What's your take on the 2004 elections? What concerns should our state and country focus on going forward?
KeweenawNow welcomes your posts on these and other topics that interest you. Fire away!
We appreciate all your comments, readers! Meanwhile check out a couple of links we've added to our Community Links page:
Learn more about State of Michigan candidates by visiting the League of Women Voters of Michigan Web site for their Nonpartisan Michigan Voter Guide 2004. Also check out your voting rights before going to the polls by reading the Michigan Voter Bill of Rights. Happy voting!
"We appreciate all your comments, readers! "?? Hmmm....why do I suspect we've got other multiple personalities around here?
Been There, you've nearly written a book on these pages. You're one of the most persistent, relentless, indefatigable, unrelenting and unyielding personalities I have even encountered. I don't mean this sarcastically, but have you ever been mellow? Have you ever let anyone else get the last word? You must have a real mellow husband and I wonder if he tells you how he votes. Yeah, I know this is none of my business, but these blind discussions always get me thinking more about the people behind the words, rather than the words themselves.
L2, behind that cantankerous crust, you're a sweetheart. I'll bet you're real loyal to your friends and hell on wheels to your enemies. I don't mind that, nobody has ever accused me of being excessively diplomatic.
What are we going to fight about after tomorrow? Kerry's going to go down in flames and all there'll be left is an oil slick and a grinning Carolina trial lawyer swimming in his native element. Billary, though, will spear him like a frog when the time comes. Notice that Billsky hit the road to get out from under her heel, but she's been notably quiet. She's playing her cards carefully, spinning her web....
moots
For those of us personally involved with the election process--either as workers in the voting precincts or as party faithful making sure our supporters get to the polls--it's going to be a long couple of days. I figure everyone interested enough to read these discussions already knows how he or she will vote, but I do recommend that you check out the Michigan Voter Bill of Rights link posted by the editor.
If anyone challenges your right to vote, make sure you cast a provisional ballot. However, make sure you cast your provisional ballot in the correct precinct! The courts will eventually decide whether or not provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct are counted or not, but we've been instructed by the state to tell voters that provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct will not be counted.
Cousin Jack, I guess the bin Laden tape is just another example of people looking at something and drawing entirely different conclusions. None of us can read bin Laden's disgusting mind and, upon further reflection, I don't really want to.
Moots, I like you too. These days, in fact, I am mellow--but that was not always the case when I was younger. However, I don't have a husband, never had a husband, and--if proposition 2 passes--would never be able to have a husband if I wanted one. Fortunately for me, I like my family the way it is now.
Look2It and Bada Bing, have you considered dating?
Been There
Been There,
You wrote both of these statements. If you are going to use multiple personalities, I think it would be more honest if you gave one another name.
In my case, I'm happily married with children I love dearly. I certainly wouldn't want to see churches being forced to marry people of the same sex, against scripture. However, I don't see that the state, a secular institution, should be prohibited by the federal government from authorizing civil unions. And I don't see that such civil unions, if they did occur, would diminish my marriage at all. However, I don't have a husband, never had a husband, and--if proposition 2 passes--would never be able to have a husband if I wanted one. Fortunately for me, I like my family the way it is now.
In my case, I'm happily married with children I love dearly. I certainly wouldn't want to see churches being forced to marry people of the same sex, against scripture. However, I don't see that the state, a secular institution, should be prohibited by the federal government from authorizing civil unions. And I don't see that such civil unions, if they did occur, would diminish my marriage at all.
However, I don't have a husband, never had a husband, and--if proposition 2 passes--would never be able to have a husband if I wanted one. Fortunately for me, I like my family the way it is now.
Duh, sorry about that....lights on no one at home for moots .... but you sound so much like a nagging woman that I have a hard time thinking of you as a man. Unless I'm up against a committee here..or unless you're throwing old moots a curve ball.
Moots,
Your comment about nagging women got me thinking about whether I've ever encountered a nagging woman in my entire life. I've seen them in movies, of course, but I can't think of a real-life example and I know lots and lots of women. Could that phrase be just a meaningless label we give to women to keep from listening to them? Curious.
BT,
Sounds like you never had an older sister. First I thought you were a man, but at some point early on I got thrown off the trail. If you go back and read your posts thinking of the writer as a female and trying to respond to her litanies with a modicum of courtesy, you quickly find yourself running out of gas. Your response to Bobcat should have clued me in, for you showed some chivalry yourself. Anyway you're a first rate windbag and I'd hate to have debate you on a stage.
I grew up in a large family but you're right, I never had an older sister. My sisters had an older brother though, and they never tire of reminding me of that. As for debating on a stage (in which I do have experience), don't sell yourself short. People judge arguments in many different ways, and I suspect you'd do very well indeed.
Glad to know that I wasn't totally wrong about you - I had you pegged for an oldest sibling, straightforward, and (to devious moots) suspiciously without guile (especially for a female - I never could quite reconcile that part.) How do Bush and Kerry fit in the birth order?
L2,
Absolutely! In my native habitat I carry something of a reputation to that effect. Thank you for noticing....it's the nicest thing you've ever said to me and I'm getting all choked up....and just think, it's cranks like you that get the hot air blowers all wound up....don't ever change, sweety.
luv, moots
That birth order thing got me thinking last night. Has it ever occurred to you that you're a lot like GWB? When I think back on the way you lay out your arguments and the way you reach the "inescapable" conclusions, and the dogged and determined way you pursue your convictions, someone else comes to mind. By contrast, a less comfortable suggestion arises - that my dysfunctional personality might resemble JK's. That outta drive L2 to vote for Nader!
After voting today, a guy walking out with me asked what is the difference between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war? The answer was that Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam. How true.
People in Michigan are pretty smart. People in Florida are idiots. We'll see about people in Ohio. G'night.
What would we ever do without your thoughtful and succint analysis? It's like ballast in a rowboat.
Congratulations, you were right. I had thought Kerry had an outside chance (a very small one) until the bin Laden tape aired, but in hindsight that was probably wrong--perhaps wishful thinking on my part.
Today our country faces all the problems we did yesterday, plus one more: we've ratified policies despised as "bullying" by massive numbers of people across the world. Nevertheless, all I can do is apologize to my children for the actions of their elders and pitch in as best I can to solve the problems that confront us now. I don't believe any of us can do that if we simply dismiss the views of folks like you who opposed Kerry and voted for Bush. (Actually, I don't believe we could have done that even if Kerry had won.)
Senator Kerry laid the foundation for a graceful concession in his remarks after he voted yesterday. I was on a short break from a very long day at the polls when I heard his words, and I knew then that Kerry felt he was unlikely to win. However, he pledged during his campaign that he would fight to have every vote counted, so he cannot concede quite yet. I think we can calmly go about our business for a couple of days while this process plays out, even though we know the eventual conclusion. For Bush to claim victory ahead of Kerry's concession would be a no-class act. I hope he does the right thing.
I think Kerry needs to make something of a conditional concession this morning. Something like "it don't look good, but I'd like to hold out just in case of a fluke". Bush could counter with a conditional acceptance of victory and everybody's honor would be intact and the thing could fade into oblivion. If Kerry pulls an Al Gore history won't treat him well. I hope he does the right thing.
You've no reason to apologize to anyone unless you've been stretching or inventing your facts. Also, there's a difference between bullying and throwing the first punch. I never bullied anyone in school, but I'll never forget that sudden look of understanding that flashed into the eyes of one bully when his mouth ran into my fist. We got along great afterwards.
Most likely Bush and Kerry are communicating about how to wind this up appropriately. The situation today is quite a bit different than in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote, was ahead in the electoral college, and was virtually tied with Bush in Florida.
My apology to my children has nothing to do with facts or non-facts, but with my inability to have protected them from harm as this election cycle unfolded. They know well the issues and the stakes involved, and one (the aspiring writer) has already presented me with a long and thoughtful analysis of the election and its probable aftermath.
It's interesting how many of us have similar "bully" experiences. In my case, it was the bully's bloody nose. Going after bin Laden and the terrorists is going after a bully. Attacking a much weaker country that has not attacked us and does not threaten us is perceived as--and despised as--bullying behavior throughout the world, whether we agree with that characterization or not.
You ain't ever going to let me have the last word on anything, so I won't pursue the bully thing any further. On a positive note, John Kerry is doing the manly thing now and I will take of my hat to him for that.
Your comment about your children still puzzles me. Sometimes I get the impression that you want to control more than you can, than any one of us can. There's only so much we can protect anyone, even ourselves against. There is only one source of true security, and it has nothing to do with my ability to control circumstances. Open up now, so I can ram my religion down your throat with this gun barrel ! (Did I do that right, L2?).
bada,
Be nice to folks on your way up because you might meet them on your way down. The time for throwing punches is over.
As I'm sure you know, I don't think I need Look2It to put words in my mouth about your beliefs. In fact I'm sure that the democrats lost yesterday precisely because they did not make an effort over the years to reach what you've called a national consensus on your bottom-line issues. I don't know if this election will wake up the democrats or not, but I do feel that responsible Americans need to work hard on that together to end the divisiveness that plagues our country today. (And I don't mean just trying to browbeat you and others to change your minds.)
I thought Kerry and Bush both handled the conclusion of the election well. I'm glad they both did the right thing today and I sincerely hope that the new administration--republican lock, stock and barrel--does good things in the years ahead. And I also hope that the democratic and independent opposition helps them do good things. We can't afford otherwise, even if it makes Bush look better than he should.
Apparently out of concern that I might have missed his speech today, John Kerry just sent me this nice email:
Dear [Been There],
Earlier today I spoke to President Bush, and offered him and Laura our congratulations on their victory. We had a good conversation, and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need, for unity for finding the common ground, coming together. Today, I hope that we can begin the healing.
In America, it is vital that every vote counts, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process. I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail. But it is now clear that even when all the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won't be enough outstanding votes for our campaign to be able to win Ohio. And therefore, we cannot win this election.
It was a privilege and a gift to spend two years traveling this country, coming to know so many of you. I wish I could just wrap you in my arms and embrace each and every one of you individually all across this nation. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you.
To all of you, my volunteers and online supporters, all across this country who gave so much of themselves, thank you. Thanks to William Field, a six-year-old who collected $680, a quarter and a dollar at a time selling bracelets during the summer to help change America. Thanks to Michael Benson from Florida who I spied in a rope line holding a container of money. It turned out he raided his piggy bank and wanted to contribute. And thanks to Alana Wexler, who at 11 years old and started Kids for Kerry.
I thank all of you, who took time to travel, time off from work, and their own vacation time to work in states far and wide. You braved the hot days of summer and the cold days of the fall and the winter to knock on doors because you were determined to open the doors of opportunity to all Americans. You worked your hearts out, and I say, don't lose faith. What you did made a difference, and building on itself, we will go on to make a difference another day. I promise you, that time will come -- the election will come when your work and your ballots will change the world, and it's worth fighting for.
I'm proud of what we stood for in this campaign, and of what we accomplished. When we began, no one thought it was possible to even make this a close race, but we stood for real change, change that would make a real difference in the life of our nation, the lives of our families, and we defined that choice to America. I'll never forget the wonderful people who came to our rallies, who stood in our rope lines, who put their hopes in our hands, who invested in each and every one of us. I saw in them the truth that America is not only great, but it is good.
So here -- with a grateful heart, I leave this campaign with a prayer that has even greater meaning to me now that I've come to know our vast country so much better and that prayer is very simple: God bless America.
Thank you,
John Kerry
You're like a Packer fan, a lot easier to live with when they're losing. You state
I do feel that responsible Americans need to work hard on that together to end the divisiveness that plagues our country today.
So do you have any ideas? Your reputation's on the line here, so maybe you want to sleep on this and wait until you're over the shock of all those screwed up exit polls being wrong. I want to see a manifesto worthy of a first rate windbag, one that will bore L2 to tears. I've seen what an s.o.b. arguer you are, lemme see what you can do to rally all the cranks, goofballs and headcases that scribble on these walls. Take your time. Nothing but your best rant please.
When was I ever winning?
By the time I got to see anything about the national election last night it was after 11:00 p.m., so I hadn't been aware of what the exit polls had been. I wouldn't have believed the exit polls anyway, as I pretty much knew what was about to happen.
And yes, I have some ideas, but (as you recommend) I need to work on expressing them clearly. I don't plan on trying "to rally all the cranks, goofballs and headcases that scribble on these walls." I'm keenly aware of my limitations.
Have a wonderful evening.
I got the same email, Been There.
Dear [Cousin Jack]: etc etc
I've been getting emails from the Bush and Kerry campaigns for the past 6 months or so and they've both got the "personal address" software. Sometimes my name even appeared in the subject line. They've both developed the psychology of persuasion to a fine art, trying to cover every emotional base in their quest for the green. Don't mean to be too cynical about it. I learned a lot about the nature of both campaign teams by the ways in which they tried to persuade. My favorite one came Tuesday morning signed by George Bush with my name in the subject line. In plain and simple words he asked me to vote. He didn't ask me to vote for him. He just asked me to vote. Either very classy or the smoothest sales pitch of all.
Well I did go out and vote. I cast a blue ballot along with the majority of voters in the Upper Great Lakes States. Just taking my personal stand against the increasingly colonial theocratic southern culture invasion. Ohio and Indiana appear to be in the process of waving goodbye to the north. Perhaps Iowa too.
I'm proud of our dissenting majority up here even though I like George Bush and continue to support his proactive foreign policy in the pursuit of freedom. Iraq was always a unique case for me and after weighing all the reasons for removing the Saddam Hussein regime I felt (and still feel) it had to be done.
I like John Kerry too, but I think his Massachusetts liberal roots, his catholicism and his general lack of gregariousness are ultimately what prevented him from capturing any southern states. Dick Gephardt would have been a more viable national candidate but the Iowa primary supported Kerry, Edwards and even Dean over Gephardt and the rest is history. It was nearly a carbon copy of the 2000 election except the red states got redder and the blue states bluer.
CJ
Cousin Jack,
Yes, it was amazing how quickly the campaigns adapted to using the Internet. What a difference from 2004.
I see the same thing you do in the red and blue states. Surely the democrats must now confront the fact that losing this election proves that they're doing something very wrong.
In any case, we must deal with reality as we find it. Kerry lost, and Bush beat him fair and square.
In political discourse, we often tend to assign our opponents more extreme views than they actually hold. Yet we act shocked when they do the same to us. I'm trying to get beyond that (fighting my own inclinations, of course).
It seems to me that the results of the marriage initiatives in eleven states defuse the gay marriage issue somewhat (for now), but the abortion issue will never go away until some consensus is reached, as you've said. It will certainly never be possible to reconcile the most extreme positions on each side, but it's not necessary to do that to arrive at a general consensus.
I don't feel I'm going out on a limb here by opining that you are not the sort of person who would ever gun down a doctor. In an earlier post, you declined to classify all abortions as murder. Extremists invariably look down on people with any interest in consensus, so a real extremist wouldn't even have used the word in his posts.
On the other side, we often hear about "a woman's right to choose" as if such a right exists without limitation. In truth, all rights have limitations, so whether or not one affirms that right at all, there must be some limit. For example I doubt that many pro-choice women would assert their unconditional right to abort a full-term baby. That would be akin to saying that our constitutional right to bear arms permits us to own and use heavy artillery. People with such extreme views will never participate in any consensus.
It seems to me that any consensus on abortion must begin with the agreement that a woman's right to abortion is not unlimited, that not all abortions are murder, and that we can't categorically declare that abortion is invariably the wrong choice in any circumstance. Arriving at a consensus on the matter requires arriving at a general agreement on what the limits should be.
I'm interested in learning what type of consensus on abortion might be possible for you to be part of. What would you like the limits on abortion to be in our society? What is your bottom line as to what might be allowed and what could never be allowed?
You know I realize that you would never agree to permit casual abortions, and pro-choice people will certainly have to give ground to achieve a consensus. But what about an early abortion to save the life of the mother of ten children? What's your position on something like that? To me, it could be possible to justify such an abortion. I wonder how far apart we really are on that.
Great Scott,
I started to compose a short reply to you when I realized that I have more to say about that subject than I have time to write this morning. Good topic, by the way!
The impact of global warming is real and growing: Report warns of larger impact on Arctic from human-made warming.
The Arctic is experiencing the effects of human-induced climate change, according to a four-year report commissioned by eight nations with territory in the region. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment is set to be released Nov. 9 in Iceland, but its summary findings were leaked to the New York Times. The ACIA is a four-year, multimillion dollar undertaking involving the eight nations of the Arctic Council to assess the consequences of climate change on the Arctic region and support policymaking in the area. In November, ACIA Chairman Robert Corell will present the 1,800-page study to ministers in Reykjavik, Iceland. Eight nations comprise ACIA: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian, Sweden and the United States (Greenwire, Oct. 7). The report states that a decline in permafrost and a rise in temperatures are changing lifestyles and commerce in high-latitude areas. For a variety of reasons including the reflecting of heat from ice, scientists have said the Arctic is hit harder and faster by climate change.
The Arctic is experiencing the effects of human-induced climate change, according to a four-year report commissioned by eight nations with territory in the region. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment is set to be released Nov. 9 in Iceland, but its summary findings were leaked to the New York Times.
