
Almost every American I talked to in person had already decided on the vote. It was for Bush, a man they ironically despised but who had made his stance clear on certain issues. His tough talk on terrorism and insecurity could have been smashed by the Kerry brigade in no time. It would have been that easy, if the Democrats had not been beholden to their financiers. But Dubya got away with it, and the votes.
There were two other reasons for this debacle, something omitted out of political or editorial correctness:
Attack on Christian beliefs: It backfired badly. “Liberal” elements paradoxically lost the votes for Kerry the moment they endorsed him. Many evangelicals who didn’t vote for Bush the last time were galvanized this time, mainly over these five "non-negotiable" issues: abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, human cloning and euthanasia. Underlying these “non-negotiable” issues were fears of further attacks on their views and lifestyle. They didn’t like a cowardly system that upholds free speech for Oscar-nominations like the Last Temptation of Christ and oppose free speech in the form of school prayer. They don’t like selectiveness over Freedom of Speech.
They have seen this assault on Christian beliefs in places like the United Kingdom, and the minority appeasement that results from it. How can you explain the case of M'hammed Azzaoui, 38, a Muslim trainee traffic warden, who got wobbly, for religious reasons, after discovering the existence of a tiny cross on his St Edward's Crown insignia. Police badges contain that symbol of monarchical/state authority. Ian Blair, deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police agreed that the crown used since the coronation of 1661 could be offensive to minorities (hardly a Sikh or Hindu in UK objects to this, and no-one objected to this when Indians, including Muslims from a Pakistan formed later, were fighting for the Brits, with good pay, during both the World Wars). There are countless more examples downplayed or omitted in the media.
Here is the Christian response to the “liberal” elements: “Sure, we have strong beliefs, but do we lop off the heads of homosexuals, women who abort, and physically intimidate those who oppose our views? Do we force women into marriages, hunt pornographers down, and threaten our own daughters with mortal danger for seeking their own boyfriends? Does the New Testament teach us to hate our enemies and take up the sword? Do you respect our culture and beliefs while shying away from another, for your own safety?”
To that you can add: Why is the Western World – once the laggard – are ever developing materially and philosophically to an extent that its appeal can be found in a liberal Islamic, non-Arab country like Malaysia? James C. Dobson may be feathered and tarred in the writings of US intellectuals, but his Focus on the Family messages are popular with Muslims there. They are aired every morning on national radio, and heard with much appreciation as workers commute to work in Kuala Lumpur and elsewhere.
You’d find arguments like these in more “right wing” articles. They are powerful, blunt and hit the mark. Ironically, some of the first post-election derogatory comments about women came from the traditional left, alluding to the usual “bimbo newscaster seduced the population” theme. For now those comments are OK, after Kerry willingly lost, but earlier it was a sign of male chauvinism, which came from the traditional, anti-feminist “right”.
Why bring in religion? Well, that’s why you got Bush.
Its important to know that society, as far as the ballot is concerned, is an aggregation of individuals and their votes. Some of their collective experiences have been publicised by neither Big Media nor the progressive-liberal front.
Here is a personal experience. I have attacked Christians at online debates for their political views. Some of them later invited me, a complete stranger, to their homes. I have assailed right-wing Jews for Israel’s policy on Palestine, after the usual Christianity-Judaism joust and we still called each other achi. That’s non-lethal democracy and freedom of speech. I have argued with the impassioned Vishwa Hindu Parishad sympathizers about freedom of religion and they kept agreeing with many of my points. They are appreciative of the fact that Christian missionaries don’t use brute force, not since the time of the Portuguese rule, centuries back in India. They support freedom of belief, as long it is “genuine”. Almost all of them have to lower their voices into whispers when they talk about an established, non-tolerant Islamic militancy, one that has resulted in thousands of deaths. Ask yourself why the whispers, by a majority, in a democracy? Read all you can about Kashmir.
Whenever I got into a taxi in Leeds, England, the ethnic Pakistani drivers frequently mistook me for a kindred soul, and sometimes I played along. It comes easy to me.
When I did, I heard all sorts of anger and resentment against the Britons.
Why? Here is a typical answer.
“They persecute Muslims. They eat pork, they drink. Their lifestyles are different from our culture.”
Different lifestyles cause hatred, I presume, even when it’s non-intrusive. I asked:
“Have you been attacked by these people? How long have you been in England?”
“No. I have never been attacked. Just six months.” That answer of six-odd months came from a restaurant help at a fish and chips shop near Leeds University. A year or two later, I would read about militant sympathizers being rounded up in that area.
I stayed in a Christian home in a calm South India recently, within a Muslim neighborhood. The kind of lifestyle change needed was pretty darn vexing. I had to don track pants over my shorts to cross over from my room, through the study, to the balcony for a smoke. The erogenous potential of my calves and knees didn’t make me feel like a male supermodel. I get angry when head-scarved strangers look at me menacingly, in my sweltering track pants, while I make coffee in the kitchen, at a distance deliberately attained as far as possible from a Muslim maid. Still, some puritanical, sex-crazed mind would call up incessantly to keep tabs…No, my ankles don’t come close to Brad Pitt’s, me thinks, and no male I know can describe Nicole Kidman’s either, offhand.
I don’t like my liberty being held ransom even after I have made the necessary cultural compromises. I explode if I see that that the same liberty, post compromise, is being held to daily ransom by brute force…
Has this short discourse on the religious freedom angle, post-election, gone too far? It hasn’t; you have an ethnic Arab general named John Abizaid leading US forces in Iraq.
Many like Abizaid, though not specifically referring to him, arrive in America (and now, increasingly Australia), after knocking on its doors for years, into a system that rewards chop-chop Wahabbi fundamentalism more than their interests. The wealthier evangelicals do nuts about this, hardly pressure congress, and that’s where they should be attacked.
These immigrants tell you, despite their education and relative wealth, of the daily reprogramming and self-suppression they have to undergo to avoid a murderous riot, and a unique one at that, as it can explode without warning. They arrive in America and tell church members of how even in an online chat, they had to repackage the Lebanese Civil War as one between Palestinians and Israelis, and that the Lebanese religious groups were not involved…
They’d rather live in the United States and cherish their little freedoms, and they cherish it more than do Americans themselves.
The same article by Aroon Purie starts with this quote from a US election expert:
“India runs its democracy better than us.”
Partly true.
This is what politically savvy Indian professionals in the US tell me:
“Here, you can say any damn thing you want, man”…and call Bush a @#$% in the same breath.
There are more Hindus in India rejoicing over Bush’s victory. The papers state reasons of strong defense ties under Bush, and his approval for outsourcing etc. A young, mobile, educated lot is not held hostage to “outsourcing.” Talk to them and you’ll find an endorsement of what Bush is doing in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world. They are angry. Many of them would have had a relative or friend in the Gulf states, who faced discrimination and humiliation in the hands of “oppressed Arabs.” At home they turn angry at India’s official appeasement of their own “oppressed lot”. This is civilization that welcomed Judaism and Christianity, with the promise of safety and wealth, long before they reached the shores of Western Europe, with its promise of centuries-old tumult.
Failure of the liberal-progressive left: They are riddled with infighting, repeating a trend seen throughout all of the United States’ dialectic history (read H. Zinn again). They make too many compromises and practice equal control and censorship as do the Big Media they complain about. Freedom of speech means you have to find another outlet, perhaps your own, as you can’t air your views freely within their suffocating, confined spectrums. In the process, this group ticks off almost every potential sympathizer. They Love to attack the church, evangelicals, and to an extent fanatical Jewry, never the Mosque that tries to impose its values on, even the majority, if permitted.
The US liberal (or progressive) front has the historic habit of picking the wrong allies for short-term convenience, resulting in cyclical failure. Like before, they can enlist luminaries who in turn can subvert or drown out their screams for justice (again, read H. Zinn). The demands of those times, specifically the turn of the last century, were however desperate. There were “284,000 children aged 10 to 15”, who were laboring and dying in “mines, mills and factories.”
Mother Jones described one such situation: “Every day, little children came into the Union Headquarters, some with hands off, some with the thumb missing, some with the fingers off at the knuckle.” (Zinn, p 346)
The Ludlow Massacre of April 1914 resulted in the “charred, twisted bodies of eleven children and two women,” perpetrated by National Guardsman on the payroll of the Rockefeller Family who owned the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation profitably, and the lives of its mainly-white immigrant workers, in slave-like conditions. (Zinn, pp 354-355) Oh, Bush was a proud Guardsman.
Activists then, even among the educationally deprived poor, saw this as a class struggle, pitting capital and labor, one not confined to the United States alone.
Their modern variants, however, include among them a lot trying to carve a class for themselves, ostensibly under the guise of class struggle. They find it fashionable to reconcile environmental activism and tribal rights. Oh, “the traditions of tribal people must be maintained” is a common theme even if it means high infant mortality and lack of a literacy they have superbly mastered themselves.
They rant against elitism, move in elitist circles, arrive in comfort to stir up an impoverished population, and return to a hometown where they are poised to inherit a posh school that thrives on bribery, donation and discounts for donations, meant only for kids of the super-rich. The paradox here is that their parents boast about this to their super-rich American neighbors, who realize the game. They complain about Big Media while their articles are published by major national dailies; the best money can buy for its purportedly steamy details. (I am recounting a true story here, corroborated over and over, the last one by an insurance manager who had to use a legal technicality to extricate both his daughter and his “donation” out of the school).
As Noam Chomsky once said: “People are not stupid. They “feel powerless” and realize the threat of amassed wealth. ( Power and Powerlessness By Mark Harris, Conscious Choice, April 2001)
You can argue about Chomsky, dispute his views and their contexts, but his words never fail to find a niche somewhere.
How can 59,732,000 people be so dumb? The Daily Mirror (Nov 4 edition) should have headlined it “How can millions of Americans be so pissed?”
No, its NOT OK if tribal children are left to lead primitive lives and die from lack of medication, and by association, wealth and literacy. No, its NOT OK when such people are applauded when they assail Dubya while retaining their dubious activist credentials. No, its NOT OK to make deals with “anti-war activists” who inadvertently or not, are now our present day’s biggest accessories to bloodshed, all from a system of censorship and compromise, from the progressive-liberal front.
It has backfired, and the White House is secured for another four years.
Mathew Maavak
Bombay, Nov 10 2004
Copyright@ Mathew Maavak 2004
I feel that I must respond to this article, being an anti-war activist, voter for Kerry, seeing the environment as the most important issue facing the planet, and being labeled a "progressive" "leftist" and "radical."
I am very unhappy by the blasting and name calling of conservative christians and evangelicals being promulgated in various sectors of the "community." I am dismayed by the appellations of stupidity to folks. I feel that these things polarize rather than open dialog. Two people who are good friends of mine are "evangelicals" and they are in tears over the election results. There is not unanimous agreement on "the right" about what transpired in the elections.
I voted for Kerry. I feel that the election results need to be challeneged. I feeel that we need to continue to fight the policies and direction of the neo-cons. My vote for Kerry was first and foremost that I see a change of leadership as the only possibility of changing course. It is clear that Bush and the neo-cons will not change course - on anything - and we are headed for disaster on all too many levels.
I am also a supporter of the retention of culture. I am anit-globalization. This does not mean that I feel peoples of the world should be denied access to modern innovation, health advances etc. It does mean that rather than having such technologies and the accompanying tidal wave of "western" or other imperialist cultures shoved down their throats, that their needs and voices should remain preeminent.
I am well aware that the imperialistic manuevers of the US (and other nations) did not start in 2000. Much of the misery of billions of people on this planet is not due to advancement but to deliberate exploitation.
"Advancement" does not mean one thing, and I firmly believe that the conditions of people and the environment are not incompatible - and in fact, with creativity and different technology - thriving is possible.