The ACIA is a four-year, multimillion dollar undertaking involving the eight nations of the Arctic Council to assess the consequences of climate change on the Arctic region and support policymaking in the area. In November, ACIA Chairman Robert Corell will present the 1,800-page study to ministers in Reykjavik, Iceland. Eight nations comprise ACIA: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian, Sweden and the United States (Greenwire, Oct. 7).
The report states that a decline in permafrost and a rise in temperatures are changing lifestyles and commerce in high-latitude areas. For a variety of reasons including the reflecting of heat from ice, scientists have said the Arctic is hit harder and faster by climate change.
The Bush administration continues to put its head in the sand: U.S. Wants No Warming Proposal - Administration Aims to Prevent Arctic Council Suggestions.
The Bush administration has been working for months to keep an upcoming eight-nation report from endorsing broad policies aimed at curbing global warming, according to domestic and foreign participants, despite the group's conclusion that Arctic latitudes are facing historic increases in temperature, glacial melting and abrupt weather changes. State Department representatives have argued that the group, which has spent four years examining Arctic climate fluctuations, lacks the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals. But several participants in the negotiations, all of whom requested anonymity for fear of derailing the Nov. 24 report, said officials from the eight nations and six indigenous tribes involved in the effort had ample science on which to draft policy.
The Bush administration has been working for months to keep an upcoming eight-nation report from endorsing broad policies aimed at curbing global warming, according to domestic and foreign participants, despite the group's conclusion that Arctic latitudes are facing historic increases in temperature, glacial melting and abrupt weather changes.
State Department representatives have argued that the group, which has spent four years examining Arctic climate fluctuations, lacks the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals. But several participants in the negotiations, all of whom requested anonymity for fear of derailing the Nov. 24 report, said officials from the eight nations and six indigenous tribes involved in the effort had ample science on which to draft policy.
Now that Dubya is a lame-duck president, perhaps he will find the political courage to do the right things to preserve the earth we live on--in the spirit of "bringing us together" that he talked about yesterday. I'm waiting.
On abortion, let me first suggest that we would never be where we are today were it not for Roe v. Wade. That ruling, and its subsequent judicial amplifications both removed the issue from the legislative sphere and thrust it into it. On one hand, it effectively annulled virtually all laws prohibiting or restricting abortions, and created a situation where the battle for the presidency has become a battle for the Supreme Court. Had the issue of permitting/restricting abortions been left to the states, I imagine we would have a patchwork of states with laws running from one end of the spectrum to the other. This would be a situation no one would be happy with, but it would involve the citizenry in whatever compromise was reached.
Now as far as my bottom line. At the very least I would like to see us as a nation face the fact that the unborn, developing child - from conception - is a human life. We can debate whether this is fully a person under law at whatever stage of development, but can we agree that we are dealing with a human life?
You know, having said that, I sense that the rest of the debate may be futile - any compromise is likely to be similar to the Missouri compromise. At any rate, the high court needs to further back away from RvW and give the citizenry a greater voice in this. No, I don't advocate bombing and murder, although I don't suppose I could ever convince L2 of that. I have no problems with abortions performed to protect the mother from physical harm, such as tubal pregancies. And I realize that ultimately the decision whether to carry a developing child to full term will always rest with the mother, as there will always be recourses to legal abortions. I think all these must be considered in the public debate and I think whatever compromises are arrived at will ultimately reflect, however imperfectly, some kind of consensus.
BT
By the way, if you're really serious about bridging differences, would you mind referring to President Bush as the president, instead of Dubya or some other snide moniker? The campaign is over. As far as him being a lame duck, that's only wishful thinking on your part.
You're getting kind of wordy. If you don't restrain yourself the janitor is going to have to wash these walls every day. Sorry that we blundered into no-mans land but aren't these porta poddies were equal access affairs?
Look2It,
No one is stopping you from participating in this discussion. Do you believe that a woman's right to choose abortion should be completely unlimited? If not, what do you think the limits should be? As for men discussing the issue, how can you suggest that men have no stake in procreation and the perpetuation of human life?
I only have time for brief posts this morning, but I do think it should be possible to develop a consensus on abortion along the lines you suggest. I'll have more for you when I can mull it over a bit.
It surprises me that you object to the nickname Dubya. Don't you know that Bush actually loves nicknames and prefers to be called Dubya? And what about the truly snide names that you use to refer to the Clintons?
Tell you what--in the spirit of bridging differences, when Bush behaves in a statesmanlike way or does the right thing for America, I'll refer to him as the president. When he's up to something like trashing the environment or stealing from our children and grandchildren, I'll call him Dubya. Fair enough?
When does he start being a lame duck? I thought it was as soon as he is no longer eligible for re-election.
I doubt you will give Bush the benifit of the doubt or agree with his actions in any case, so this is an empty offer
Since you yourself have quoted scripture to buttress your own arguments I would remind what is said about rendering honor to whom honor is due and showing respect for authorities placed above us. You don't have to respect the man, but in the interest of civil concourse, may I ask you to respect the office? I will attempt to follow suit.
Biggest voter turnout in 60 years. That’s great news for “Democracy” which is Tyranny’s Antidote and the political way of life we’re trying to sell to the rest of the world after all. And this in an election which had us choosing between two former members of Yale’s Skull & Bones Club.I should be feeling downright chipper.After all, I’m a full fledged member of that tiniest minority of all. One of those 3% of Americans who would have been content with either Bush or Kerry in the White House. Though surprisingly calm and friendly here in the Eye of Hurricane as that big blue-red storm rages ‘round, Truth Be Told, I’m finding it to be a rather disquieting calm. It’s as if the Bucket of Blood’s grim ghostly bartender has shouted out the last last call to Fulton while his merry sidekick the Pied Piper demands our final debt installment be paid by tomorrow in full.
The sun’s o’ercast with blood: fair day, adieu!Which is the side that I must go withal?I am with both: each army hath a hand;And in their rage, I having hold of both,They swirl asunder and dismember me.
Attention you huddled, wretched and poor!
It's not too late.
But I feel that I must warn you. The Elite Movers and Shakers began planning for 2008 and their Political Anointments are already in:
Billary vs Schwarzenshriver
I guess the only thing a stubborn mule like myself can do now is amble happily out to the barn, kick a tire or two on my old VW bus, then paint over the gaudy flowers and attach a shiny new Mercedes hood ornament.It’s creating the illusion of material wealth that really counts in the end, right Popeye?With champagne bottle crashed against chrome bumper I hereby christen the Alberta Clipper: my new small-business smuggling start-up.
All Aboard. Let the turbulent final leg of this troublesome voyage unofficially begin.After some serious international negotiating, I’ll be fetching busloads of bargain basement antidepressants from Canada for all you anti-war Deaniacs who feel you're doomed to 4 more years of mental agony and an ebbing populist ability to re-activate your souls.You haven’t met paradise until you’ve popped a Paxil CR. The mining prospects have me so pumped up that I feel another old Marten Harbor tune coming on. Re-recorded and multitracked by Havrylak Kern, this 2004 Mix goes out to you, Helen & Grimsvotn, for keeping your vulcan promise! Catch y’all later, I’ve got a train to catch:
http://hometown.aol.com/jbuckettt/canada.html
Last week the White House successfully covered up facts concerning the failure to secure explosives now killing our soldiers in Iraq: Soldiers Describe Looting of Explosives.
In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad, Iraqi looters loaded powerful explosives into pickup trucks and drove the material away from the Al Qaqaa ammunition site, according to a group of U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen who said they witnessed the looting. The soldiers said about a dozen U.S. troops guarding the sprawling facility could not prevent the theft because they were outnumbered by looters. Soldiers with one unit — the 317th Support Center based in Wiesbaden, Germany — said they sent a message to commanders in Baghdad requesting help to secure the site but received no reply.
In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad, Iraqi looters loaded powerful explosives into pickup trucks and drove the material away from the Al Qaqaa ammunition site, according to a group of U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen who said they witnessed the looting.
The soldiers said about a dozen U.S. troops guarding the sprawling facility could not prevent the theft because they were outnumbered by looters. Soldiers with one unit — the 317th Support Center based in Wiesbaden, Germany — said they sent a message to commanders in Baghdad requesting help to secure the site but received no reply.
When the soldiers left, they knew that everything left at the site would be removed right away.
"On our last day there, there were at least 100 vehicles waiting at the site for us to leave" so looters could come in and take munitions. "It was complete chaos. It was looting like L.A. during the Rodney King riots," another officer said. He and other soldiers who spoke to The Times asked not to be named, saying they feared retaliation from the Pentagon.
"On our last day there, there were at least 100 vehicles waiting at the site for us to leave" so looters could come in and take munitions.
"It was complete chaos. It was looting like L.A. during the Rodney King riots," another officer said.
He and other soldiers who spoke to The Times asked not to be named, saying they feared retaliation from the Pentagon.
A reporter today asked Dick Cheney about the discrepancies between what he said to the American people last week and what the soldiers reported. He grinned and said, "The election's over now, suckers. Nobody cares about that stuff now."
Coppernickus,
Whatta rant! You put us all to shame. It went right over my head, but I sure liked the sound of it. All scribblers, take note, the big C has raised the bar almost out of reach.
Okay on the nickname thing. As for trying to best Coppernickus' writing style, that's way beyond my skill. I'll cheer anyone else on who wants to give it a try though.
Early today you posted this:
I wonder if your chances of getting into a consensus with moots and the Christian right are realistic, BT. At this point in time wouldn't the Democrats be better off trying to ally with fiscal conservatives? From what I read they are upset at the Republicans already.
Actually my intention has nothing to do with getting the Christian right to ally with the democrats. Both Moots and I vote for whatever party we expect to do the best job with the issues most important to us at the time. Cousin Jack casts his vote similarly. Parties shift their so-called principles much more often than do thoughtful people.
If the country resolves the abortion issue (and other such issues) to the satisfaction of Moots and the great majority of the voting public, we'll have freed a large group of people from the need to vote one way regardless of their other interests. Many of them might still vote republican, but it won't be because they have no other moral choice.
In fact Clinton's "New Democrats" did garner significant support from fiscal conservatives (me, for example) and Kerry got some support from that quarter also. Although some voters are very intense about fiscal responsibility (me again), lots of people who espouse fiscal conservatism are motivated even more stongly by appeals to their self-interest. That makes them unreliable allies in any political struggle.
People strongly motivated by principle--people like Moots and the Christian right--cannot be be bought: they vote for what they believe is right regardless of self-interest. That trait proves very frustrating to those opposing them, but it makes them ideal allies in any principled cause.
To my mind, freeing up this group to focus on other issues would benefit America no matter what party they favored. For example, many people you'd classify in the Christian right, including some of my dear friends, don't agree at all with running up huge federal deficits. But, for them, that issue must always take a back seat to abortion. If a satisfactory consensus regarding abortion could be reached, they could vote on their other issues.
Although it might take a year or too, Roe vs. Wade is already toast. President Bush has a large enough majority in the Senate that the democrats won't be able to stop his nominations to the Supreme Court. Oh, they might be able to block a nomination or two via filibuster, but President Bush will eventually wear them down. Then your wish will come true, putting the matter into each state legislature. No doubt there will arise a patchwork of laws, but the people of each state will be able to implement the consensus of its citizens.
Your bottom line seems to be in a different category:
I'm not sure exactly how you would have our nation do this, especially since the abortion implementations would be back with the states. What would be involved?
Ahh, hell hath no fury…we’ve all paid the carnal price, Look2it.
Here here, BT. The more creatively intelligent writing the merrier (btw: your excellent writing skills, well thought out arguments, and most importantly, strongly held principles, are nothing to sneeze at).
“Whatta Rant” is right, Moots! But don’t waste too much attention with that pathetic Jeremiah Johnson wannabe. I can only assume you weren’t present at the Gitche Gumee Tabernacle when the “Big C” presented his now infamous “Divinity Address”. “The Dude Abides” indeed. Who in the hell does he think he is, the Big Lebowski?Let me make things perfectly clear. I’ve personally met this certified space-case and he’s a starry-eyed deer camp loon.
The chemtrails are comingThe chemtrails are coming
Way too many moonlit hours spent peering through that expensive European telescope and not enough sunlit daytime spent examining straight in the eye his own lousy American love life.Am I right, ladies?And that wacky Elmer “Falstaff” Fudd diet (waw wenison and low-carb wodka) has thoroughly driven him bonkers. Surely it’s a blessing he’s picked up his weather-beaten guitar again, but what to really make of this upstart crow brazenly poaching from Will Shakespeare? Who in the hell does he think he is, Neil Young? Damn hard to gaze away from a beautiful train wreck in progress though, ain’t it?
Anyway, let’s not turn this K-NOW discussion site into a narcissistic popularity contest.
Let’s bring it back to something genuinely important.Let’s help the Red & Blue find some common traditional American ground.
Psst, Democrats:Lose the Hollywood connection. Love the Boss, but Ashton Kutcher and Michael Moore? Talk about your Dumber and Dumbest. What? Weren’t Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels available?And guess what, reigning Gay Lords? What we Americans want from Hollywood is genuine inspiration not yet another whiny snore-fest.Find your way back to that Old Oaken Bucket hanging in the Wishing Well and dip your copper ladles in.It wouldn’t hurt to start taking some advice from conservative columnists either: George Will (“Stay away from Hollywood!”) and Garry Wills (“It ain’t Religion that made America a superpower, folks, it’s Science”). OK. Those aren’t exact quotes. But did Dick Cheney really say “Suckers”? And if so why wasn’t it on Comedy Central..Anyway, for much more on the Will(s) Brothers, click here & here:
Moore, the vulgarian who made the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," is unhinged by his loathing of Bush -- and of the country that has now reelected him. Moore and the hordes of his enthusiasts are a stain on the party -- as are those Democratic senators and representatives who in June made a merry festival of the movie's Washington premiere. Moore illustrates the fact that the Republican Party benefits -- it is energized by resentment -- when the entertainment industry and major journalistic institutions (e.g., the New York Times, CBS News) enlist as appendages of the Democratic Party's advocacy apparatus. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23931-2004Nov3.html America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more… Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04wills.html
Moore, the vulgarian who made the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," is unhinged by his loathing of Bush -- and of the country that has now reelected him. Moore and the hordes of his enthusiasts are a stain on the party -- as are those Democratic senators and representatives who in June made a merry festival of the movie's Washington premiere. Moore illustrates the fact that the Republican Party benefits -- it is energized by resentment -- when the entertainment industry and major journalistic institutions (e.g., the New York Times, CBS News) enlist as appendages of the Democratic Party's advocacy apparatus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23931-2004Nov3.html
America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more…
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04wills.html
One important issue, example given: I think that Moots has it constitutionally right on abortion. Probably because he’s devoted more time to the issue than the rest of us. Quite frankly I only know how I feel about this emotional issue, but it does seem to me that this medical practice really should really be a States Rights issue just as lot of environmental issues probably should be. C’mon, D.C. has a Foreign War to Fight, let’s take a little pressure off. Local control, local control, local control…Keep the Feds out of it.Save as many as we can and let God sort it out.
Psst, Republicans:Lose the grandiose southern theocratic ambitions. No one up here in the Great White North gives a furry rodent’s derriere about anything you chirping apocalyptic Protestant cardinals from the Dallas Vatican have to say.Let’s be even more diplomatic about it if we possibly can.You’re an inbred theological rat pack living in a 2000 year old Time Warp! We need to redefine North America toward the direction it truly belongs. This hemisphere’s actual headwaters aquifer-shed & geographical center runs straight through northern Minnesota and the lower center of Michigan’s U.P. before invading Ontario for crying out loud. And don’t you know now, eh, those liberal Canadians still have any number of wise, wonderful and revolutionary things to tell us about ourselves. Let’s stand up with a modicum of humble dignity and take some time to really listen.
Well I love that dirty water(bum bum bum)Boston, you’re my home
CJ,
A fine rant. L2, the boys in the black robes wrote RvW, the boys (and now girls) in the black robes can edit their own work. Your work is to intelligently convince the voters of the rightness of your position, but right now you're a poster girl for your opposition. If your politics are nothing but hate you'll only gain a following of orcs and gollums.
By the way, listening to how you democrats bicker amongst each other I am often reminded of Tolkien's creations.
BT, I am still waiting for your bridge building rant. We have two fine submissions thus far from the big C's. Take a swig and hold forth!
The war in Iraq, which had been in a lull because of the election campaign, heats up again now: Six soldiers killed, air strikes mount ahead of expected Fallujah assault.
Six British and American troops were killed in Iraq over the last 24 hours as the US military battered the flashpoint city of Fallujah with air strikes ahead of an expected all-out assault. A suicide car bomb and mortar fire at a checkpoint killed three newly redeployed British soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter on Thursday. ... Two US marines also died in action and four were injured in Al-Anbar province west of the Iraqi capital, where the rebel hotspots of Fallujah and Ramadi are located, the US military said. Another US soldier was killed and one wounded when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb on Thursday night north of Baghdad. Seventy-three British troops have died in Iraq since US-led forces invaded the country in March 2003, 34 of them in combat, while the latest US deaths brought to 1,121 the number of US military personnel killed since the invasion.
Six British and American troops were killed in Iraq over the last 24 hours as the US military battered the flashpoint city of Fallujah with air strikes ahead of an expected all-out assault.
A suicide car bomb and mortar fire at a checkpoint killed three newly redeployed British soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter on Thursday.
...
Two US marines also died in action and four were injured in Al-Anbar province west of the Iraqi capital, where the rebel hotspots of Fallujah and Ramadi are located, the US military said.
Another US soldier was killed and one wounded when their vehicle hit a roadside bomb on Thursday night north of Baghdad.
Seventy-three British troops have died in Iraq since US-led forces invaded the country in March 2003, 34 of them in combat, while the latest US deaths brought to 1,121 the number of US military personnel killed since the invasion.
Back in the states, Bush and his minions offered everyone who supported Kerry a tube of lubricant to prepare for their version of the much-anticipated "era of good feeling": Partisan lawmakers ready to put the gloves on.
The majority Republicans said strongly that they intended to move ahead with President Bush's agenda and wouldn't go out of their way to be conciliatory toward the minority Democrats. ... Showing how hard bipartisanship is to achieve in Congress, Reynolds opened his comments with a scathing attack on Pelosi, who replaced Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., as minority leader after the Democrats' disappointing showing in the 2002 elections.
The majority Republicans said strongly that they intended to move ahead with President Bush's agenda and wouldn't go out of their way to be conciliatory toward the minority Democrats.
Showing how hard bipartisanship is to achieve in Congress, Reynolds opened his comments with a scathing attack on Pelosi, who replaced Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., as minority leader after the Democrats' disappointing showing in the 2002 elections.
CJ, maybe Cheney didn't exactly say that word, but I could tell what was on the tip of his tongue when he paused artfully.
Moots, I'm still waiting for your answer.
L2, if you wanted to keep those rights, you should have gone down to Ohio and worked harder for your man. 51% of the voters have spoken and all of them either disagreed with you or didn't care one way or another. That's reality.
Regarding
Your bottom line seems to be in a different category: Now as far as my bottom line. At the very least I would like to see us as a nation face the fact that the unborn, developing child - from conception - is a human life. We can debate whether this is fully a person under law at whatever stage of development, but can we agree that we are dealing with a human life? I'm not sure exactly how you would have our nation do this, especially since the abortion implementations would be back with the states. What would be involved?
I'm not exactly sure - this may be wishful thinking on my part. Recognizing human life carries implications which would be very difficult for many. However, if the abortion question were given back to the states, every person would all be confronted with the issue and forced to take a stand. Ours would be a shared responsibility. Right now it is easy to avoid personal responsibility. One can blame the Supreme Court, etc. Even most proponents of legal abortion seem to be uncomfortable with abortion. Hence the fence straddling slogan - "I believe abortions should be safe, legal and rare." It sounds nice, but it really doesn't confront the issue. Does the developing child have any right to life that overarches those of his/her mother to decide for him/her?
By the way, the campaign is over. I'd rather hear your thoughts than read your news clippings.
Remember this, you whiners here - to the victors belong the spoils. We're going to do the same thing to you that you wanted to do to us if you won. Better you than us. That's life. You might as well enjoy it or its going to be a tough 4 years.
Honestly I have not stopped smiling since Wednesday. If you think those girls on that little island had it rough, just wait. It serves you right, and maybe you will learn to keep your big traps shut about stuff your little pin heads can't understand.
We won because we are smarter and stronger. Sure we've got more money too and why do you suppose that is? Same reason. L2 let's meet somewhere, you sound like a lot of fun.
Thanks for the answer, but I'm still unsure of how to approach resolving your bottom line issue on abortion in a way that would be satisfactory for you. The way I read it (and I'm probably wrong) is that the rest of us need to keep trying things and then you'll let us know when we get it right. Can you give me a little more help?
As for the news clips, life goes on even though the election is over. In my own mind (pin head though I may be) I make a point that I consider important and then buttress that point with current evidence. I know I'm not as entertaining as the big Cs, but if I tried to emulate them it just wouldn't be me. Please forgive my shortcomings, which I realize are many and substantial.
For starters, tell your democratic friends to stop obstructing Bush's Supreme Court nominees, let the court lay RvW to rest, and let us fight it out on a state level. If indeed the democrats would consider taking concrete steps to make abortion rare, I think a compromise might be achievable.
Ok on the news clips, if I might be permitted to submit something from old Rushbo from time to time. Fair enough? (Michelle will just love it.)
No, I don't think I would try that trick again so soon, and if I did, bada would be more than the one-dimensional caricature, a simply mirror image of look2it. I don't think we'll learn anymore about bada than we have learned about you, because you're afraid to talk about anything that really means anything to you.
I didn't think you could be bada bing, but I'm relieved that you confirmed it. Somehow the results of the election have gotten me down even though I was pretty sure that was the way it would turn out. You are entitled to be pleased and to gloat a bit, but you don't strike me as the kind of person who would rub it in quite that way.
Aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself here?
For starters, tell your democratic friends to stop obstructing Bush's Supreme Court nominees...
What Supreme Court nominees? There's not even a vacancy yet.
I didn't know old Rushbo (the drug-addled talkshow host) reported any news items--I thought "analysis" was his thing--but I'm sure no one would mind if you posted links to news items on his site. I listen to him myself sometimes and find him pretty entertaining. (Not when my dear wife is with me, though--she just can't stand him.)
Let me go far out on a limb with a prediction here: when Fallujah is finally taken, most of the terrorists will be gone, having already left the city to regroup elsewhere. Don't worry, I'll keep you posted on how this actually plays out.
No, if I were to rub it in, I would do it as moots. You will also note that I pulled the plug on Bobcat publicly.
Upon receiving Lee's surrender, General Grant announced that the rebels are our countrymen again. I believe that is good advice for us all.
By the way, thanks for sharing that you felt down. I felt quite down Monday and Tuesday thinking Bush was going to lose. I can feel for you, guy. I felt that way when Clinton won.
I guess I have to spell it out for all you whiners. My post answered the "tube of lubricant" remark in kind. Maybe I gave you all too much credit, I won't make that mistake again. If you look for it there was more than a grain of truth in there too. If you get shocked at my posts I've got news for you - welcome to the internet.
You all need to get out more, there is a big world out there. Start with Duluth and work up from there when you feel comfortable.
One dimensional? That's the best I could stir up? I must be losing my edge. Oops, I see everyone is leaving now, it must be time to milk the cows. Ya, you betcha.
For a change, here is some good news regarding Iraq: EU Offers Support for Iraq.
European Union leaders have offered "strong support" for Iraq's interim government, including more technical assistance and the possibility of a trade deal. The pledge came after EU leaders attending a summit met with Iraq's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi. ... EU leaders promised to give Iraq about $38 million in technical assistance for its scheduled elections in January. They also said they would provide additional funds for a security force to protect United Nations aid workers in Iraq. They pledged, as well, to study the possibility of launching a program aimed at improving Iraq's police, judiciary and civil administration once the elections are over. And they promised to give Iraq a special trading status when, as their statement says, "conditions allow." Diplomats say the EU's willingness to get involved in Iraq is part of an effort to build bridges to the United States following President Bush's re-election. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was instrumental in pushing for a greater EU commitment to Iraq.
European Union leaders have offered "strong support" for Iraq's interim government, including more technical assistance and the possibility of a trade deal. The pledge came after EU leaders attending a summit met with Iraq's interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi.
EU leaders promised to give Iraq about $38 million in technical assistance for its scheduled elections in January. They also said they would provide additional funds for a security force to protect United Nations aid workers in Iraq. They pledged, as well, to study the possibility of launching a program aimed at improving Iraq's police, judiciary and civil administration once the elections are over. And they promised to give Iraq a special trading status when, as their statement says, "conditions allow."
Diplomats say the EU's willingness to get involved in Iraq is part of an effort to build bridges to the United States following President Bush's re-election.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair was instrumental in pushing for a greater EU commitment to Iraq.
I hope this mushrooms now. Our troops need some relief too, so it would be ideal if we could enlist a country with a large population to beef up the troop levels while the Iraqis are in training.
For what it's worth, if I could to do it over I wouldn't use the word "lubricant." And that's all I have to say about that (as someone sitting on a bench once said).
I was the guilty one at 9:39 a.m. Sorry about that.
Sunni leaders in Iraq understand that, with the U.S. election over, the handcuffs on the Marines are gone: Battle Near, Iraqi Sunnis Make Offer.
As Marines step up preparations for military offensives on two major Iraqi cities, a number of Sunni Muslim leaders are forwarding a plan to establish the rule of law in those areas through peaceful means, with the promise of reducing the insurgency across a large swath of the country. ... Diamond acknowledged the proposal carried risks and may arrive too late to dissuade U.S. and Iraqi officials "who think it's time to go in and kick some butt." But he added, "If there's a chance that this could be the beginning of political transformation that could change the situation on the ground, I think we've got to take it. Especially since many of the foreign fighters are said to have left Fallujah."
As Marines step up preparations for military offensives on two major Iraqi cities, a number of Sunni Muslim leaders are forwarding a plan to establish the rule of law in those areas through peaceful means, with the promise of reducing the insurgency across a large swath of the country.
Diamond acknowledged the proposal carried risks and may arrive too late to dissuade U.S. and Iraqi officials "who think it's time to go in and kick some butt."
But he added, "If there's a chance that this could be the beginning of political transformation that could change the situation on the ground, I think we've got to take it. Especially since many of the foreign fighters are said to have left Fallujah."
Par for the course in guerilla wars, fighters who left Fallujah are already causing trouble elsewhere: U.S. Bombs Rain on Falluja, Rebels Attack in Samarra.
With a U.S.-led offensive on Falluja apparently imminent, insurgents hit back with car bombs and attacks on police stations in Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad. A suicide car bomber rammed into a police station and three car bombs exploded elsewhere in the city. Insurgents also attacked three other police stations. Police said the onslaught had killed 34 people, including 19 police, two Iraqi National Guards, two members of an Iraqi Rapid Reaction Force and 11 civilians. They said 43 people had been wounded, 28 of them members of the security forces. "I saw a dead National Guard burning on the ground," said one witness after the first bombings. U.S. and Iraqi forces stormed Samarra a month ago to dislodge rebels in what was seen as a prelude to the full-scale offensive now planned for Falluja and Ramadi, west of Baghdad.
With a U.S.-led offensive on Falluja apparently imminent, insurgents hit back with car bombs and attacks on police stations in Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad.
A suicide car bomber rammed into a police station and three car bombs exploded elsewhere in the city. Insurgents also attacked three other police stations.
Police said the onslaught had killed 34 people, including 19 police, two Iraqi National Guards, two members of an Iraqi Rapid Reaction Force and 11 civilians. They said 43 people had been wounded, 28 of them members of the security forces.
"I saw a dead National Guard burning on the ground," said one witness after the first bombings.
U.S. and Iraqi forces stormed Samarra a month ago to dislodge rebels in what was seen as a prelude to the full-scale offensive now planned for Falluja and Ramadi, west of Baghdad.
President Bush has our forces overextended in Iraq and people die every day because of his failure to plan to secure the country after Saddam fell from power. These people, including our own soldiers, die because Bush mistakenly attacked Iraq to save us from WMD that did not exist. On Tuesday the voters gave him the job of cleaning up his own mess. It is now Saturday and he has yet to say how he plans to do that.
Ragheads who give food and shelter to terrorists are just as guilty as the terrorists. We need to make them scareder of us than of the terrorists. We should of nuked Falluja before everyone got out. One nuke like that and we'd be safe from terrorists for 50 years. It would be yes sir, no sir after that believe me.
Truman knew what to do but now everyone thinks we are wimps. Got to change that and we've got a guy with guts in charge. Nothing to stop us, there's your plan to clean up the mess in Iraq.
I came across this today and immediately thought of you: On a Word and a Prayer.
Abortion is also not quite so clear. The Republican Party platform endorsed a constitutional amendment defining human life as beginning at conception, which would require an almost total ban on abortions. Yet Mr. Bush rarely talked about that during the campaign, emphasizing vague phrases like embracing a "culture of life" and his signing of the late-term abortion ban, which affected less than 1 percent of all abortions.
Somehow I had overlooked that plank in the republican platform, but it occurred to me that you had not. Is that constitutional amendment what you are really looking for?
Bada Bing:
If you're not a caricature created by Moots than I've got a little advice fer ya.
There's a civil difference between satirical rant and savage rage.
If you don't cut back on the crystal meth-cortisone cocktails, you'll fry your brain and shrink your balls.
Been There:
Keep up your Iraqi Journal. America clearly has a big mess to clean up and I want to hear both sides of the story. The whole world will be watching the ways in which we do this and we have to be willing to listen to the valid criticisms if we're ever going to get it done right.
btw: I heard through the grapevine that Coppernickus won't be back from Canada to milk the cows until he's got another tune to offer and that could be a good long while.
Not so fast, Bro!
One last Canadian cast before I hibernate.
Go North, Young Man!
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109300/
And for anyone who hasn't already seen it, this map is hilarious:
http://members.shaw.ca/ianking/junk/usa.jpg
There, see how easy it is?
I don't need posting advice from some ignorant canuck who thinks the UP is the sunny south. I see eough of you ignorant snowflakes summertime, it feels good to be away from your shacks and decay now, I'm going to play golf and then dangle my toes in the nice warm ocean.
Now that you guys discovered the internet - hey ma what won't they think of next, isnt this great, ya you betcha - I can keep telling you guys up there whats what all year long. Lucky you. Its not that far to Duluth, check it out.
Increasing violence in Iraq forced the interim government's hand today: Iraq Declares Martial Law, 23 Police Killed.
Iraq's interim government declared martial law on Sunday after insurgents killed 23 Iraqi policemen and set off blasts in Baghdad in a fresh show of force before a planned U.S. offensive on Falluja and Ramadi. ... Moments after the announcement carried on live Iraqi television, a car bomb exploded near the house of Iraq's finance minister in central Baghdad. It was not immediately clear if Adel Abdul Mahdi or anyone else had been hurt.
Iraq's interim government declared martial law on Sunday after insurgents killed 23 Iraqi policemen and set off blasts in Baghdad in a fresh show of force before a planned U.S. offensive on Falluja and Ramadi.
Moments after the announcement carried on live Iraqi television, a car bomb exploded near the house of Iraq's finance minister in central Baghdad. It was not immediately clear if Adel Abdul Mahdi or anyone else had been hurt.
As we prepare to overwhelm Fallujah militarily, we need to understand what's really going on there. The foreign terrorists have left and the fighters remaining are Sunni Muslims who see themselves as defenders of their homes and families against a foreign invader. Yes, many of the people still there supported Saddam in the past and benefited from his rule. Now they fear (with good reason) the wrath of the Shia majority as well as the power of America.
Our soldiers will act as agents of the Shia to destroy their religious and tribal opponents. Our young people will die as pawns of the Shia, and Sunnis across the world will curse America for that in perpetuity. Our actions will pave the way for a huge and powerful Shia alliance between Iraq and Iran, and the Sunni world will hold America responsible for that too.
President Bush does not have much time left to implement his pie-in-the-sky vision for Iraq: Exit Iraq.
The Iraq situation is becoming more and more reminiscent of the Vietnam disaster. American troops mostly stay in heavily fortified barracks. When they do venture out, their sweeps don't achieve durable pacification. Militants and young men of fighting age are long gone by the time American bombardments start. The Iraqi casualties include women, children and old people, and the American casualties keep mounting. After the U.S. troops move out of an area, they leave in their wake new sympathizers and recruits for the insurgents. And the provisional Iraqi government is even less capable of maintaining order than its Vietnamese counterpart was. ... The Iraq occupation is one of the worst American blunders ever, as countless experienced diplomats and former intelligence officials keep pointing out. There is no political support in either party to put in the number of troops necessary to secure the place. We can't even seal Iraq's borders, let alone hunt down insurgents. Our very presence is a recruiting poster for every kind of anti-American militant. Prominent critics of the war are counseling an early withdrawal. The Cato Institute, a prominent conservative and libertarian think tank, advocates a U.S. pullout.
The Iraq situation is becoming more and more reminiscent of the Vietnam disaster. American troops mostly stay in heavily fortified barracks. When they do venture out, their sweeps don't achieve durable pacification. Militants and young men of fighting age are long gone by the time American bombardments start.
The Iraqi casualties include women, children and old people, and the American casualties keep mounting. After the U.S. troops move out of an area, they leave in their wake new sympathizers and recruits for the insurgents. And the provisional Iraqi government is even less capable of maintaining order than its Vietnamese counterpart was.
The Iraq occupation is one of the worst American blunders ever, as countless experienced diplomats and former intelligence officials keep pointing out.
There is no political support in either party to put in the number of troops necessary to secure the place. We can't even seal Iraq's borders, let alone hunt down insurgents. Our very presence is a recruiting poster for every kind of anti-American militant.
Prominent critics of the war are counseling an early withdrawal. The Cato Institute, a prominent conservative and libertarian think tank, advocates a U.S. pullout.
Kerry had a better shot than Bush at garnering the international support we need to make a go of Iraq. We shouldn't write off Bush's chances of doing so yet, but he's going have to work much harder to get a lot more foreign troops into Iraq to share our load and to get a lot more than $38 million to share our expenses. Otherwise we'll have a major disaster on our hands and it will be 100% Bush's fault.
I'm sick of these long calm posts when our country is going right smack down the drain! Don't you see the vultures circling? Are you all blind? People are committing suicide because Bush was elected and you go on about your business as if nothing special has happened!
I'm sick of this bush league country and the bushmen who run it. I'm sick of Moots/Bada Bing who worked to bring us down. I'm too sick to post for a while. G'bye.
Sorry to upset you but we all have to be true to our own natures. I appreciate and respect your passion and hope you'll be back soon.