I do believe that framing what is good, healthy, and necessary, only within one world view essentially means cultural hegemony - and this is totally unpalatable to me.
Posted by: rowan at November 10, 2004 8:44 AMThe awnser to the question is simple. political power grown from greed. If I was Kerry I would accept the terms that Bush offered him. What they are we will never know but it is obvious that there has been an agreement reached and that Kerry will prosper per the plan offered. Wether he gets his end of the deal remains to be seen. From our positions of not being in politics it is easy for us to finger point. The truth is Bush won through political conections and planning.
Posted by: Jack at November 10, 2004 10:00 AM>He was confused over the "divided electorate" and a "plethora of
>opinion polls" and picked the winner two days before the results. He
>did it by observing Americans.
Picking a winner is easy. And you have at least a 50% chance of being right.
>Almost every American I talked to in person had already decided on
>the vote. It was for Bush, a man they ironically despised but who
>had made his stance clear on certain issues.
Likewise, only substitute "Kerry" for "Bush".
>They didn't like a cowardly system that upholds free speech for
>Oscar-nominations like the Last Temptation of Christ and oppose free
>speech in the form of school prayer. They don't like selectiveness
>over Freedom of Speech.
Hmm. If this is true, it's a new development. My guess is rather that
they like selectiveness when they're doing the selecting. Or do you
think they will say:
"If teachers have a right to tell children to pray to God, then
teachers have a right to tell children to pray to Satan."
I honestly can't see them signing off on that one.
>Here is the Christian response to the "liberal" elements: "Sure, we
>have strong beliefs, but do we lop off the heads of homosexuals,
>women who abort, and physically intimidate those who oppose our
>views?
Not much, recently. Of course, what they would do if they regained
the power the Church had in the dark ages is anyone's guess. Besides,
not lopping off people's heads is a pretty low behavioral standard. I
don't see "at least we don't lop off heads" as an effective response
to liberal criticisms. Unless this ties in with your later claim that
these "liberals" feel favorable to Islamic countries that do lop off
heads; but that claim would need some supporting.
>Ironically, some of the first post-election derogatory comments
>about women came from the traditional left, alluding to the usual
>"bimbo newscaster seduced the population" theme. For now those
>comments are OK,
With whom?
>Why bring in religion? Well, that's why you got Bush.
Yes and no. It's why he won the popular vote, maybe.
>Failure of the liberal-progressive left: They are riddled with
>infighting, repeating a trend seen throughout all of the United
>States' dialectic history (read H. Zinn again). They make too many
>compromises and practice equal control and censorship as do the Big
>Media they complain about. Freedom of speech means you have to find
>another outlet, perhaps your own, as you can't air your views freely
>within their suffocating, confined spectrums.
"Equal censorship" needs examining a bit. The major daily newspaper
of a city has different responsibilities than a low-circulation
political rag. The former has a responsibility to report all
important news in an unbiased way; the latter can devote itself to
expressing the views of the editor, though honesty and fact-checking
should still be required. The reason for the difference in
responsibilities is that the major paper is used by lots of people as
a primary source of news, is perceived as "objective", and is in a
strong position to shape public opinion, whereas the political rag is
read only by people who want to see its particular slant, as a
supplemental news source, and is not for the most part read with
uncritical acceptance. When the editor of the political rag refuses
to print some story, that is one step beyond his refusing to display
a lawn sign for a particular candidate; it's on a small enough scale
that it constitutes personal expression rather than "censorship".
>In the process, this group ticks off almost every potential
>sympathizer. They Love to attack the church, evangelicals, and to an
>extent fanatical Jewry, never the Mosque that tries to impose its
>values on, even the majority, if permitted.
If they never attack radical Islam, that is only because they are not
talking to people who would be in any danger of supporting it. In
America, evangelical Christianity and to some extent fanatical Jewry
are big powers, and radical Islam is not. Besides, I don't know which
group never attacks radical Islam. "They" just got even more shadowy
than before.
>Their modern variants, however, include among them a lot trying to
>carve a class for themselves, ostensibly under the guise of class
>struggle. They find it fashionable to reconcile environmental
>activism and tribal rights. Oh, "the traditions of tribal people
>must be maintained" is a common theme even if it means high infant
>mortality and lack of a literacy they have superbly mastered
>themselves.
Rowan has answered this sufficiently I think.
>They rant against elitism, move in elitist circles, arrive in
>comfort to stir up an impoverished population, and return to a
>hometown where they are poised to inherit a posh school that thrives
>on bribery, donation and discounts for donations, meant only for
>kids of the super-rich.
Ahh. "They" just got less shadowy. "They" are people who talk a
leftist position but have lots and lots of money. That is
approximately the same bitsy minority of liberals that Ann Coulter
has redefined the word "liberal" to refer to exclusively.
>No, its NOT OK to make deals with "anti-war activists" who
>inadvertently or not, are now our present day's biggest accessories
>to bloodshed, all from a system of censorship and compromise, from
>the progressive-liberal front.
I'd like some clarification about anti-war activists being the
biggest accessories to bloodshed.
Yes, as a Veteran for Peace and an anti war activist I would like clarification on that as well, I don't recall making any deals...that didn't make any sense to me either.
Posted by: Bill at November 10, 2004 2:11 PMTHE BOTTOM LINE:
"We are moving toward an oligarchic society where a relatively small handful of rich decide with their money, who will run, who will win, and how they will govern. The defenders of the present system will fight hard to hold on to their privilege, and they write the rules. Nothing short of an aroused publc can change things, nothing less than democracy is at stake."
from "Moyers on America"
Bill Moyers
Agree with Rowan, Bill and Jack, and they are encapsulated in my previous articles.
Now here is the answer for Daniel
Picking a winner was easy for me too: It was the polls that gave it a 50pc slant. I knew Bush would win by talking to Americans. The answers were partly given in my article.
"Besides, not lopping off people's heads is a pretty low behavioral standard."