I believe you are mistaken, though, about Moots being Bada Bing. Moots has already point-blank denied being Bada Bing and--unless I'm way off the mark here--I don't see anything of Moots in those posts (which I will henceforth ignore competely).
Look2It, I hadn't seen the news about the suicide at ground zero when I posted earlier. I can see why you're very upset: Man commits suicide at Ground Zero.
Distraught over the re-election of President George W. Bush, a Georgia man traveled to New York City, went to Ground Zero and killed himself with a shotgun blast, police said yesterday.
Perhaps there was something else going on in his mind too. It's hard to see how his act could make things any better.
The assault on Fallujah appears to be imminent now: Troops and fear encircle Fallujah; rebel-held city heavily shelled.
The siege of Fallujah, which also includes Iraqi military forces, was not proceeding as smoothly as planned, however. Sometime Friday night, a captain in the 5th Battalion, 3rd Brigade of the Iraqi army deserted after receiving a full briefing from the Americans on the plan for the assault, military officials said.
Now it seems that incompetent planning before our attack on Iraq also put 4,000 additional surface-to-air missles into the hands of terrorists: U.S. Expands List of Lost Missiles.
In an effort to address the missile threat, the Department of Homeland Security has asked government contractors to find a way to protect passenger jets from small shoulder-fired missiles. The technology has been installed on military planes for years, using laser-jamming equipment and decoy flares to deflect the missiles, and some contractors have determined that passenger planes could be outfitted with antimissile technology relatively soon.
Asked by a reporter whether he still believes America is safer now that we've attacked Iraq, Dick Cheney growled, "I don't use commercial flights. Ask someone who does."
It seems you're right about Bada Bing, BT.
He's no Moots.
But he remains a caricature.
bb seems to be a bitter U.P. expatriate with the spoon-banging mind of a child, but I still look forward to his What's What updates now that he's enlisted with those Big City elites. I hope he can happily find his rage-filled little red niche in Duluth which went 67% for Kerry.
Being but a periodic Keweenawan myself--living 3+ hours south of Duluth within a twin-metro thicket of never-ending suburb and wildlife refuges--I fail to understand bb's lack of appreciation for the finer aspects of decaying shacks and ignorant snowflakes.
Yes, if I'm wrong so be it, but I'll be very surprised. By the way, thanks for the geographical fix. I've been a full-time Keweenaw resident for years now, but I too have
I appreciate your faith in me, even though we disagree on most things. No, I'm not bada, but if he's not L2, he's her twin. Both are angry, spiteful and bitter. I guess I set a bad precedent with Bobcat, but at least she had some issues to discuss. All bada and L2 do is to snarl and bite.
As far as the constitutional amendment goes, I would like to see it - but you realize that it would require a 2/3 majority of the states, which would indicate a much broader public support than there seems to be. Constitutional amendments, by the way, are the way to amend the constitution -as opposed to the way the liberals amend it through activist judges willing to make it say what they want it to say.
Now that the elections are over, the long-awaited battle has begun: G.I.'s Open Attack to Take Falluja From Iraq Rebels.
Explosions and heavy gunfire thundered across Falluja on Sunday night and Monday morning as American troops seized control of two strategic bridges, a hospital and other objectives in the first stage of a long-expected invasion of the city, the center of the Iraqi insurgency.
I found the difference in perspective between the defenders and the attackers telling.
"We will see in the end who will win - those who worship God or those who deride him," Abu Muhammad said. "We are ready to face them, we will not let the city down, and with God's help we will teach them a lesson and inflict heavy casualties on them." ... "This town is held by mugs, thugs, murderers and intimidators," General Sattler said.
"We will see in the end who will win - those who worship God or those who deride him," Abu Muhammad said. "We are ready to face them, we will not let the city down, and with God's help we will teach them a lesson and inflict heavy casualties on them."
"This town is held by mugs, thugs, murderers and intimidators," General Sattler said.
The NYT today has an interesting piece about Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the C.I.A.'s Osama bin Laden unit and the author of a best-selling book critical of the administration's handling of the fight against terrorism: Evolving Nature of Al Qaeda Is Misunderstood, Critic Says.
The Bush administration has failed to recognize that Al Qaeda is now a global Islamic insurgency, rather than a traditional terrorist organization, and so poses a much different threat than previously believed, says a senior counterterrorism official at the Central Intelligence Agency.
Bowing to White House pressure, the CIA now forbids Mr. Scheuer to give interviews to the press. That's President Bush's America.
CJ, my sympathies. I lived in that star-killing glow and urban hum for years before I got back under a starry sky (when it's not cloudy) and my decaying shack. Big C, you sure you're getting far enough away from Jesus so he won't drag you kicking and screaming into his kingdom? Last I heard he bought all of Canada too. Anybody going deer hunting next week?
I do hope that President Bush fulfills his party's promise to put forward a constitutional amendment stating that a new human life begins at conception. Although the amendment likely would not pass now, as you say, its proposal would (I think) induce proponents to explain the basis for that belief, a basis which is now completely unclear to me.
When I asked you about this before, you indicated that it followed from your strong faith in Jesus Christ--a faith I respect more than you can know from my posts here. However, faith always has some foundation, and I don't know of any scriptural basis for ascribing such a view to Jesus Christ. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, but I'm more than passingly familiar with both testaments. I know that some folks consider other texts to be scriptural also, such as the Book of Mormon, but I confess to being fairly ignorant of those. Of course you need not answer, but I'm very interested in the basis for your very strong (bottom line, as you've called it) conviction about this--in case I'm missing something I shouldn't be missing.
Concerning activist judges, Marshall established the point that the Supreme Court decides whether or not laws passed by congress abide by our constitution. It seems to me that we all tend to apply the term "activist" when we disagree with a decision of the court, regardless of the constitutional principle involved. Suppose the Dred Scott decision had gone the other way (the correct way), couldn't the judges have been deemed "activist" (if the term had been in use then)? And what about Brown v. Board of Education in 1954? Was that an "activist" decision or a valid application of our constitution?
Republicans seldom use the term "activist" when they benefit from the decisions. A glaring example occurred in December of 2000 when activists on the Supreme Court found in a 5-4 decision that the equal protection clause overrode the laws of Florida regarding elections, thereby putting George Bush into the White House.
But there are many other examples. In 2000 an activist 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court refused to uphold the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) passed by congress in 1967. In 2001 an activist Supreme Court majority refused, again by a 5-4 margin, to uphold key portions of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) passed overwhelmingly by congress. One of President Bush's appellate court nominees, right-wing activist Janice Brown, believes that the Supreme Court should overturn legislation establishing many social programs, including social security. So the point you make cuts both ways.
Regarding your suggestion that Bada Bing might be Look2It in disguise, I just don't get it. Why on earth would Look2It post that stuff, which is almost the exact opposite of what she seems to believe? I may be dense, but I don't see what the point could be. Are you just saying that as a form of revenge for her obstinate posting that you are Bada Bing?
Don't cry for me, Moots. I spent many year-round years in the Keweenaw during my 20's and 30's and enjoyed them thoroughly. I wish I could spend at least 6 months a year there now and hope to in the future, but in the meantime I'm finding my multiple yearly visits very exhilarating. Being that I'm on the suburban edge of rural farmland and prairie, we do see the stars fairly bright, as well as the northern lights (quite rare for here) last night in the western sky.
As I understand it, Big C has little problem with Jesus the man (if indeed the canonical gospels are anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his real life--every one of the few quasi-corroborating non-New Testament historical references to Jesus (the Christ) remain quite controversial amongst biblical scholars because of so many later editorial interpolations in much literature surviving from the first few centuries CE). No, the Big C's major scuffle seems to be with some of Christianity's over-zealous marketing and public relations personnel and the Inerrancy Gurus who guide them. A very very old story, really.
BTW, I personally would not support a constitutional ban on abortion for reasons I 've listed before. 55% of Americans feel the same way if I'm recalling an accurate poll number. Overturning Roe vs Wade is another story though and quite frankly I would like to see it argued over the public airwaves in Congress, possibly with respect to the next Supreme Court nominee, as a legitimate States Rights issue.
Civilized debate over this emotional issue could be instructive to the nation as a whole and would be a real step up from the semi-pornographic "pubic hair on pepsi can" confirmation hearings fiasco back in the fall of 1991(?) for Clarence Thomas.
Only time for quick posts - I think Psalm 139 pretty well covers your question about the humanity of an unborn child.
As far as bada goes, you may recall it was I who first suggested that that he might be L2 in disguise. He seemed too overblown and vindictive to be real, and I suspected he might be a representation of how L2 sees republicans in general. Her way of saying you made your bed, now lie it it.
Of course I may be the vindictive one and bada may be merely my creation to play mind games with L2. That's the downside of these hokey online discussions. I might really be an evil genius and all but one of you might be my creations, but for whatever it's worth, I don't have the energy to play both sides of a tennis game for long.
You're speaking for more than Coppernikus here
Christianity has been used as means to many ends and can seemingly be ridden wherever you want to go with it. But I would submit to you that what really matters is contained in Jesus question to Peter, "But who do you say that I am?"
Thanks. I figured you had a scriptural basis, and I will reread and rethink Psalm 139 (a masterpiece by any standard) with your beliefs in mind.
Please note, though, that I've never (ever) questioned "the humanity of an unborn child." The issue before us is whether the humanity of an unborn child is received at the moment of conception.
Been there, ignore away but it eats at you inside because you know I'm right, and your bug eyes pop out of your little pin head when you see my name, and you know I know it. Moots, you act like your s don't stink, but I can smell it all the way down here. Too bad good guys have to die in Falluja when one nuke would do the trick. Argue that one, you frizzbrains.
Got your shovels out and your plows on your pickups yet? Snow clouds rolling in, ya you betcha. Stuff some mutt hair and hay in those parkas for the winter, mama, some of the stuffing plumb leaked out the holes, dontcha know. Plenty warm here, though, and I still can't stop grinning.
Moots asks:
I would submit to you that what really matters is contained in Jesus question to Peter, "But who do you say that I am?"
One simple request, Moots, before trying to pass your evangelical litmus test. If this particular scripture is that important to you then please identify the Gospel verse referenced and clearly define your position.
What does Peter’s response mean to you?
When I read that post I’ll tell you what I truly think.
Cheers,
The verse is Mark 8:29, but Moots' answer is something I'm interested in reading also.
My apologies, I don't mean to paint you into a corner and administer litmus tests. I presented Jesus' question as a rhetorical one, not as a demand for you to take a position. I was simply trying to cut through some of the baggage that is associated with Christianity and present what I see is the essence of it - what do we make of Jesus. My personal view is that he is the Christ, God incarnate, the "new man" in which I find love, life and restoration. I hesitate to expound further because the words tend to sound like religious jargon. But perhaps I could add, that as I understand Christ, he invites us to know him, but does not force himself on anyone. Paradoxically, God makes it easy for us to disbelieve.
One of the interesting things about Christ is the types of people that were drawn to him - including tax collectors & prostitutes. Something about him signalled love and acceptance that made them want to be near him. One of the pitfalls of Christians engaging in politics is that we tend to become defined by what we stand against, not what we stand for.
1,144 days have passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." Despite the fact that several of the original Al Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured, bin Laden is still free and dangerous and Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.
558 days have passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his swaggering "mission accomplished" speech. Today our forces are engaged in heavy combat in Iraq, after an election-season lull.
The battle in Fallujah rages, and there is no doubt that our forces can take the city: U.S. Begins Main Assault in Falluja, Setting Off Street Fighting. The question is, what then? What will stop the guerrillas from returning when our forces leave? Already while our forces concentrated on Fallujah violence has doubled across the rest of Iraq.
An American soldier was killed in eastern Baghdad when his patrol was attacked by small-arms fire, the military said. At least 1,130 American troops have died in the war. South of Baghdad, a British soldier from the Black Watch Battle Group was killed and two others were wounded when a roadside bomb hit a patrol. It was the fourth death for the storied unit since it rolled into central Iraq last week to help bolster the military presence there while the Americans attack Falluja. In the northern city of Mosul, where an American Army brigade equipped with new Stryker armored vehicles has been losing ground against insurgents, fighters armed with Kalashnikovs poured out into the streets at a major intersection at 3 p.m. to fire at American troops, witnesses said. One resident, Yasir Abdul-Razzaq, said he had seen small groups of fighters carrying around mortar tubes and exchanging coordinates with one another over cellphones before firing their shells. American soldiers fired back and called in support from helicopters. An American military official in Baghdad said the number of roadside bombs and suicide car bombs had doubled across Iraq recently, with the biggest increase in Mosul.
An American soldier was killed in eastern Baghdad when his patrol was attacked by small-arms fire, the military said. At least 1,130 American troops have died in the war.
South of Baghdad, a British soldier from the Black Watch Battle Group was killed and two others were wounded when a roadside bomb hit a patrol. It was the fourth death for the storied unit since it rolled into central Iraq last week to help bolster the military presence there while the Americans attack Falluja.
In the northern city of Mosul, where an American Army brigade equipped with new Stryker armored vehicles has been losing ground against insurgents, fighters armed with Kalashnikovs poured out into the streets at a major intersection at 3 p.m. to fire at American troops, witnesses said. One resident, Yasir Abdul-Razzaq, said he had seen small groups of fighters carrying around mortar tubes and exchanging coordinates with one another over cellphones before firing their shells. American soldiers fired back and called in support from helicopters.
An American military official in Baghdad said the number of roadside bombs and suicide car bombs had doubled across Iraq recently, with the biggest increase in Mosul.
If the our government learns nothing else from this disaster in Iraq, it must learn that nation-building requires a large number of troops on the ground and serious advance planning. But I hope this affair drums more than that into the thick skulls at the White House. Lives depend on it.
I found your last post very eloquent and agree wholeheartedly with this:
...But perhaps I could add, that as I understand Christ, he invites us to know him, but does not force himself on anyone. Paradoxically, God makes it easy for us to disbelieve. One of the interesting things about Christ is the types of people that were drawn to him - including tax collectors & prostitutes. Something about him signalled love and acceptance that made them want to be near him. One of the pitfalls of Christians engaging in politics is that we tend to become defined by what we stand against, not what we stand for.
...But perhaps I could add, that as I understand Christ, he invites us to know him, but does not force himself on anyone. Paradoxically, God makes it easy for us to disbelieve.
What I don't understand is how you get from those positive statements to your position that the government should put your specific beliefs into law. How do you resolve that apparent contradiction?
If you believe something to be right and just, would you not want to see it reflected in law? If I believe that an unborn child is a human being, am I not compelled to speak on his/her behalf? If I believe that marriage is ordained by God for the good of society, am I not compelled to speak in defense of that? If these become broadly shared beliefs, they will be reflected in our laws as well. We live in a democratic republic where every citizen bears a responsibility to contribute to the formation of public policy, does my being a Christian disqualify me?
Regarding your list of questions, which I assume this time are not rhetorical:
If I believe that an unborn child is a human being, am I not compelled to speak on his/her behalf? Yes. If I believe that marriage is ordained by God for the good of society, am I not compelled to speak in defense of that? Yes. We live in a democratic republic where every citizen bears a responsibility to contribute to the formation of public policy, does my being a Christian disqualify me? No. If you believe something to be right and just, would you not want to see it reflected in law? No.
If I believe that an unborn child is a human being, am I not compelled to speak on his/her behalf?
Yes.
If I believe that marriage is ordained by God for the good of society, am I not compelled to speak in defense of that?
We live in a democratic republic where every citizen bears a responsibility to contribute to the formation of public policy, does my being a Christian disqualify me?
No.
If you believe something to be right and just, would you not want to see it reflected in law?
Many of our forefathers crossed the ocean to live by their own moral and religious codes without government interference, and corrupting our government by mixing it with religion--even mine--dishonors their memory and sacrifices. Laws passed by congress (and enforced with a heavy hand by government agencies, I might add) should aim to defend our nation, to keep civil society running fairly and smoothly, and to preserve our land for future generations.
In your posts you shift smoothly between "defending the unborn child," which few disagree with, and "life begins at conception," which is an arcane theological point, recently arrived at. Yet it is precisely the arcane theological point that constitutes your bottom line as regards our changing the law.
I know you realize that even Christians can read the lovely and compelling Psalm 139 with an open mind and heart without drawing the conclusion that it affirms the particular theological point that you take from it. Non-Christians are unlikely to accept any such theological point no matter how it is presented unless it happens to coincide with their beliefs already.
As you pointed out yourself, everything about Jesus' life and teaching tells us to focus on our own morality and behavior instead of on that of others. Nothing about His life and teaching asks us to force others to accept arcane theological points as a matter of law.
People who wish to put their religious ideas into law are today's equivalent of the Pharisees of Jesus' time. And they stand in exactly the same relationship to Jesus. That's the truth of the matter.
That life begins at conception is not an arcane theological point, it is a biological reality. 44 cell replications produce an infant, 4 more an adult.
You may debate the humanity of that life at whatever point you choose, but you cannot prove that that life is not alive.
In calling me a Pharisee, are not you doing exactly what you chided L2 and Bobcat for? You surprise me.
When I asked you for your basis for contending that life begins at conception, you referred me to Psalm 139, not to biology. It is plainly not a biological reality at all. And we certainly don't need the government to state the laws of science.
I don't use the term Pharisee for the purposes of gratuitous name calling (my apologies if it appears so) but to evoke the precise historical parallels of the respective time periods (and, perhaps, to get you thinking about those parallels). I have nothing but respect for your beliefs and for your efforts to persuade others to your side through word and example. You strike me as a fine person, a credit to our community. I part company with you when you advocate imposing your beliefs on others through the law.
To suggest that Jesus needs the help of the Pharisees to protect unborn children is, if not blasephemous, a sign of little faith. You've been honest with me and I respect you immensely for that. I'm not making debating points here. I too am writing sincerely, from the bottom of my heart.
You puzzle me. How can I be "a credit to our community" if I am as sadly misguided as you deem me?
This comment also puzzles me
To suggest that Jesus needs the help of the Pharisees to protect unborn children is, if not blasephemous, a sign of little faith.
I am sure that you do not mean that we should not defend the weak or helpless. Suppose I held the firm belief that slavery was a good institution. Would you impose your belief that it was unjust upon me (I certainly hope you would do what you could.) I also suspect that at some poin in fetal development you would deem the developing child someone who warrants some form of protection. Are you willing to impose that belief? How do you feel about partial birth abortion - are you willing to "impose your belief" there.
All law could be construed as a form of imposing the beliefs of the many upon others. We try to protect the environment, etc., even though not all may agree to the restrictions that are needed. If you insist that I wear this imposing one's belief albatross, I think you should be try it on to see if it fits you as well.
You are a credit to the community because (I believe from your posts that) you live a fine moral life as a sincere Christian and set a good example for your family and those who know you. Good people and smart people can also be wrong about some things. That doesn't discredit their positive contributions to the community.
You are shifting your argument again when you say this:
I am sure that you do not mean that we should not defend the weak or helpless.
What we were talking about is your contention--and it is indeed an arcane and recent theological point with no support in scripture, science, or common sense--that life begins at conception, which you put forward as your bottom line issue for incorporating into law. Of course I'm ready to discuss that point with you, but I can see that's not where you want to go with this.
You make this argument about the law:
All law could be construed as a form of imposing the beliefs of the many upon others.
I disagree. Laws are established to create a civil order for the common good of the citizens. Our founders fled to our shores to avoid the imposition of unwelcome beliefs. If the civil laws coincide with one's religious beliefs, fine. But let's not try to extend the reasoning in the opposite direction.
Then you argue that we're two peas in a pod:
If you insist that I wear this imposing one's belief albatross, I think you should be try it on to see if it fits you as well.
In harmony with the life and teaching of Jesus, I have no intention of trying to force my religious beliefs into civil law, let alone any arcane theological points I hold to be true. We are not at all the same in that regard, and the difference sums up our disagreement.
two questions
Would you afford an unborn child the protection of law at any point prior to natural birth?
Should the right of privacy be extended to permit infanticide (it could be called post natal abortion, or a more palatable term) in cases where a child is born severely handicapped?
In bloody Iraq today, our forces continued to expand control of Fallujah: U.S. Forces Hold 70 Percent of Fallujah.
As of Tuesday night, 10 U.S. troops and two members of the Iraqi security force had been killed, a toll that already equaled the number of American troops who died when Marines besieged the city for three weeks in April. Major Francis Piccoli, of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, characterized fighting overnight as "light to moderate" and said U.S. casualties were "extremely light."
As of Tuesday night, 10 U.S. troops and two members of the Iraqi security force had been killed, a toll that already equaled the number of American troops who died when Marines besieged the city for three weeks in April.
Major Francis Piccoli, of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, characterized fighting overnight as "light to moderate" and said U.S. casualties were "extremely light."
Why is the level of resistance only "light to moderate"? On November 5 at 1:37 p.m. I posted this:
Keeping my promise, I provide this link today to keep you all posted on how this plays out: Rebel Fighters Who Fled Attack May Now Be Active Elsewhere.
Insurgent leaders in Falluja probably fled before the American-led offensive and may be coordinating attacks in Iraq that have left scores dead over the past few days, according to American military officials here. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant who is the most wanted man in Iraq, has almost certainly departed, military officials say. Americans say his group is responsible for ambushes, bombings and beheadings that have killed hundreds of people in more than a year.
Insurgent leaders in Falluja probably fled before the American-led offensive and may be coordinating attacks in Iraq that have left scores dead over the past few days, according to American military officials here.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant who is the most wanted man in Iraq, has almost certainly departed, military officials say. Americans say his group is responsible for ambushes, bombings and beheadings that have killed hundreds of people in more than a year.
1,145 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." 559 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
I have no idea why you keep asking questions like this:
I can't begin to imagine why you'd propose such a thing. It seems totally at odds with your other stated positions, not to mention well established law. What is your basis for it? And this one too:
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. In Roe vs. Wade (1973) the court ruled that a woman does not have the absolute right to abortion, and I agree. The court said there were compelling state interests in "safeguarding health" and "protecting potential life" that could justify regulation, and I agree. In Webster vs. Reproductive Health (1989) the court ruled that a state could forbid the abortion of a viable fetus except when the mother's life was at stake, and I agree. I'm not the one advocating abandoning these settled points of law, you are. In the next few years, we'll see how things turn out when the states decide these issues individually.
Why ask these questions?
It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you keep coming back to questions like these to avoid discussing what you called your bottom line issue: putting into law your religious belief that life begins at conception. You originally offered Psalm 139 in support of your belief, and I accept your right to build whatever theological contructs you choose upon the words of that beautiful psalm. I simply part company with you when you advocate putting your personal theological constructs into civil law.
Biological reality
When I explained my objection to putting theological points into civil law, you quickly shifted to a new rationale:
That life begins at conception is not an arcane theological point, it is a biological reality.
When I begged to differ, you began to evade the issue entirely with a series of beside-the-point questions. Perhaps upon reflection you saw the problems with your statement, but why not just admit it and move on instead of being evasive?
The biological reality is that we are made up of living cells. Old cells die and the body sloughs them off. New cells replace them and also heal the cuts and wounds we suffer.
A woman's egg is already a living cell. Upon conception, it remains a living cell, exactly as alive as it was before conception. No "new life" begins at conception. Rather, a living cell within the mother, now fertilized, has the potential to grow into one or more separate human beings. Most of the time the mother's body aborts the fertilized egg naturally, long before it grows into a human being. Sometimes the fertilized egg does mature into a human being. Occasionally (by the 12th day or before) it splits into two or more embryos, both or all of which may eventually mature into human beings.
Freedom of religion
You have every right to proclaim your religious belief that life begins at conception. You have every right to live your life according to that belief and to persuade others to follow you. But you are wrong to try to use the law to force others to live by your personal religious doctrines. To do so is against the principles that made America great.
Why do you always make speeches when I ask simple questions? I am trying to see if we have some common grounnd - if you identify with an unborn child at any stage of its development and feel any sense of moral responsibility toward protecting it.
As far as my position, perhaps I have not made myself clear. I believe that we are all created by God and therefore, each and every human life has worth. My reference to Psalm 139 is in reference to that, not as an assertion that life begins at conception, although you seem to agree that a unique living individual comes into being at that point. Now, at what point does this individual become someone that you would feel a moral sense to defend? At birth, before, or sometime later?
Personally, when I see pictures of a developing child in the womb I see a fellow human being - something with head, hands and feet, something that moves. If you label me a pharisee for wanting to do what I can to protect that life, then I will wear that label proudly.
You already know we have common ground and plenty of it--but not when it comes to putting religious doctrine into civil law. Why do you keep trying to evade that issue? Now you say:
Personally, when I see pictures of a developing child in the womb I see a fellow human being - something with head, hands and feet, something that moves.
But you know that is simply not the disagreement between us. At conception, you see no head, hands, or feet. There is a just single cell that may or may not develop into a human being--usually not. An acorn has no branches and no leaves and is not an oak tree, although it has the potential to become one. A single cell is not a human being either, although it has the potential to become one. You wish to pass into law something that is plainly not a biological fact, but rather your own personal theology.
I oppose doing so. It's just that simple. You're a good person, but that's where you're wrong. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree: you think it's okay--even a point of pride--to use civil law to enforce one's religion; I don't.
I could respond, but I know I will never outlast you, so I will hold my peace. I only ask that you reconsider the motives that you have assigned to me and perhaps find it in your heart to give me the benefit of the doubt. If you are offering a truce, I accept. Otherwise, I will embarrass myself by stomping out of here petulantly and slamming the door.
Any of that kosher pie left?
Yeah there's still some pie left, Moots. But you might need more than one piece just to get you through this long food-for-thought post.
Now just to refresh (as I’ve been away a couple days):
Moots wrote:
CJ, My apologies, I don't mean to paint you into a corner and administer litmus tests. I presented Jesus' question as a rhetorical one, not as a demand for you to take a position. I was simply trying to cut through some of the baggage that is associated with Christianity and present what I see is the essence of it - what do we make of Jesus. My personal view is that he is the Christ, God incarnate, the "new man" in which I find love, life and restoration. I hesitate to expound further because the words tend to sound like religious jargon.
No apology necessary, Moots. Nor is there is any corner to be painted into. I hesitate to expound further with religious jargon as well but I will in an attempt to clarify my position. When you chose to draw on Mark 8:29 I thought perhaps an evangelical sales pitch might be in the offing hence my light-hearted “litmus test” remark (believe me, I’ve heard many an evangelical sales pitch and they weren’t all from Christian’s LOL). But the issue here for me is not solely about one’s personal faith, it’s also about that evidence upon which one’s faith is based. For me, the real significance of Peter’s reply to Jesus’s question (“Who Do You Say That I Am?”) lies first in defining what the word “Christ” would have meant to a first century Jew. And then there’s a much deeper question concerning the historical credibility of the New Testament itself (a larger issue I have grappled with over the past couple of years on a non-partisan “Historical Jesus” forum with people much more erudite on the subject than I). The canonical New Testament is a document stuffed with inaccuracies, contradictions, anachronisms and a unique species of theological dogma which was assembled and redacted over several centuries by many different hands in the early christian community and perfected into the perfect mouse-trap it is by such early catholic script doctors as Tertullian, Irenaeus and Eusebius. The NT was created over many generations and it reflects the ongoing internecine theological battles going on at the time. The earliest possible date based on archaeological evidence that we have we have for any of the gospels is a fragment of John (known as P52) found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt and paleographically dated roughly in a range from 125-175 CE (and there are paleographers who think it’s even younger than that). This means that a century or more of time has passed before we have any documented evidence at all about the purported life of Jesus of Nazareth. Josephus the Jewish historian (b. 37 AD) mentioned no fewer than nineteen different Jesus's, about half of them contemporaries of the Jesus of Nazareth. But none of Josephus’s Jesus’s is the Saviour from Nazareth depicted in the Gospels.
Rather than Mark 8:29, what if you had chosen Mark 10:18, for example, where Jesus says: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” Jesus doesn’t seem to think he’s “God” Incarnate here and this sort of remark is much more in line with 1st century Jewish thought. To 1st century Jews the “Christ” would have had a much different meaning than it seems to have for many contemporary Christians. Greek speaking Jews familiar with the Septuagint--an OT written in Greek which was available to Hellenic Jews in the Mediterrean area by at least 130 BCE—not only knew that “Christ” meant “anointed one”, they also knew that there were prior “anointed ones” in their scriptures including Saul (I Samuel), David (Psalms) and even the Persian King Cyrus (Isaiah 45). So when Peter says, in Mark 8:29, “Thou art the Christ” he is saying that Jesus is the “Anointed One”. Hence the mocking plaque later hung about Jesus’s neck “King of the Jews” and thus the sense of John 9:5 “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world”. Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of whether the Gospels are an accurate picture of his actual life, may have really been the Lord’s anointed for his time and place. A Jewish reformer perhaps who objected to the practices and beliefs of a corrupt theocratic Jerusalem Temple priesthood and that Roman occupation which supported it. And if so, it’s certainly possible he was crucified for his trouble in utter obscurity along with hundreds and hundreds of others. But Jesus’s Gospel (if we can trust in the historical validity of the NT) was about the coming Kingdom of God, not about himself. The Gospel about Jesus came much much later and it’s quite likely that the cartoonish superhero “Son of God” celebrity-cult figure depicted in the canonical NT was a creation of a few early church fathers who augmented the original Jesus tale with ideas lifted from Greco-Roman myth and Stoic philosophy, added a heavily interpolated version of Paul's extraordinary Mystery Religion writings, and then midrashed much of the rest straight from the Septuagint and other Jewish scriptures circulating at the time. Because of the 20th century Qumran and Nag Hammadi scroll finds, modern biblical scholarship has gone through a revolution in understanding in what original Christianity may have really been like as it branched off the 2nd Temple religious literature and began to be practiced by Hellenic Jews in coastal cities like Alexandria.
Is there evidence of any specific pre-existing scripture which the early Gospel writers (or perhaps Jesus himself) could have literally poached from for some of their revolutionary theological ideas? Well there’s the so-called “Messianic Apocalypse” scroll fragment 4Q521 discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran which has been paleograph-ically dated to the early 1st century BCE and contains some very Gospel like verses far ahead of it’s time:
[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones.Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?) For more: http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/4q521.html
[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones.Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)
For more: http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/4q521.html
If you read the so-called messianic Psalms (2, 8, 16, 22, 45, 89, 110 and 132) for comparison you can see some stylistic similarities with fragment 4Q521, but the Lord’s “anointed” (David) in the Psalms was depicted as a rather ineffectual and beleaguered king. In fragment 4Q521, “His Messiah” (the “Christ” or “Anointed One” of God) talks the talk but it is still the same old OT Lord who walks the walk (performs the spiritual miracles). Though David clearly had all the makings of an OT prototype to be drawn on by either an ambitious messianic figure himself or some later chroniclers, the 4Q521 Messiah/Christ seems more akin to that figure prophesized in Micah, Zechariah, Malachi and 1 Enoch: Jewish scripture locally available throughout the whole 1st century BCE until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. If, as now seems to be the case, most everyone living in the greater Jerusalem region before, during and after Jesus of Nazareth's purported lifetime had reasonable access to all this 2nd Temple literature including those highly charged expectations found in such texts as I Enoch and the “Messianic Apocalypse” 4Q521, scroll fragments of which were found at Qumran, well, what then?
I try to imagine what it must have been like to be alive during the late 2nd Temple Period, under a Roman occupation, with this kind of apocalyptic religious literature swirling around in people's heads. Sooner or later it would seem, some of those who are really gung-ho on the pitch from such scrolls are gonna step up to the plate and take a messianic swing at it. Perhaps the canonical NT really is a literary palimpsest which slowly evolved and mutated from the stories passed down of one or more of those figures who did just that, but by the time this official church document finally emerged in the 4th century it had metamorphosed whatever early oral traditions may have existed into a 200+ page multicultural mixed-bag fantasia whose factual wheat and fictional chaff had been syncretically fused into a revolutionary literary hybrid whose darker theological purpose lay in serving the hierarchic ambitions of that early church priesthood who wielded it as the new unifying holy scripture for all people within an increasingly embattled Roman Empire ruled by Constantine the Great
On a personal level I have always felt a strong personal faith in, or connection with, God. Even in childhood when I had no name for an experiental relationship I could strongly feel but was unable to put into words (though I would currently define that relationship far too ecumenically to please the practitioners of any particular religion). Christmas continues to be my favorite holiday even though I know there is no absolutely evidence that it was Jesus’s actual birthday. I still love the idea that an obscure Galilean carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth had a spiritual one-on-one hookup with the Almighty and perhaps even tried to steer the world he knew in a wise and positive direction during his own lifetime. I’d also like to think that there are some genuine remnants of Jesus’s life accurately depicted in the gospels whose ministry and passion narrative remain arguably the “greatest story ever told”. But the NT’s “Jesus of Nazareth” has never been accepted as Messiah by the great majority of Jews, who know the scent of a fishy (pardon the pun) intellectual sales pitch when they smell one, and whose long running opinions on this important matter are well worth considering. Jesus was neither the first nor the last of those who’ve been “anointed” by God over the long centuries of human history, though a case could be made that he is the paradigmatic exemplar of a very long-running spiritual phenomenon. But were he among us today and could make a categorical comment on the actual factual content contained within the canonical New Testament, I have no faith that you would hear him say anything close to that political mantra we all heard on TV so often prior to November 2nd:
“I’m Jesus. And I approved this message.”
Thank you for your long and thoughtful post. You have obviously read and thought considerably in this area, whereas I must confess, my reading has been far less broad. I am probably way out of my depth on this one, but let me try.
In his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul ( I'm quoting from memory here) states something to the effect that man through his reason is unable to know God. That is a remarkable confession by a highly educated man to people whose culture was saturated with skepticism, critical thinking and intellectual ferment. He instead states that he knows nothing but Christ, and Him crucified - utter foolishness to the rational mind, but the "wisdom of God".
As I understand God, He does not approach us through our intellect. On the other hand, Jesus did not present that question to Peter without a backround context. Peter had been with him some time and had a chance to form an opinion based on the evidence available to him.
There is a limit to apologetics, and I suspect you have debated these issues often. Your well-laid out post indicates that. All that I can say is that thousands of Christians, contemporaries of Christ, died maintaining that he rose from the dead - which should count for something.