Matt: It means a lot, lot more to others. They are real and recount this to Americans and invetably help slant any election. They remember the christian dark ages thing, and DONT DENY IT. Churches and Western texts speak volumes of it. The first denunciation I heard about the Crusades was at Sunday School!
Do talk to your Arab Christian immigrants - who have taken their entire families out, or who don't retains business interests in their homeland. Or read Ali Sina's works at www.faithfreedom.org
Nobody on the left wants anything to do with Mr Sina and the danger he faces. Human rights? Safety for another human being who recounts his experiences? Does that answer:
"Unless this ties in with your later claim that these "liberals" feel favorable to Islamic countries that do lop off heads; but that claim would need some supporting."
Matt: Read on for more "supporting" claims.
"If teachers have a right to tell children to pray to God, then
teachers have a right to tell children to pray to Satan." I honestly can't see them signing off on that one.
Matt: Politicians can do the same thing to. Has it happened? And so can parents. Parents can ask their children to pray to Satan too. That's good argument to your equally potent one.
How about after-class fellowship at schools. They allow that even in Islamic Malaysia. There has been some "improvement", I gather, but how many US schools permit such clubs? Do give me the stats. I badly need them (leave out Christian schools where the teacher instructs pupils to pray)...If many schools actually ban such fellowship clubs, well go ahead and sign it off anyway...Hey, what about military indoctrination in schools? And clubs too. Many nations allow school cadet corps. Do you have school equivalents of the ROTC, or at least talks given by armymen who talk about the glorious wars for freedom? Have you seen the Fourth of July when Tom Berrenger (army recruiter) makes a brief appearance. Macho stuff, even if it leads to listerners becoming invalid, is ok huh?
Over censorship, you state:
"Hmm. If this is true, it's a new development."
Matt: "Hmm, its true and it is an old story. I was forbidden from quoting Chomsky at an established left-wing journal. Why, coz Chomsky looked at Sept 11 as a backlash against US policies, rather then a conspiracy. Thats his free speech. Weeks later, a more established writer could quote him in the same journal. Is this "objective? Hmm...Freedom of Speech? Thats the "matrix of power" something I personally learnt from Chomsky himself.
"With whom?" you ask
Matt: With the same lot who forbids quoting Chomsky. And with women. Oh yeah, many of them don;t like taking feminist digs but now it seems ok. If you want examples, pls let me know but identify yourself. It's a panoptic world and if you want to open that Pandora's box let me and you, with our full identities, thrash it out.
"Not much, recently. Of course, what they would do if they regained
the power the Church had in the dark ages is anyone's guess."
Matt: Tell me one christian nation this day that has happened. Loving and praying for your enemies - which I find hard to follow - doesn't fit into any inquisition, itself a veneer for greed and Conquistador gold, among others. In South Korea a decade back, nine of the ten top generals there were Christians. One of them provoked the Buddhist half of the population by removing a shrine at an army base, and yet there were people knocking sense into him. Just debates. No violence. But if u want to know scriptural exhortations for violence, do write to Mr Sina.
"Ahh. "They" just got less shadowy. "They" are people who talk a
leftist position but have lots and lots of money"
Matt: Man, i am talking about someone real famous here, not the shadowy type. Your top "intellectuals" hobnob with this person and Big Media is silent. A good psy-war strategist will tell you that it's best to go for the kill when the tangle is complete.
"In America, evangelical Christianity and to some extent fanatical Jewry
are big powers, and radical Islam is not."
Matt: Big Powers in what way? They stole your vote from a Kerry who is not fighting allegations of fraud he faced? Radical Islam are big powers everywhere eccept America. Why? Americans have spunk. Lots of it. Even their women are known to be the spunkiest, winning battle after battle for their basic rights. When ppl show a little guts, nobody tries to attack without the resort to reason. Do you know the attacks on Jewish students at US universities have dropped tangibly after Sept 11? Radical Islam would know this, by the blatant, even racists remarks made on international radio by ordinary Americans on Sept 12 (I was again in a taxi and the driver was quiet). Oh yeah, attacking churches in England is fine, huh, as long as the majority appease them? Radical Muslims comprise less than 5pc of the population. Probably 2pc, if u take the "murtad" (those who left the faith and who face contanstant physical danger) into account. How come Salman Rushdie can't feel safe in the West while Martin Scorsese can? How come I am the only one from the "left" bringing up Rushdie's case. How about Taslima Nasreen (a woman) and scores of others. In fact, too many of them, and unless they are famous, they are not known. Does anyone care?
The major daily maybe beholden to its paymasters and advertisers. The smaller one caters to selective prejudices. Tell me how many times they have highlighted the cases of Western women being kidnapped into rich Arab harems and getting raped. Just type out the case of the Sultan of Brunei for starters. WHAT ABOUT WESTERN WOMEN WHO CAN"T SEE THEIR CHILDREN AGAIN AFTER THEIR DIVORCE FROM A RICH, MIDDLE EASTERN MAN? WHO HIGHLIGHTS THEIR PLIGHTS? THE SMALL MEDIA THAT LACKS SPACE AND HENCE SUPPORT DUE TO THEIR SELECTIVITY or Big Media? Where do their funding come from? Touching on Arab issues can be a little touchy for them.
Take a snapshot of any leftist site, and show me where these outrages against women and common human decency in the Arab World is highlighted. Why not take a random period, say July 1 to 10, or say August 10-20, and show it to me.
"I'd like some clarification about anti-war activists being the
biggest accessories to bloodshed."
Matt: Yeah, explained suffiencly in my article and in my comments above. if you want more, why has KERYY GIVEN UP and yet people who voted for him are raising the conspiracy issue. You'd like a repeat of this charade? Another vote for the wrong opponent, who himself admitted, he will continue the war, HIS WAY, if elected. Remember such promises made during Vietnam?
If Kerry can't fight himself over electoral frauds, after HE lost, I will not either. You saw the debates, what anti-war position did Kerry take? He was going to be "tough on Iran"?
I am not going to spend more time on these meanderings when there is some anonimity on your side is maintained.
BTW, THIS IS THE BEST FREE SPPECH SITE I HAD EVER KNOWN. That's why I keep returning to UTJ
cheers
Matt
>Picking a winner was easy for me too: It was the polls that gave it
>a 50pc slant. I knew Bush would win by talking to Americans.
This presumes he actually did get more votes in those counties where
he was certified by elections officials as having gotten more votes.
If not, your prediction of his winning was wrong. But my larger point
is that predicting the correct outcome in a case where you have a 50%
chance of being right if you flip a coin is not an impressive feat of
prediction, and does not prove that you have a deep understanding of
the situation.
>"Besides, not lopping off people's heads is a pretty low behavioral standard."
>
>Matt: It means a lot, lot more to others.
"Low" doesn't mean "unimportant". It just means "unimpressive". You said:
>Here is the Christian response to the "liberal" elements: "Sure, we
>have strong beliefs, but do we lop off the heads of homosexuals,
>women who abort, and physically intimidate those who oppose our
>views?
And I'm just pointing out that "Yeah, but at least we aren't
murderers" is not a very strong response to criticism. It would be a
strong response if the left supported murderers, but the left rarely
does that, unless you want to argue that abortion is murder.
>They are real and recount this to Americans and invetably help slant
>any election. They remember the christian dark ages thing, and DONT
>DENY IT. Churches and Western texts speak volumes of it. The first
>denunciation I heard about the Crusades was at Sunday School!
And? The Christians are now in a position where it is safe and even
profitable to acknowledge some past mistakes--or more often, disclaim
them. It doesn't seem to have made them humble, and it is no
insurance at all against future mistakes.
>Do talk to your Arab Christian immigrants - who have taken their
>entire families out, or who don't retains business interests in
>their homeland. Or read Ali Sina's works at www.faithfreedom.org
Reading a bit. He makes more sense when condemning Islam than he does
when praising Bush.
>Nobody on the left wants anything to do with Mr Sina and the danger he faces.
What does "want anything to do with" him mean? I assume people on the
left want him to be safe, and support his right to praise Bush and
condemn "moral relativism" if he wants to. But when Mr Sina says
things like
>If a president believes in creationism, it does not affect my
>freedom and my life. If the religionists can tolerate a secular
>president, why shouldn't secularists tolerate a religious president?
>Shouldn't the secularists be the first to defend the freedom of
>thoughts and beliefs?
you can't expect people on the left to agree with him; they know damn
well that their president's belief in creationism, and the way he's
inclined to act on it, can affect their freedom and their life. Then
when he cites Osama as complaining about Clinton's sexual
misdemeanors, and says on that basis that it's "the decadence and
moral relativism of the liberalists" that's motivating the
terrorists, as though Osama had never mentioned the American military
presence in Saudi Arabia, that's so disingenuous you can't expect the
liberals to get behind that either. And then claiming Bush's election
is "a victory of justice and truth." Then that "The world is being
threatened to extinction" by radical Islam--yeah, Islamic terrorists
are a real threat to the survival of the human species, whereas
environmental collapse is no danger to humanity, so a president who
guts environmental regulations at every opportunity is a small price
to pay if he can destroy radical Islam. Then "I will stick with a
president who prays to his God no matter how irrational it may be but
can distinguish the right from wrong and is not squeamish to say it."
It's a good thing Bush is too squeamish to say Sina is justly damned
to hell for all eternity for his evil unbelief in the Christian god.
Too squeamish to say it publicly, that is. But I've gone off the
track. People on the left will support Mr Sina's right to live and to
spout off; what more do you want from them?
> Human rights? Safety for another human being who recounts his experiences?
The left supports that. They disagree with Sina about whether
invading Iraq is the most effective way to achieve it.
>Does that answer:
>
>"Unless this ties in with your later claim that these "liberals"
>feel favorable to Islamic countries that do lop off heads; but that
>claim would need some supporting."
>
>Matt: Read on for more "supporting" claims.
That isn't a supporting claim. Disagreeing with Sina is not the same
as supporting Islam or decapitation.
>"If teachers have a right to tell children to pray to God, then
>teachers have a right to tell children to pray to Satan." I honestly
>can't see them signing off on that one.
>
>Matt: Politicians can do the same thing to. Has it happened? And so
>can parents. Parents can ask their children to pray to Satan too.
>That's good argument to your equally potent one.
Hmmm? This doesn't sound like a response to my claim, which was that
evangelical Christians DO like selectiveness over Freedom of Speech,
when they get to do the selecting themselves. You had said that when
teachers have been prohibited from telling children to pray, the
evangelicals opposed that prohibition because evangelicals are
consistently in favor of freedom of speech, and evangelicals are
opposed to any attempts to limit free speech or to set standards
about who can say what. Your implication was that the evangelicals'
position was not "Teachers should be allowed to tell kids to pray
because praying is good", but rather "teachers should be allowed to
tell kids to pray because teachers should have freedom of speech, and
should be allowed to tell kids anything." But if that were the
position of the evangelicals, they would say that teachers have the
right to tell children to pray to Satan, and (a more realistic
example) they would say that teachers have the right to tell children
that it's okay to masturbate and that gay sex is perfectly natural
and healthy. But the evangelicals do NOT say that teachers have the
right to tell children these things. They push for allowing teachers
to teach things they like, and for prohibiting teachers from teaching
things they don't like. I.e. they like "selectiveness over freedom of
speech", when the selection is in their own hands.
>How about after-class fellowship at schools.
What about it?
>They allow that even in Islamic Malaysia. There has been some
>"improvement", I gather, but how many US schools permit such clubs?
>Do give me the stats. I badly need them (leave out Christian schools
>where the teacher instructs pupils to pray)...If many schools
>actually ban such fellowship clubs, well go ahead and sign it off
>anyway...Hey, what about military indoctrination in schools? And
>clubs too. Many nations allow school cadet corps. Do you have school
>equivalents of the ROTC, or at least talks given by armymen who talk
>about the glorious wars for freedom? Have you seen the Fourth of
>July when Tom Berrenger (army recruiter) makes a brief appearance.