As for myself, I believe in Christ because there is something about the gospel that resonates within. I wish I could give you a bettter answer, but I would need many more platefuls of pie, more than this pharisee could eat in a lifetime. If I mayhowever, let me add there is something, almost too good to be true, about Christ, that he gives us his righteousness that we can be friends of God, and sit and eat with him. I don't know about you, but I am aware of too many of my own sins and faults to believe that I could ever achieve goodness. I really can't even live by my own standards, something which Paul discusses in his letter to the Romans. I can only suggest to you that what you see of Jesus in the scriptures is what God is like.
Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. That's all of my theology.
Thanks for taking the time to put together that great post for us! You may already know about this, but the Blue Letter Bible site provides a fabulous online resource for comparing biblical translations, including LXX, plus commentaries and reference information for every verse. For example, check out this page on Psalm 139 with the lexicon/concordance expanded for verse 13. Moots, I think you would like the site too.
I answered your post somewhat hurriedly and briefly (insofar as I can't post things from home for some reason), but out of respect for the thought and effort you put into it, I may add comments and thoughts from time to time as I mull it over. Perhaps I will take a copy with me into the woods next week - I enjoy reading while "hunting" deer.
The post-election offensive to retake Fallujah is moving forward despite tough urban fighting: Hard Lesson: 150 Marines Meet 1 Sniper.
The contest is a deadly one, and two marines in Company B, First Battalion, Eighth Regiment of the First Marine Expeditionary Force have been killed by snipers in the past two days as the unit advanced just half a mile southward to Highway 10 from a mosque they had taken on Tuesday. Despite the world-shaking blasts of weaponry as the Americans try to root out the snipers, this is also a contest of wills in which the tension rises to a level that seems unbearable, and then rises again. Marine snipers sit, as motionless as blue herons, for 30 minutes and stare with crazed intensity into the oversized scopes on their guns. If so much as a penumbra brushes across a windowsill, they open up.
The contest is a deadly one, and two marines in Company B, First Battalion, Eighth Regiment of the First Marine Expeditionary Force have been killed by snipers in the past two days as the unit advanced just half a mile southward to Highway 10 from a mosque they had taken on Tuesday.
Despite the world-shaking blasts of weaponry as the Americans try to root out the snipers, this is also a contest of wills in which the tension rises to a level that seems unbearable, and then rises again. Marine snipers sit, as motionless as blue herons, for 30 minutes and stare with crazed intensity into the oversized scopes on their guns. If so much as a penumbra brushes across a windowsill, they open up.
Elsewhere in Iraq, the displaced insurgents have opened new fronts: Insurgents rampage through Mosul.
Insurgents have set police stations ablaze, stole weapons and brazenly roamed the streets of Mosul as Iraq's third largest city appeared to be sliding out of control, residents said. Explosions and fire from assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades echoed across the city and columns of smoke rose from at least two police stations set alight. At least seven police stations have been attacked in the past 48 hours. The US military issued a statement admitting that local security forces had been overrun in several areas and said local authorities were doing what they could to restore order.
Insurgents have set police stations ablaze, stole weapons and brazenly roamed the streets of Mosul as Iraq's third largest city appeared to be sliding out of control, residents said.
Explosions and fire from assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades echoed across the city and columns of smoke rose from at least two police stations set alight. At least seven police stations have been attacked in the past 48 hours.
The US military issued a statement admitting that local security forces had been overrun in several areas and said local authorities were doing what they could to restore order.
1,146 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
560 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Cousin Jack's mention of his involvement in a forum on the historical Jesus reminded me of the tremendous resources available online concerning the older books of scripture also. Again, Cousin Jack might already know about the ebla forum, but I think that you would like this site also, Moots. Both the forum and the library contain massive amounts of fascinating information about our religious and cultural heritage. For example, posters to the forum there discuss many issues in a format like this. From the library, here is a captivating and objective essay on the work of Galileo and the deterioration of his relationship with Urban VIII (with a few minor typos); here is a small excerpt:
Galileo sketched the scene of two friends in a ship's cabin, throwing a ball to each other and taking note of the movements of fish, butterflies and the like that happen to be with them. On the first occasion this situation plays out while the ship is at rest alongside; on the second, it is underway. The friends in the former notice no difference in the force needed to throw the ball in one direction rather than another and observe no similar difficulty in the animal sharing the cabin with them. This remains the case, according to Galileo, for the latter, too. This is the introduction of Galilean relativity, which was relied on much later by Einstein. From the perspective of the friends in the cabin, the motion of the ship relative to land has no effect on the motion of the ball relative to the cabin, since the additional motion imparted to the ball by the motion of the ship is also granted to the cabin. This implied that the stone dropped from the mast of a moving ship appears to fall straight down because its motion in any other direction is shared by the ship—or the inertial frame in modern parlance—so that the observer sees only a straight descent. Likewise, the stone dropped from a tower on a moving Earth is not viewed from an absolute point of reference but relative to the tower and its immediate surroundings, which are (according to the assumption of geokineticism) also moving. The importance of relativity can scarcely be overstated, but what Galileo was able to do was take an observation that refuted geokineticism, re-describe it, and so turn it into a confirmation of the Earth's movement. This is an example of meaning variance between theories, a concept that would later form the basis of the notion of incommensurability. It shows Galileo not to be rejecting observation on the basis of theory, or vice versa, but using reasoning to invite his readers to consider the evidence of their senses in a new way in support of a different worldview. Any effort to cast him solely as an empiricist or a rationalist, then, is bound to fail.
Galileo sketched the scene of two friends in a ship's cabin, throwing a ball to each other and taking note of the movements of fish, butterflies and the like that happen to be with them. On the first occasion this situation plays out while the ship is at rest alongside; on the second, it is underway. The friends in the former notice no difference in the force needed to throw the ball in one direction rather than another and observe no similar difficulty in the animal sharing the cabin with them. This remains the case, according to Galileo, for the latter, too.
This is the introduction of Galilean relativity, which was relied on much later by Einstein. From the perspective of the friends in the cabin, the motion of the ship relative to land has no effect on the motion of the ball relative to the cabin, since the additional motion imparted to the ball by the motion of the ship is also granted to the cabin. This implied that the stone dropped from the mast of a moving ship appears to fall straight down because its motion in any other direction is shared by the ship—or the inertial frame in modern parlance—so that the observer sees only a straight descent. Likewise, the stone dropped from a tower on a moving Earth is not viewed from an absolute point of reference but relative to the tower and its immediate surroundings, which are (according to the assumption of geokineticism) also moving.
The importance of relativity can scarcely be overstated, but what Galileo was able to do was take an observation that refuted geokineticism, re-describe it, and so turn it into a confirmation of the Earth's movement. This is an example of meaning variance between theories, a concept that would later form the basis of the notion of incommensurability. It shows Galileo not to be rejecting observation on the basis of theory, or vice versa, but using reasoning to invite his readers to consider the evidence of their senses in a new way in support of a different worldview. Any effort to cast him solely as an empiricist or a rationalist, then, is bound to fail.
We are so lucky to live at a time when the Internet allows us to live in place we love and still have access to more information than we could ever hope to absorb!
I'm not ready to reopen that can of worms, but in a more relaxed state of mind I browsed some of our earlier posts and noticed that in my skim-reading haste I missed the main focus of the question you asked regarding life beginning at conception. I interpreted it in broader terms, which is why I seemed to be answering a question that you did not ask. I suppose I should read more carefully before I dash off a reply, but in the heat of debate.... I hope this doesn't sound like an apology, or does it?
No, and you surely needn't apologize. I appreciate your honestly-written posts even though I mildly disagree with some of them. In no way do I impugn your motives either. In fact, I'm pretty well posted out on that particular topic for now myself.
Leave one in the woods for me!
For all our troops:
Unless we believe in the hero, what is there to believe? Examination of the Hero in a Time of War Wallace Stevens
Unless we believe in the hero, what is there to believe?
Examination of the Hero in a Time of War
Wallace Stevens
Moots writes:
As I understand God, He does not approach us through our intellect.
Little disagreement from me here as I've already testified. But if you give the Big Kahuna some reasonable contemplative time, everything will eventually percolate up from your heart (per John Wesley) all the way up to your head (per St. Augustine?) where the ol' human cerebrum will try 'n' make some rational sense out of it.
Where in the hell have you been, Look2it, people die everyday for reasons utterly trivial and this is the world that has always existed.
We're all windbags and here's one whose current CO2 exhalation may actually make a political difference:
The world's most powerful, most visible democracy has a chance to send a strong message to the region's people, especially its youth - a message of deeds, not words. That means fulfilling the promise of a rebuilt, violence-free, democratic and sovereign Iraq. For more: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/12/opinion/12abdullah.html?hp
The world's most powerful, most visible democracy has a chance to send a strong message to the region's people, especially its youth - a message of deeds, not words. That means fulfilling the promise of a rebuilt, violence-free, democratic and sovereign Iraq.
For more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/12/opinion/12abdullah.html?hp
Way to Go, Ab II!
I have printed your post for further ruminations. Since you have written so much I'd like to make a few preliminary observations prior to a more extensive response. BTW, good to have you back, L2, I was afraid you were upset with me.
Random observations
This is a matter of more than passing interest to you, for you would never have delved into this deeply otherwise. You have read the Bible extensively, as well as a lot of critcal analysis. Your "perfect mouse trap" metaphor really got me thinking about my exchanges with BT about abortion - I'll try to lay that out next week. You are a consummate windbag of the first order, far exceeding the Big C, BT or any the other worthies who have favored us with their wisdom. As someone who has ambitions and pretensions in that department, I count it an honor to sit at your feet. Wow, what a rant!
This is a matter of more than passing interest to you, for you would never have delved into this deeply otherwise.
You have read the Bible extensively, as well as a lot of critcal analysis.
Your "perfect mouse trap" metaphor really got me thinking about my exchanges with BT about abortion - I'll try to lay that out next week.
You are a consummate windbag of the first order, far exceeding the Big C, BT or any the other worthies who have favored us with their wisdom. As someone who has ambitions and pretensions in that department, I count it an honor to sit at your feet. Wow, what a rant!
BT, usually deer are quite safe from me, unless one is dumb enough to hold still for the duration of 8 shots while I empty my gun and reload or trot out into the middle of a clearcut and approach me on a road. Still, I have noticed that in recent years, the population is getting dumber.
The post-election battle in Fallujah rages on today: U.S. Troops Push Deeper Into Fallujah.
The four-day Fallujah offensive has killed some 600 insurgents, 18 U.S. troops and five Iraqi soldiers, the U.S. military said. An additional 178 Americans and 34 Iraqi soldiers have been injured, the military said. Overnight, U.S. troops launched another mass offensvie south of the main east-west highway that bisects Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim insurgent stronghold 40 miles west of Baghdad. An Iraqi journalist in the city reported seeing burned U.S. vehicles and bodies in the street, with more buried under the wreckage. He said two men trying to move a corpse were shot down by a sniper.
The four-day Fallujah offensive has killed some 600 insurgents, 18 U.S. troops and five Iraqi soldiers, the U.S. military said. An additional 178 Americans and 34 Iraqi soldiers have been injured, the military said.
Overnight, U.S. troops launched another mass offensvie south of the main east-west highway that bisects Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim insurgent stronghold 40 miles west of Baghdad.
An Iraqi journalist in the city reported seeing burned U.S. vehicles and bodies in the street, with more buried under the wreckage. He said two men trying to move a corpse were shot down by a sniper.
Behind every death, Iraqi or American, are family members devastated by their loss: Death Comes Knocking.
Melissa Givens was told by a chaplain that her husband, Pfc. Jesse Givens, who was 34, had drowned when his tank fell into the Euphrates River. Distraught, she insisted that the chaplain was lying. But she said that was O.K., because she would never tell anyone that he had lied. She said he could walk away and she would just forget about the whole thing. Private Givens died on May 1, 2003, the day that President Bush, on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Melissa Givens was told by a chaplain that her husband, Pfc. Jesse Givens, who was 34, had drowned when his tank fell into the Euphrates River. Distraught, she insisted that the chaplain was lying. But she said that was O.K., because she would never tell anyone that he had lied. She said he could walk away and she would just forget about the whole thing.
Private Givens died on May 1, 2003, the day that President Bush, on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Private Givens, and 100,000 others, died to save us from weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. No competent president would have made that hideous mistake.
1,147 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
561 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Well I see you're right back to rhetorically grinding the same old anti-Bush axe, Been There. If you do that everyday for the next 4 years you'll be standing in a pile of iron filings that reach to the ceiling of this website.
Lest we forget, regardless of whether WMD have been found or not, before the war under the U.N. sanctions policy (a policy that covered up a corrupt oil for food skim scam which greatly enriched the Saddam Hussein regime), over 60,000 Iraqis were unnecessarily dying every year according to the pre-war UNICEF figures and at least 2/3rds of them were 5 years old or younger.
Lest we forget, according to the recent Annenburg study:
"When it came to the war in Iraq, 64 percent of the military sample said that the situation had been worth going to war over, while 32 percent said it had not. Of those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby, a smaller share, only 55 percent, said the war had been worth it; 40 percent said it had not."
These are the polling statistics I'm going to pay close attention to over the next year. If support for the Iraq war dips below 50% amongst those who are actually serving I'll post it.
I appreciate your comments, Moots and look forward to your response. But please, no feet seating.
If you're looking for some dumber than your average deer you might want to give the Twin Cities suburbs a try. I see them nearly everyday in our back acre along with a small flock of wild turkeys and all the usual bird and rodent suspects. The occasional black bear or cougar have been sighted as well (though not by me). There's a seemingly endless nomadic menagerie of wandering critters down here and it can be very entertaining at times.
The post-election operation in Fallujah appears to be nearing completion: U.S. Troops Set for Final Attack on Falluja Force.
Twenty-two American servicemen have been killed and 170 wounded in Falluja since the invasion began on Monday evening, said Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, the top Marine commander in Iraq. Of the Iraqi forces, 5 have been killed and 40 wounded, Gen. Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassim, an Iraqi commander, said.
In other areas of Iraq, the insurgency continues unabated:
The American military said one soldier was killed Thursday in Mosul. ... In southern Baghdad, an American soldier was killed and three others wounded Friday in an ambush.
The American military said one soldier was killed Thursday in Mosul.
In southern Baghdad, an American soldier was killed and three others wounded Friday in an ambush.
Now that Bush has been reelected, there will be more changes at the CIA: No. 2 Official at the C.I.A. Announces He's Stepping Down.
A mild-mannered career intelligence analyst, Mr. McLaughlin was a Russia specialist who won respect over his career not for flash and dazzle but for being solid, industrious and reliable.
The events of the last three years highlight the moral dilemma faced by intelligence analysts when they see the President leading the nation to war on the basis of lies, while claiming that those lies are actually "intelligence". What are patriotic citizens to do when their jobs give them unique knowledge about what is going on?
Many analysts risked their jobs to alert the voting public to the truth, in the hopes that voters would restore honesty and decency to the White House. When the public chose otherwise, those analysts will have to pay the price. Republican columnist David Brooks calls them "stupid" to have risked their jobs for the principle of honesty: The C.I.A. Versus Bush.
Policy making is not the C.I.A.'s concern. It is time to reassert some harsh authority so C.I.A. employees know they must defer to the people who win elections, so they do not feel free at meetings to spout off about their contempt of the White House, so they do not go around to their counterparts from other nations and tell them to ignore American policy. In short, people in the C.I.A. need to be reminded that the person the president sends to run their agency is going to run their agency, and that if they ever want their information to be trusted, they can't break the law with self-serving leaks of classified data.
Policy making is not the C.I.A.'s concern. It is time to reassert some harsh authority so C.I.A. employees know they must defer to the people who win elections, so they do not feel free at meetings to spout off about their contempt of the White House, so they do not go around to their counterparts from other nations and tell them to ignore American policy.
In short, people in the C.I.A. need to be reminded that the person the president sends to run their agency is going to run their agency, and that if they ever want their information to be trusted, they can't break the law with self-serving leaks of classified data.
At the end of his article, a mocking Brooks apologized to John Kerry for publishing lies about him (fed to Brooks by Karl Rove) before the election, "not that it will do him much good at this point..."
Cousin Jack, it's interesting that simple statements of fact can be viewed as "anti-Bush". Perhaps the new Attorney General, a torture advocate, can find grounds to prosecute people for the crime of "telling the truth during war". Perhaps he'll advise the president that such dastards can and should be imprisoned indefinitely without recourse. Perhaps torture would be appropriate to convince such dastards to change their tunes.
1,148 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
562 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Some of you may have missed the news Sunday that President Bush has unilaterally abrogated yet another important international agreement: BUSH CANCELS AGREEMENT BETWEEN NOUN AND VERBS.
The president, who had been widely expected to announce a series of faith-based initiatives, surprised Washington insiders by kicking off his second term with a grammar-based one. Mr. Bush left little doubt that he intended to consign the agreement between nouns and verbs to the dustbin of history, telling reporters, “I has a mandate, and I intends to use it.”
The president, who had been widely expected to announce a series of faith-based initiatives, surprised Washington insiders by kicking off his second term with a grammar-based one.
Mr. Bush left little doubt that he intended to consign the agreement between nouns and verbs to the dustbin of history, telling reporters, “I has a mandate, and I intends to use it.”
My suggestion for the days ahead: don't wear your camo outfits in the woods.
Been There writes:
What's amazing, BT, is that I read the same column and came to exactly the opposite conclusion than yours about David Brooks intentions. I perceived absolutely no mocking. I thought about posting a link to show there is indeed some persuasive evidence that the real problem might be in the "intelligence community" and not in the executive branch but I didn't because I thought it was self-evident.