>Macho stuff, even if it leads to listerners becoming invalid, is ok
>huh?
I'm not at all seeing what you're trying to say. If you're asking
whether I support military indoctrination in the schools, I don't; if
you're asking whether I support religious clubs meeting at schools,
it's a delicate question. I would say, not if run by adults and not
if bribes are involved, anyway.
>Over censorship, you state:
>"Hmm. If this is true, it's a new development."
>
>Matt: "Hmm, its true and it is an old story. I was forbidden from
>quoting Chomsky at an established left-wing journal.
What I said was a new development, if true, was the evangelicals not
liking selectiveness over freedom of speech.
>Why, coz Chomsky looked at Sept 11 as a backlash against US
>policies, rather then a conspiracy. Thats his free speech. Weeks
>later, a more established writer could quote him in the same
>journal. Is this "objective? Hmm...Freedom of Speech? Thats the
>"matrix of power" something I personally learnt from Chomsky himself.
"Is it objective"--no, but as I mentioned below, a small political
journal does not have a responsibility to be objective, in the sense
of expressing viewpoints the editor does not feel like expressing.
>"With whom?" you ask
>
>Matt: With the same lot who forbids quoting Chomsky. And with women.
>Oh yeah, many of them don;t like taking feminist digs but now it
>seems ok. If you want examples, pls let me know but identify
>yourself. It's a panoptic world and if you want to open that
>Pandora's box let me and you, with our full identities, thrash it
>out.
I'm Daniel B. Cristofani--the only one, I think. You wouldn't have
heard of me; I'm a former student of Rowan's. My point in asking
"with whom" was only that it's individuals who have made or
sanctioned derogatory comments against women as a group; "the left"
has not done so collectively.
>"Not much, recently. Of course, what they would do if they regained
>the power the Church had in the dark ages is anyone's guess."
>
>Matt: Tell me one christian nation this day that has happened.
You mean, you want me to name one Christian nation that has resumed
the practice of executing people for crimes against religion? There
is no Christian nation in which Christianity currently has enough
power that it would be able to get away with that. That was my point.
If Christianity ever regains that level of power, it's hard to
predict what will happen.
>Loving and praying for your enemies - which I find hard to follow -
>doesn't fit into any inquisition, itself a veneer for greed and
>Conquistador gold, among others.
What "fits" has never been of crucial importance to Christianity. The
number of mismatches between one Christian doctrine and another, and
between Christian doctrine and Christian practice, is truly
staggering and yet does not bother Christians; they are used to the
idea that they don't need to understand everything, but trust God
that it all really makes sense somehow. This has allowed them to
follow some pretty corrupt leaders in doing some pretty terrible
things, in the full conviction that God had a good reason for it.
>In South Korea a decade back, nine of the ten top generals there
>were Christians. One of them provoked the Buddhist half of the
>population by removing a shrine at an army base, and yet there were
>people knocking sense into him. Just debates. No violence. But if u
>want to know scriptural exhortations for violence, do write to Mr
>Sina.
Hmm? Not seeing the application of this, again.
>"Ahh. "They" just got less shadowy. "They" are people who talk a
>leftist position but have lots and lots of money"
>
>Matt: Man, i am talking about someone real famous here, not the shadowy type.
By "shadowy" I meant that you talked a lot about "the left" and "the
progressive front" and "they", and ascribed many thoughts and actions
to them, and it wasn't clear to me who these people were. Then in the
part about the schools it became clearer that you meant people with
lots of money.
>Your top "intellectuals" hobnob with this person and Big Media is silent.
Who are my top intellectuals? If asked to make a list I would
certainly have included Chomsky...
>A good psy-war strategist will tell you that it's best to go for the
>kill when the tangle is complete.
Hmm?
>"In America, evangelical Christianity and to some extent fanatical Jewry
>are big powers, and radical Islam is not."
>
>Matt: Big Powers in what way? They stole your vote from a Kerry who
>is not fighting allegations of fraud he faced?
Evangelical Christianity is a big power in America in the sense that
it has major influence over the minds of the people, and some
influence over government policy.
Fanatical Jewry--or, to be more concrete, AIPAC and people with
similar positions--is a big power to some extent, in that it has a
lot of influence over government policy, and some influence over the
minds of the people.
>Radical Islam are big powers everywhere eccept America.
Mmmm. I hadn't denied that, though I am also not going to blindly
accept it without a little more description of their influence over
public opinion and government policy in India and China and Australia
and Scandinavia and southern Africa and South America and so on.
>Why? Americans have spunk. Lots of it. Even their women are known to
>be the spunkiest, winning battle after battle for their basic rights.
Something in the way that was phrased strikes me as very funny. Not
sure exactly what.
>When ppl show a little guts, nobody tries to attack without the
>resort to reason. Do you know the attacks on Jewish students at US
>universities have dropped tangibly after Sept 11? Radical Islam
>would know this, by the blatant, even racists remarks made on
>international radio by ordinary Americans on Sept 12 (I was again in
>a taxi and the driver was quiet). Oh yeah, attacking churches in
>England is fine, huh, as long as the majority appease them?
Here again my grasp on the thread of your argument is worse than tenuous.
>Radical Muslims comprise less than 5pc of the population. Probably
>2pc, if u take the "murtad" (those who left the faith and who face
>contanstant physical danger) into account. How come Salman Rushdie
>can't feel safe in the West while Martin Scorsese can? How come I am
>the only one from the "left" bringing up Rushdie's case.
Hm. It got a lot of mention long ago. My guess, from the little I
know, is that it is no longer news and/or does not offer obvious
opportunities for productive action.
>How about Taslima Nasreen (a woman) and scores of others. In fact,
>too many of them, and unless they are famous, they are not known.
>Does anyone care?
I think people care in the usual hopeless way.
>The major daily maybe beholden to its paymasters and advertisers.
>The smaller one caters to selective prejudices.
True. My point was only that the smaller one has the right to do so,
so it's not fair to equate the two and to say that they are equally
guilty of "censorship".
>Tell me how many times they have highlighted the cases of Western
>women being kidnapped into rich Arab harems and getting raped. Just
>type out the case of the Sultan of Brunei for starters. WHAT ABOUT
>WESTERN WOMEN WHO CAN"T SEE THEIR CHILDREN AGAIN AFTER THEIR DIVORCE
>FROM A RICH, MIDDLE EASTERN MAN? WHO HIGHLIGHTS THEIR PLIGHTS? THE
>SMALL MEDIA THAT LACKS SPACE AND HENCE SUPPORT DUE TO THEIR
>SELECTIVITY or Big Media? Where do their funding come from? Touching
>on Arab issues can be a little touchy for them.
>
>Take a snapshot of any leftist site, and show me where these
>outrages against women and common human decency in the Arab World is
>highlighted. Why not take a random period, say July 1 to 10, or say
>August 10-20, and show it to me.
You have a point. You may well be right that the American left-wing
media tend to neglect the problem of human-rights abuses in the
middle east. That does not come close to showing that they support
human-rights abuses in the middle east, as opposed to (say) merely
having a tendency to focus on American issues or the American angle
in world issues.
>"I'd like some clarification about anti-war activists being the
>biggest accessories to bloodshed."
>
>Matt: Yeah, explained suffiencly in my article and in my comments
>above. if you want more, why has KERYY GIVEN UP and yet people who
>voted for him are raising the conspiracy issue. You'd like a repeat
>of this charade? Another vote for the wrong opponent, who himself
>admitted, he will continue the war, HIS WAY, if elected. Remember
>such promises made during Vietnam?
The purpose of fighting over electoral fraud at this point is not to
vindicate Kerry or put him in the White House. Insofar as fighting
now has a tactical purpose, its purposes are to delegitimize and
weaken the current administration, and to demonstrate the endemic
corruption in our electoral system as a step toward getting it
fixed. But it is also useful to figure out what happened just as a
matter of historical knowledge.
I suppose it is a technical question, whether a person becomes "one
of the biggest accessories to bloodshed" by trying and failing to
elect a person who plans to shed blood, when there is no possibility
that someone who does not plan to shed blood will be elected. I would
say no, offhand. I would say to become an accessory to bloodshed, you
must help to cause blood to be shed when it was possibly that it
would not, or you must help to cause more blood rather than less to
be shed.
>If Kerry can't fight himself over electoral frauds, after HE lost, I
>will not either. You saw the debates, what anti-war position did
>Kerry take? He was going to be "tough on Iran"?
"What anti-war position did he take"--an equivocal one, naturally.
You won't hear me praise Kerry. He said that we should not have gone
to war except as a last resort--that's what he said in the debates.
That's reasonable, so far as it goes. He said he trusted Bush when
Bush said that he would exhaust diplomatic options and give the
inspectors the time they needed. That's got to be a lie--he must have
known Bush would invade, which means he knew he was voting for a war,
but figured that would be the best move politically.
>I am not going to spend more time on these meanderings when there is
>some anonimity on your side is maintained.
I don't remember "maintaining anonymity". Most people on this site
use first names. We can stop meandering any time you like, too.
-Daniel B. Cristofani.
Thanks for the frank feedback. Appreciate it, though I disagree.
"Besides, not lopping off people's heads is a pretty low behavioral standard.".."Low" doesn't mean "unimportant". It just means "unimpressive".
Matt: Well, would you consider the Penal code in the Middle East, esp Saudi Arabia "low behavioural standards", or "unimpressive"?
BTW. Since this has meandered into a Christian influence debate, kindly comment on the verses quoted by Ali Sina. I am not interested in his politics, or I'd publish them myself. But I'd like to know what you think of the verses. You can publish them either as a letter or a full article at my site. No editing guaranteed.
Posted by: Mathew Maavak at November 11, 2004 9:14 AMThanks for the frank feedback. Appreciate it, though I disagree.
"Besides, not lopping off people's heads is a pretty low behavioral standard.".."Low" doesn't mean "unimportant". It just means "unimpressive".
Matt: Well, would you consider the Penal code in the Middle East, esp Saudi Arabia "low behavioural standards", or "unimpressive"?
BTW. Since this has meandered into a Christian influence debate, kindly comment on the verses quoted by Ali Sina. I am not interested in his politics, or I'd publish them myself. But I'd like to know what you think of the verses. You can publish them either as a letter or a full article at my site. No editing guaranteed.
Posted by: Mathew Maavak at November 11, 2004 9:14 AMThere is a sense of urgency in Moyers' statement, and of course, it was made before the election, which makes it all the more interesting. But Damn ! didn't the democrats spend more than the Republicans ?
I think it simply comes down to we all have to work harder. In my case there have probably been too many times when I should have "spoke up". However, for perceived economic value/gain I kept quiet. Couldn"t I sent just a little more money, made a few more calls, done more campaign work, did I really try as hard as I should have ? Would it mande any difference in the "Peoples Republic of Multnomah Country" ? I mean shit, Oregon to a large extent did her part. I heard like 80% turnout because we have the mail in ballot ? A model that isn't even studied or considered in any other states that I know of.
But, what differnce does that make: "we" are now part of the a train :we don't won't to be on and we really can't get off ! "Get off" in any regard. I mean a foreign policy, very foreing, is put in place in my name....and that doesn't make me very happy.
OK, I think we are all back together again. Sorry for the confusion.
I only found one comment that was "lost" in the process and it was one of Bill's. I have added it back in (though I can't control the order it is displayed in - sorry.
Just as a general comment. I have a lot of faith in the goodness of heart of everyone who is involved in this discussion. I either know you face-to-face, or we have communicated with each other privately - and sometimes extensively. We do, and will, have differences of opinion. I appreciate the openness of the dialogue. Thanks to all of you for the frank discussion.