I've already made that point, after all, and I don't particularly enjoy driving it into the ground.
If I were George Bush I would smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and rebuild it from the ground up to get rid of the politicoes and replace them with professional CSI-type empiricists.
The real problem, BT, is that there is something ideologically off-balance within the rigid circuitry of your progagandistic head.
Have a nice day, eh!
The weather is beautiful here today so I'll be out doing some preparations for the looming winter. I hope you too are able to enjoy a beautiful autumn Sunday in the suburbs! Before I go out, though, I'm going to take a couple of minutes to disagree a bit with your last post.
Suppose the president says to the nation, "Information developed by Cousin Jack tells me that, beyond question, Saddam Hussein threatens our nation with nuclear ('nookyuhler'), chemical, and biological weapons; therefore our military must attack Iraq to alleviate the threat." You, Cousin Jack, know that the president's statement is not true. By your lights (and David Brooks'), you should keep your mouth shut about it because (1) it's not your job to set policy and (2) you might lose your job for speaking the truth. That's just not my idea of good citizenship, and has nothing whatever to do with ideology. Are you familiar with the "Pentagon Papers"?
You advocate polling the troops as the correct way to measure the rightness of our military actions:
"Of those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby, a smaller share, only 55 percent, said the war had been worth it; 40 percent said it had not." These are the polling statistics I'm going to pay close attention to over the next year. If support for the Iraq war dips below 50% amongst those who are actually serving I'll post it.
"Of those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby, a smaller share, only 55 percent, said the war had been worth it; 40 percent said it had not."
If I'm to use polling data to resolve the rightness or wrongness of war, I need a clarification from you: if the percentage dips below 50%, does it mean that the war was wrong all along, or does it mean that the war is wrong only at the point that military support for it dips below 50%? If the war becomes wrong, could a successful public relations campaign directed at the soldiers then make it right again?
As you know, I truly hope President Bush succeeds in Iraq; we are in quite a fix and many lives depend upon what happens there. That doesn't blind me to the reality of how we got into this fix in the first place.
It looks like the post-election action in Fallujah is drawing to a close: U.S. Armored Forces Blast Their Way Into Rebel Nest in Falluja. Fighting continues, though, in other areas of Iraq:
The Iraqi government announced in Baghdad on Saturday that it was indefinitely shutting down commercial flights at the airport because of the hostilities. Gunmen also killed the Shiite mayor of the suburb of Dora, and the Foreign Ministry said a Lebanese man had been abducted, Reuters reported. The American military said that a soldier in Baghdad was killed by "indirect fire," probably referring to a mortar or rocket attack.
The Iraqi government announced in Baghdad on Saturday that it was indefinitely shutting down commercial flights at the airport because of the hostilities. Gunmen also killed the Shiite mayor of the suburb of Dora, and the Foreign Ministry said a Lebanese man had been abducted, Reuters reported.
The American military said that a soldier in Baghdad was killed by "indirect fire," probably referring to a mortar or rocket attack.
The New York Times published a thoughtful piece by travel author Robert Kaplan today: Barren Ground for Democracy.
Whether one views the war in Iraq as a noble effort in democratization or a brutal exercise in imperialism, there can be little doubt that it has proved the proverbial "bridge too far" for those who planned and, like myself, supported it. While much has been made of the strategic missteps the Bush administration has made since the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled, it seems likely that even the best-executed occupation would have been a daunting prospect.
1,149 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
563 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
As expected, Colin Powell is bailing out of the Bush administration: Secretary of State Powell Resigns. He had hoped to use his position to protect our country from the neo-cons surrounding Bush, but found the task overwhelming and exhausting. His book will be a best-seller.
Soon our forces in Iraq will be able to move from Fallujah to take on other battles around the country: Rebels Routed in Falluja; Fighting Spreads Elsewhere in Iraq.
American commanders said 38 American servicemembers had been killed and 275 wounded in the Falluja assault, and the commanders estimated that 1,200 to 1,600 insurgents - about half the number thought to have been entrenched in Falluja - had been killed. But there was little evidence of dead insurgents in the streets and warrens where some of the most intense combat took place. Army reconstruction teams were already beginning to survey the devastation in the city, which will require an enormous rebuilding effort. Most of Falluja's 250,000 residents had fled the city before the assault began and have been staying with relatives or in makeshift camps.
American commanders said 38 American servicemembers had been killed and 275 wounded in the Falluja assault, and the commanders estimated that 1,200 to 1,600 insurgents - about half the number thought to have been entrenched in Falluja - had been killed. But there was little evidence of dead insurgents in the streets and warrens where some of the most intense combat took place.
Army reconstruction teams were already beginning to survey the devastation in the city, which will require an enormous rebuilding effort. Most of Falluja's 250,000 residents had fled the city before the assault began and have been staying with relatives or in makeshift camps.
Senators Coleman and Levin are working together to press the U.N. for information regarding the "food for oil" program scandals of the Saddam era: U.N. Obstructs Justice.
The principal investigating body of the Senate is not helpless. Today witnesses from Treasury and C.I.A., as well as its own investigators, will present evidence that the huge rip-off engineered by Saddam Hussein - with the connivance of corrupt U.N. officials and companies protected by Security Council members like Russia and France - was even greater than the $10 billion figure estimated by our G.A.O. Going back to 1991 and including the predecessor to oil-for-food, an outside source tells me that the U.N.-maladministered profiteering reached $23 billion. Such heavy spending affects U.N. votes. The Senate, as it returns to lame-duck work this week, will subpoena evidence through the U. S. connections of companies like Lloyd's Register Inspection Ltd., which Annan's consultant, Paul Volcker, has so far "proactively" kept from cooperating. And there is the budget option: if the U.N. persists in obstruction, the U.S. can re-examine its contribution to an unaccountable organization.
The principal investigating body of the Senate is not helpless. Today witnesses from Treasury and C.I.A., as well as its own investigators, will present evidence that the huge rip-off engineered by Saddam Hussein - with the connivance of corrupt U.N. officials and companies protected by Security Council members like Russia and France - was even greater than the $10 billion figure estimated by our G.A.O. Going back to 1991 and including the predecessor to oil-for-food, an outside source tells me that the U.N.-maladministered profiteering reached $23 billion. Such heavy spending affects U.N. votes.
The Senate, as it returns to lame-duck work this week, will subpoena evidence through the U. S. connections of companies like Lloyd's Register Inspection Ltd., which Annan's consultant, Paul Volcker, has so far "proactively" kept from cooperating. And there is the budget option: if the U.N. persists in obstruction, the U.S. can re-examine its contribution to an unaccountable organization.
In a related story, the U.N. scandal has been replaced by a U.S. scandal in handing out the huge sums being spent by our government to benefit (supposedly) Iraq: A Watchdog Follows the Money in Iraq.
If leaders at the Army Corps of Engineers expected the agency's pesky contracting director, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, to be forced out quietly, they were wrong. From 1997, when Ms. Greenhouse joined the Army's sprawling construction agency with orders to end what some called casual and clubby contracting practices, Corps veterans grumbled that she was a troublemaker. As former officials describe it, some officers regarded her as a stickler for cumbersome rules on things like sharing contracts with small businesses and ensuring open competition for bids. ... Now the Army Corps of Engineers is trying to demote Ms. Greenhouse, 60, or push her into retirement. To the surprise of no one who knows her, she is unbowed, charging in a much publicized letter of Oct. 21 that the Corps has shown a pattern of favoritism toward Halliburton that imperils "the integrity of the federal contracting program." ... Corps leaders had tried to demote Ms. Greenhouse a year earlier, but that effort was derailed in hearings where a former commander of the agency - the one who brought Ms. Greenhouse to the Corps in 1997 with a mandate to make contracting more professional - praised her work. "She did an outstanding job," wrote the former commander, Lt. Gen. Joe N. Ballard, in a sworn affidavit in September 2003. Many senior officials of the Corps, said General Ballard, who retired in 2000, "were associated with favorite companies" and resisted Ms. Greenhouse's "strict and ethical application" of rules intended to encourage fairness and competition. ... "I pass colleagues in the hall who say, 'We're proud of you,' and 'You go get 'em Bunny,' " she said. "But they say this while keeping their heads straight ahead."
If leaders at the Army Corps of Engineers expected the agency's pesky contracting director, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, to be forced out quietly, they were wrong.
From 1997, when Ms. Greenhouse joined the Army's sprawling construction agency with orders to end what some called casual and clubby contracting practices, Corps veterans grumbled that she was a troublemaker. As former officials describe it, some officers regarded her as a stickler for cumbersome rules on things like sharing contracts with small businesses and ensuring open competition for bids.
Now the Army Corps of Engineers is trying to demote Ms. Greenhouse, 60, or push her into retirement. To the surprise of no one who knows her, she is unbowed, charging in a much publicized letter of Oct. 21 that the Corps has shown a pattern of favoritism toward Halliburton that imperils "the integrity of the federal contracting program."
Corps leaders had tried to demote Ms. Greenhouse a year earlier, but that effort was derailed in hearings where a former commander of the agency - the one who brought Ms. Greenhouse to the Corps in 1997 with a mandate to make contracting more professional - praised her work.
"She did an outstanding job," wrote the former commander, Lt. Gen. Joe N. Ballard, in a sworn affidavit in September 2003.
Many senior officials of the Corps, said General Ballard, who retired in 2000, "were associated with favorite companies" and resisted Ms. Greenhouse's "strict and ethical application" of rules intended to encourage fairness and competition.
"I pass colleagues in the hall who say, 'We're proud of you,' and 'You go get 'em Bunny,' " she said. "But they say this while keeping their heads straight ahead."
People like David Brooks might think Ms. Greenhouse "stupid" to risk her job for the sake of the truth. I think she's a true patriot.
1,150 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
564 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Been There asks:
Hope you enjoyed your day outdoors, Been There, it looks like a nice week in the offing as well. Another El Nino winter? Hmmm, personally I could use one.
Here's the problem with your hypothesis, BT. "Cousin Jack" couldn't possibly know whether Saddam had these WMD or not because NOBODY knew. I've already stated my objection to unqualified statements such as "beyond question" (per Dick Cheney in particular). I have no objection to people speaking out in public on policy if they so choose. But we must understand that these individuals are also spinning the "truth" (often coupled with a book to sell and/or an appearance on 60 Minutes).
How can we know when they are or aren't telling the truth?
If they are telling the unadulterated truth and can prove it more power to them (which of course is what many of them are they're really after in the welcome arms of those with money and power on other side of the partisan divide). But if they can't (and they haven't)--rumor and hearsay don't count btw--
The "Pentagon Papers"? What are the "Pentagon Papers"? Perhaps I am just like one of those ignorant nitwits (or whatever) you keep labeling, day in day out, whose presence seem to pervade the Bush administration.
I didn't say anything close to this and you know it. This is called putting your words and thoughts into another person's mouth: a misleading rhetorical technique you seem to be quite fond of btw. I said I would post the poll if support for the war in Iraq by the participating military fell below 50%.
Why?
Because that number would tell me the war doesn't have majority support amongst those who are actually fighting it. That would be an important testimony to me (unlike the pessimistic spin we keep hearing from some pundits).
I believe the "worthness" of this war will be measurable by the quality of the civilization that arises from it's tyrannical ruins and this isn't going to happen overnight as some in the administration thought it would and too many in the "chattering class" now think it should.
I'm truly pleased that you hope President Bush succeeds in Iraq.
Perhaps I just don't hear you say it enough.
Look2it writes:
CJ, people die for trivial reasons? Attacking a country is a trivial reason? Good grief. Okay to die for trivial reasons, macho, macho, but let's make sure a woman can't control the cells in her own body? Do you guys ever listen to yourselves? Oh, I forgot, you are out in the woods looking for something to kill. G'night.
You seem to have a talent for misinterpreting my posts, Look2it. I can't believe this would be purposeful on your part because you seem like such reasonable woman in print.
I said that people die for utterly trivial reasons everyday and they do. They die because they're driving while talking on their cell phone or because a tire tread comes off and rolls their SUV or because a blood vessel tears in their brain or because they don't eat enough food or get the proper medicine (60,000 a year under the UN sanctions policy in Iraq) so a tyrannical dictator can build dozens of opulent pleasure palaces.
Did you take the time to scream about their deaths?
Or does your Bush-hating political spin take precedence over that?
Oh yeah, this too. You've once again looped me into a group to whom I don't belong.
I don't kill things in the woods.
I'm not anti-Choice.
I'm not a Bushie.
Good grief.
As expected, Colin Powell is bailing out of the Bush administration: Secretary of State Powell Resigns. He had hoped to use his position to protect our country from the neo-cons surrounding Bush, but found the task overwhelming and exhausting.
Do we have Mr. Powell's words for this or yours, BT? Did he ever state that his purpose in the Bush administration was to "protect our country from the neo-cons surrounding Bush". If so, please provide the source. It wouldn't be from the inside of your own head now would it?
I will agree with you on one thing (having made my point about the propagandistic nature of your ongoing rhetoric once again), Colin Powell's book will be a best seller.
But personally, I hope he'll come right out with some of the more important tidbits long before he hits the media circuit to autograph memoirs for adoring crowds and talk show hosts. Once his resignation is complete, he will have a unique and important opportunity to reveal to the American Public the gist of what really went on in the days leading up to his February 5th, 2003 U.N. Security Council Address in NYC.
I for one hopes he separates some of the factual wheat from speculative chaff for all of us on the Security Address matter sooner rather than later so we can better understand the policy tug of war between the CIA, Pentagon and White House.
Then we will all be in a better position to "judge" rather than simply "spin".
This one's for Bada Bing (and anyone else) who may not fully understand What's What concerning the everyday politics of those "ignorant Canucks" to the Great White North of us.
Welcome To Canada:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/11/15/whoacanada/print.html
You'll have to watch a mountain climbing film ad to get in and the article is spun from the left side of the political spectrum but it is fair-minded overall and a good read to boot.
A sample:
Politics is a hardball sport here, make no mistake, but the voter spectators aren't driven plumb nuts by the game. Part of the reason is the parliamentary system, where the parties and their platforms outweigh cults of personality. Part of the reason, too, may be a different rural history. In America's hinterlands, the famous "paranoid style" of politics has been stoked into blazing fear and resentment. But not nearly so much across the Canadian prairies, which historically have given rise to great, empowering cooperative movements. Universal healthcare up here started in Saskatchewan's wheat basket. It's the philosophical cousin to the Wheat Pool co-op and the chicken growers' cartel that makes me pay 10 bucks for a scrawny fryer -- but it keeps the lights on in Moose Jaw. Whatever the reasons, "the central difference" between Canada and the United States, writes political philosopher Joseph Heath, "is that the majority of Canadians have no ideological opposition to government."
Yes, it's a beautiful November week here with temperatures in the fifties. My son and I got our boat wrapped up and ready for the winter days ahead. We've still got a few tiny new cracks in the house to seal up before the cold weather hits, but these are pleasant times to work outdoors. I trust you're having a good week too.
Now I'm trying to get a fix on how I've done you wrong regarding the polls of those in service showing that only 55% of those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq believe the war to be worth it. Your latest words on the matter are these:
I said I would post the poll if support for the war in Iraq by the participating military fell below 50%. Why? Because that number would tell me the war doesn't have majority support amongst those who are actually fighting it. That would be an important testimony to me (unlike the pessimistic spin we keep hearing from some pundits).
I said I would post the poll if support for the war in Iraq by the participating military fell below 50%.
The soldiers were polled on whether or not "the war was worth it." You say I mischaracterized your position when I took you to mean that "worth it" equals "right", but you don't say what you actually do conclude from this "important testimony" or why, then, this is the data you pay particular attention to. Could you be more specific as to what conclusions you draw from this? I really didn't intend to twist your words.
Regarding the White House anger with our CIA analysts, you say nobody knew whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMD before our attack on Iraq and further:
I've already stated my objection to unqualified statements such as "beyond question" (per Dick Cheney in particular).
Of course it would have been as impossible to prove that Saddam did not have WMD as proving a negative usually is. There is always that miniscule chance. But there are some things that were clear before the attack:
The source of the conflict between the White House and the CIA was precisely the insistence of CIA analysts upon giving objective information rather than spinning it to support the aims of neo-cons. Douglas Feith, a neo-con at the Pentagon, was assigned the task of managing a rump intelligence agency that would spin intelligence, because the CIA analysts would not.
The unqualified statements you objected to by Cheney and Rumsfeld, plus the "mushroom cloud" statements made by (among others) President Bush and Condi Rice were intended to whip up support for the attack on Iraq by implying that the administration had secret intelligence that could not be revealed. The CIA analysts knew that was hogwash, but the rest of us had no way to be sure.
Patriots at the CIA then became really upset when the White House broke the law by revealing the identity of covert agent Valerie Plume, destroying her effectiveness and putting her life in danger--because her husband had the temerity to point out one of the lies in President Bush's state of the union address. Plume is exactly the type of agent the CIA is too short of these days.
Now Colin Powell, worn out from his constant losing battles to protect our country from the hardline neo-cons in the Bush administration, will be replaced by one: President to name Rice as successor to Colin Powell.
George Bush will today name his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice as Colin Powell's replacement as secretary of state. Friends of the former Gulf War general said his resignation came after a series of rows with defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the war in Iraq. Mr Powell, 67, was "worn down and tired" by his battles with hardliners in the White House, friends tell the New York Times today.