Posted by: rowan at November 11, 2004 12:31 PMI would agree the dialogue is at a level that I enjoy. Point counter point, we can agree to disagree without the histrionics of some who from time to time vist the site with the constant fear they will be censored??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Bill at November 11, 2004 12:48 PMRowan: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I trust in the goodwill of those here as well.
Bill: I really liked the Moyers quote. I should have mentioned that before.
Matthew:
>Thanks for the frank feedback. Appreciate it,
I'm glad.
>though I disagree.
>"Besides, not lopping off people's heads is a pretty low behavioral
>standard.".."Low" doesn't mean "unimportant". It just means
>"unimpressive".
>
>Matt: Well, would you consider the Penal code in the Middle East,
>esp Saudi Arabia "low behavioural standards", or "unimpressive"?
I would say any country with a penal code like Saudi Arabia's is
failing to meet even low behavioral standards--these countries are
failing to live up to what should be really minimal standards of
"civilization", to use a loaded word. Put it like this. When the
Christian right says "at least we don't lop off heads", that's like a
job applicant putting on his résumé, "I am not a serial killer
(anymore)." Human Resources is not going to be impressed--they
probably want at least a high school diploma in addition to "not a
serial killer", and the "anymore" part is troubling too. Whereas if
Saudi Arabia were writing its résumé it would have to say "I AM a
serial killer" which is even much worse.
>BTW. Since this has meandered into a Christian influence debate,
>kindly comment on the verses quoted by Ali Sina. I am not interested
>in his politics, or I'd publish them myself. But I'd like to know
>what you think of the verses. You can publish them either as a
>letter or a full article at my site. No editing guaranteed.
Do you mean the verses from the Quran he cites in "Read THIS First"
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaprologue.htm and following
pages)? The ones where the Quran urges Muslims to slaughter
non-Muslims, and says that non-Muslims are damned, and makes women
subservient to men? To the best of my understanding he's right, the
Quran does say all those things. It's a barbarous book. And he's
right that according to universally accepted historical sources,
Muhammad embarked upon large wars of conquest, and had sex with the
widows of the slain, etc. I agree with Mr Sina that these are sufficient reasons to condemn the Islamic religion, if that doesn't go without saying.
If you mean some other verses quoted by Ali Sina, I'll comment on
them if you give me the URL.
Thanks;
-Daniel.
Appreciate your reply again. What are the "religious" symbols represented in officials govt symbols i.e. Greenback. Do you see a cross or an "all-seeing eye"? Do you see a pyramid? Is the American republic based on highly dubious Christian credentials or one based on the slavery of mankind? Why isn't anyone "on the left" making much clamour about this? Nor in the Islamic world...
Posted by: Mathew Maavak at November 13, 2004 8:20 AMI think the eye-in-triangle was originally a Christian symbol of God referring to the Trinity--I think it's related to the triangular halo God is sometimes shown with. Here's an example: http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/q/quercia/bologna/41adam.jpg
As for what America is "based on", it's not easy to answer, since there are so many events and conditions where we can say "if X had not been the case, America would not now be what it is", and we could say America was "based on" any of those. For instance, given the way white people acquired the land, we could say "America is based on genocide". For that matter, "dubious Christian credentials" were used to justify that. By picking other events, we could get several different slants on America and what it is "based on".
America's social systems are mostly a product of cultural inertia and gradual development. There have been lots of innovations but most of the story is people doing the same old things the same old way, the way they have accepted as normal. Also, most Americans are subject to economic pressure and frequent deception and general media conditioning. Thus Americans are limited to where we could metaphorically call them "enslaved", though I'm inclined to reserve the word for true chattel slavery and similar institutions. As for the slavery of the rest of mankind, America's current position is based mostly on a combination of neocolonialism and military might, which certainly tend to work toward enslaving people even if they haven't quite got there yet. Not to mention the ecological aspects; we could set up another "based on" where we would say "America is based on the wholesale destruction of the biosphere" and we could make it pretty plausible.
And clamor--clamor is maybe harder to make than it should be. The large-scale broadcast media are hard to get access to. Whereas on the net, there are so many people making noise that any individual voice tends to get drowned out, reaching an audience of tens of thousands with luck. Any other method reaches fewer than that. You must know all this from your own experiences though.
-Daniel.
Posted by: Daniel. at November 14, 2004 2:02 AMI think the eye-in-triangle was originally a Christian symbol of God referring to the Trinity--I think it's related to the triangular halo God is sometimes shown with. Here's an example: http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/q/quercia/bologna/41adam.jpg
As for what America is "based on", it's not easy to answer, since there are so many events and conditions where we can say "if X had not been the case, America would not now be what it is", and we could say America was "based on" any of those. For instance, given the way white people acquired the land, we could say "America is based on genocide". For that matter, "dubious Christian credentials" were used to justify that. By picking other events, we could get several different slants on America and what it is "based on".
America's social systems are mostly a product of cultural inertia and gradual development. There have been lots of innovations but most of the story is people doing the same old things the same old way, the way they have accepted as normal. Also, most Americans are subject to economic pressure and frequent deception and general media conditioning. Thus Americans are limited to where we could metaphorically call them "enslaved", though I'm inclined to reserve the word for true chattel slavery and similar institutions. As for the slavery of the rest of mankind, America's current position is based mostly on a combination of neocolonialism and military might, which certainly tend to work toward enslaving people even if they haven't quite got there yet. Not to mention the ecological aspects; we could set up another "based on" where we would say "America is based on the wholesale destruction of the biosphere" and we could make it pretty plausible.
The thing about clamor is, clamor is maybe harder to make than it should be. The large-scale broadcast media are hard to get access to. Whereas on the net, there are so many people making noise that any individual voice tends to get drowned out, reaching an audience of tens of thousands with luck. Any other method reaches fewer than that. You must know all this from your own experiences though.
Good luck;
-Daniel.