George Bush will today name his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice as Colin Powell's replacement as secretary of state.
Friends of the former Gulf War general said his resignation came after a series of rows with defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the war in Iraq.
Mr Powell, 67, was "worn down and tired" by his battles with hardliners in the White House, friends tell the New York Times today.
1,151 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
565 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Yesterday you asked:
The "Pentagon Papers"? What are the "Pentagon Papers"?
Here is a VVA link that explains them: History of the Pentagon Papers. This is not the only time in our history when people took big risks to expose the lies of our government.
In your recent posts, I notice a tendency on your part to label my arguments (in a friendly way) without addressing their substance:
...there is something ideologically off-balance within the rigid circuitry of your progagandistic head. I will agree with you on one thing (having made my point about the propagandistic nature of your ongoing rhetoric once again), Colin Powell's book will be a best seller.
...there is something ideologically off-balance within the rigid circuitry of your progagandistic head.
Evidently you disagreed with this statement of mine regarding Colin Powell's resignation:
He had hoped to use his position to protect our country from the neo-cons surrounding Bush, but found the task overwhelming and exhausting.
As usual, however, you did not post the specific nature of your disagreement with my statement. Do you think he did not really use his position to battle the neo-cons (perhaps he was actually a closet neo-con himself)? Hardly.
Do you think he didn't realize that he'd have to battle the neo-cons when he took the Secretary of State position? He's an intelligent man.
Do you think he battled them, but found it easy and relaxing? Not likely.
Do you think he won his battles with the neo-cons? Not very often, surely.
Or do you think that Colin Powell battled the neo-cons not to serve his country but to advance his own political goals--as some suggest? In my opinion, Colin Powell's long history of serving this nation puts the lie to any such motive, making my statement completely accurate. Back to you.
I might have to take you up on those Twin City deer. The weather was beautiful, but the woods too noisy for my preferred mode of hunting, wandering about. I did have some time to think, and in the evenings on my computer I tried to distill something from the fermenting mash in my head, which resulted in the following rant.
I’ve reread your post several times and even highlighted some points. Before I blunder forward, may I speculate on several things?
First off, I suspect you have taken classes at a theological seminary (perhaps even taught at one) or a religious school of some sort. If not, you seem to at least have associated considerably with persons conversant in theology and church history. Secondly, I think you are sufficiently familiar with the Bible that quoting chapter and verse to you would be superfluous. Thirdly, I think you could do a far more creditable job arguing against your own objections than I could. I suspect you have been on both sides of these issues, and if you were paid to do so, could make a much more persuasive “evangelical sales pitch” than I could. Fourthly, I think you still may be on both sides of these issues and the internal debate still ferments, perhaps causing occasional heartburn.
First off, I suspect you have taken classes at a theological seminary (perhaps even taught at one) or a religious school of some sort. If not, you seem to at least have associated considerably with persons conversant in theology and church history.
Secondly, I think you are sufficiently familiar with the Bible that quoting chapter and verse to you would be superfluous.
Thirdly, I think you could do a far more creditable job arguing against your own objections than I could. I suspect you have been on both sides of these issues, and if you were paid to do so, could make a much more persuasive “evangelical sales pitch” than I could.
Fourthly, I think you still may be on both sides of these issues and the internal debate still ferments, perhaps causing occasional heartburn.
On the other hand, you may simply be one of these savants to whom knowledge is a toy - something that merely enables you to play chess against yourself and maintain a comfortable, noncommittal detachment. I hope this is not the case.
I’m nor telling you this to smoke you out, but so that you may better understand the context of my remarks. Who you are is your own biz.
Regarding evangelical sales pitches: I’m not smart enough to make the sale with you, and not dumb enough to try. Even if I were, I have serious reservations about “decision” theology.
Regarding the authenticity, reliability, etc. of the scripture, I’m would prefer to leave that can of worms for you to sort out to your own satisfaction. I am passing familiar with biblical and ancient history, the concept of the messiah, the inter-testamental period and the history of early church, but I suspect you could tie me in knots and leave red-faced and stammering on that ground. I only feel qualified to pass on the observations of an acquaintance of mine, whose stock and trade are such things. After reading Paul Johnson’s History of Christianity , I asked him how on earth we could really regard the Bible as God’s Word when the canon itself was the result of very contentious debates. He answered something like this: “You are asking that question because you are a modern man. It is the way we are conditioned to think. The ancient Jews put it to a different test - does this dirty the hands?, meaning does this ring true, or does it this seem false?”
That of course wouldn’t convince a modern jury against the protests and ridicule of a pack of Philadelphia lawyers, but I will rest (abandon?) my defense there for now, and shift my focus to something which the scriptures themselves seem to suggest, particularly in the early chapters of Paul‘s first letter to the Corinthian church.
God does not seek to overwhelm us. It seems that the opposite is true: He seeks to “underwhelm” us.
In support of this I would offer your own dissertation. You raise enough questions and doubts about the Bible that I am left wondering how you could still regard it a “perfect mouse trap“. If it is a mouse trap it would seem to be a rather ramshackle, random affair, a hodgepodge of disparate elements - one that seems to invite skepticism. I have no doubt that you and a small team of editors could build a much better mouse trap out of it in short order. In its current condition, it would seem invite disbelief.
A qualification here: While I don’t think that the Bible is a particularly good mouse trap, it appears to have a very dangerous flaw - it can be easily used by mouse trappers. A cursory reading of the history of the church - or perhaps a single day of life - will suffice to see that the Bible has been, and is still used, for much that is evil and false. (BT would convince me that I have been misusing it regarding the issue of abortion - but perhaps that would best be done over a cup of coffee, face to face.) As I earlier stated, Christianity seems to be something you can ride wherever you want to go, and sadly for so many of us, it is used to gain power and control over others.
It does not seem reasonable that God would entrust such an important revelation that the scriptures purport themselves to be to such a fallible and flawed agency as mankind,
unless that trust is part of the revelation itself.
I learned something from arguing with BT, certainly not all that he would have liked me to learn, but something that relates to this discussion, namely that communication is impossible where there is no trust.
True confession time. In my exchanges with BT, I have at times felt threatened, angered, frustrated, wounded, etc. I don’t really know him (although I think I am beginning to) nor truly trust him (but the fact that I am even saying this perhaps suggests that I am also learning to trust him.) So when he approaches me with what may be to him a straightforward question and presses me for an answer, I see a noose braided from my own words and hear him taunting me to try it on. I see looming defeat, shame, and public humiliation - the stuff of politicians' dreams that end in cold sweats.
So what does the skilled debater do? He runs for his life. He dodges, evades, and attempts to stab back at his opponent’s weak point. Instead of answering a question directly and simply, we rephrase it, parry and attack. (Now BT, understand that this is one of those "deathbed confessions" where the dying man says, but if I don’t die, I take it all back!) My point is simply this: unless we first learn to trust someone, what they say has little meaning to us.
To Jesus’ question, which I rhetorically posed to you, your initial response seemed guarded and wary - the normal response we have when approached by salesmen. Your subsequent post was striking for its erudition and length, but left me wondering if Pontius Pilate didn’t say the same thing in three words - what is truth? On one hand you characterize the Bible as hopelessly flawed and compromised, but on the other you seem to want to hedge your bets on Jesus. The question “Who do you say that I am?” perhaps inspires you or triggers an internal debate, but I would submit that your response is precisely the kind of answer you would give to someone you don’t fully trust.
The Bible can be read in many ways, We are prone to read it guardedly, with something like a “This can‘t be true! “ or “I hope this isn’t true” mindset, because gospel or no gospel, we expect it contains bad news for us - demands that we have to change, clean up our act, make an effort to reform and give up things that we really don’t want to give up. Religion universally requires those things. Man sacrifices something to a deity in return for something. We expect God is like that because that is what we are like. I would submit that, given that mindset, no amount of proofs or corroboratory evidence would be enough to convince us that the Bible is true. Jesus himself says as much in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
I would suggest that there is another way of approaching the scriptures, with a “Can this really be true?” mindset, because somehow God has gotten through my defenses and “underwhelmed” me with love (love is always a tough argument to trump) so that I actually trust Him and believe that He sees me in Christ and therefore says of me, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well-pleased.” If that is true, nothing is required of me - no rules, no observances, no sacrifices, not even, paradoxically, obedience. My standing with God has nothing to do with me, only with what Christ did for me on the cross. I do not seek God, He seeks me. This seems almost too good to be true, which is what the gospel, which means “good news”, would have to be in order for it to be good news.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
You certainly don't need to apologize for your posting style, which seems just fine to me. It's a pleasure to converse online with people having a connection to the Keweenaw who are also intelligent, thoughtful, and good. I find it humbling--and usefully so--to be reminded over and over that other folks, decent and thoughtful too, see things quite a bit differently from me. Of course I always wonder how that could possibly be, hence my probing.
I enjoy discussing things over coffee too, and have occasionally had some stimulating encounters doing so. Often though, it doesn't seem to pan out that way for me. In my experience, most people tend to avoid any kind of public disagreements (except, perhaps, with their spouses). I think their parents drummed into them that discussing anything other than the weather or the most mundane aspects of life is a social faux pas. Bringing up any topic of substance causes most folks to clam up, I've found. People have told me that they find folks who state real, honest opinions to be socially "abrasive" (and I know who they mean). Probably you and the others who post here are those who do relish good, substantive face-to-face conversations, whereas those who read the discussions but don't post are the other type. Just a guess.
One of the things I like about conversing online is that I get to read over and edit what I write before I submit it. When I nevertheless submit something truly ridiculous, I can email Birch Bark to correct it for me, and a couple of times he has helped me out. In an oral discussion, the stupid stuff I say goes right out there and can never be completely expunged no matter what I do next.
I plan to spend sometime outdoors today reveling in these balmy temperatures! I hope you get the chance to do so as well.
The next stop in the post-election clampdown on insurgents in Iraq is Mosul: U.S. Troops Move to Rein in Rebels in North of Iraq.
The American action in Mosul, 225 miles north of Baghdad and Iraq's third largest city, answers a burst of violence that erupted there during the offensive in Falluja. American and Iraqi troops sealed off the five bridges spanning the Tigris River and began blocking off western neighborhoods largely inhabited by Sunni Arabs, who ruled the country in the era of Saddam Hussein. The provincial government imposed a curfew, and the main avenues appeared deserted for much of the day, witnesses said. The loudest noises came from mortar shells exploding near the American forces and helicopters buzzing above rooftops and rows of palm trees.
The American action in Mosul, 225 miles north of Baghdad and Iraq's third largest city, answers a burst of violence that erupted there during the offensive in Falluja.
American and Iraqi troops sealed off the five bridges spanning the Tigris River and began blocking off western neighborhoods largely inhabited by Sunni Arabs, who ruled the country in the era of Saddam Hussein. The provincial government imposed a curfew, and the main avenues appeared deserted for much of the day, witnesses said. The loudest noises came from mortar shells exploding near the American forces and helicopters buzzing above rooftops and rows of palm trees.
By historical standards, the task President Bush has set for our country in Iraq is very difficult to achieve: A Victory, But Little Is Gained.
Since World War II, powerful armies have fought seven major counterinsurgency wars: France in Indochina from 1945 to 1954, the British in Malaya from 1948 to 1960, the French in Algeria in the 1950's, the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Israel in the occupied territories and Russia in Chechnya. Of these seven, four were outright failures, two grind on with little hope of success, and only one - the British effort in Malaya - was a clear success. Many counterinsurgency theorists have tried to model operations on the British effort in Malaya, particularly the emphasis on winning hearts and minds of the local population through public improvements. They have not succeeded. Victory in Malaysia, it appears in retrospect, had less to do with British tactical innovations than with the weaknesses and isolation of the insurgents. The guerrillas were not ethnic Malays; they were recruited almost exclusively from an isolated group of Chinese refugees. The guerrillas never gained the support of a sizable share of the Malaysians. Nevertheless, it took the British 12 years to defeat them, and London ended up granting independence to the colony in the midst of the rebellion.
Since World War II, powerful armies have fought seven major counterinsurgency wars: France in Indochina from 1945 to 1954, the British in Malaya from 1948 to 1960, the French in Algeria in the 1950's, the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Israel in the occupied territories and Russia in Chechnya. Of these seven, four were outright failures, two grind on with little hope of success, and only one - the British effort in Malaya - was a clear success.
Many counterinsurgency theorists have tried to model operations on the British effort in Malaya, particularly the emphasis on winning hearts and minds of the local population through public improvements. They have not succeeded. Victory in Malaysia, it appears in retrospect, had less to do with British tactical innovations than with the weaknesses and isolation of the insurgents. The guerrillas were not ethnic Malays; they were recruited almost exclusively from an isolated group of Chinese refugees. The guerrillas never gained the support of a sizable share of the Malaysians. Nevertheless, it took the British 12 years to defeat them, and London ended up granting independence to the colony in the midst of the rebellion.
Two weeks have passed since the election and we have yet to hear how Bush plans to avoid disaster in Iraq. It would have been even better, of course, if he had planned from the beginning to avoid disaster in Iraq.
1,152 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
566 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
You've totally mystified me with this observation:
You certainly don't need to apologize for your posting style, which seems just fine to me.
Did I apologize for something? As far as my posting style goes, I would no more apologize for that than I would my old battered fishing hat. That's me. Really, that bulge in my cheek is half can of copenhagen, not my tongue.
You are right. Please excuse my stupidity once again.
You feeling ok? I coulda swore you wrote,"You are right." I better open a new can of cope to steady my nerves after a jolt like that! You might check your Bull Durham to see if there's something else mixed in them roll-yer-owns.
What a strange comment! I hope I always acknowledge my mistakes as soon as they're pointed out. (I've had a lot of experience acknowledging mistakes over the years.) That was very poor wording on my part--as usually happens when I post too quickly.
Like most people, though, I appreciate having my errors called to my attention. Without that I'd remain the same old ignoramus I've always been.
You raise enough questions and doubts about the Bible that I am left wondering how you could still regard it a “perfect mouse trap“. If it is a mouse trap it would seem to be a rather ramshackle, random affair, a hodgepodge of disparate elements - one that seems to invite skepticism.
I didn't say "Bible", Moots. I said "New Testament".
I wish I had time for a more detailed response tonight for you and BT but I've only got time for a quick scan and response on the last 2 days posts (this is the one that struck my eye for whatever reasons).
My apologies to both of you.
I'm afraid this will just have to do for now.
Lighten up, guy, I was only pulling your leg. I say stuff like that all the time to my friends, it helps keep them from taking themselves too seriously. BTW, what's the weather like on that planet where most people appreciate having their errors called to attention?
What kind of a graveyard shift do you work that you're writing at 4:30 am?
Drug-addled talkshow host Rush Limbaugh has decided that we have the right to privacy after all: Limbaugh case heads to Florida high court.
Palm Beach County prosecutors are investigating whether Limbaugh went from doctor to doctor to obtain multiple prescriptions for controlled drugs, a felony known as "doctor shopping." Limbaugh, who has not been charged with a crime, admitted an addiction to prescription painkillers last year and took time off from his popular syndicated radio show for drug rehabilitation. Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, has said there was no doctor shopping but the radio host should not have to give up his right to privacy to prove his innocence.
Palm Beach County prosecutors are investigating whether Limbaugh went from doctor to doctor to obtain multiple prescriptions for controlled drugs, a felony known as "doctor shopping."
Limbaugh, who has not been charged with a crime, admitted an addiction to prescription painkillers last year and took time off from his popular syndicated radio show for drug rehabilitation.
Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, has said there was no doctor shopping but the radio host should not have to give up his right to privacy to prove his innocence.
Or at least rich talkshow hosts should have the right to privacy.
Today's news from Iraq: Wave of Iraq violence kills 29.
In the Sunni heartland, US forces pursued their search-and-destroy mission against the remaining fighters in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, and to the north they pressed a fresh offensive to capture part of the city of Mosul from militants. On Wednesday, a suicide attacker drove his bomb-laden car into a US convoy during fighting in the town of Beiji, 249km north of Baghdad, killing 10 people and wounding 12, including three US soldiers. In Ramadi, west of Fallujah, a three-hour gun battle between militants and US forces after nightfall left seven people dead and 13 injured.
In the Sunni heartland, US forces pursued their search-and-destroy mission against the remaining fighters in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, and to the north they pressed a fresh offensive to capture part of the city of Mosul from militants.
On Wednesday, a suicide attacker drove his bomb-laden car into a US convoy during fighting in the town of Beiji, 249km north of Baghdad, killing 10 people and wounding 12, including three US soldiers.
In Ramadi, west of Fallujah, a three-hour gun battle between militants and US forces after nightfall left seven people dead and 13 injured.
1,153 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
567 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Hmmm. I gather that this is another of your tongue-in-cheek questions:
BTW, what's the weather like on that planet where most people appreciate having their errors called to attention?
I always thought they did anyway. Who wants to be wrong? Maybe it was an unwarranted assumption on my part, do you think?
I wondered about CJ's 4:30 a.m. post too. If I did that it would mean I drank way too much coffee the day before (and would regret it sorely in the hours ahead).
It seems to me that we can look at Fallujah as a microcosm of Iraq (excepting, perhaps, the Kurdish areas): Marine Officers See Risks in Reducing U.S. Troops in Falluja.
Senior Marine intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if American troop levels in the Falluja area are significantly reduced during reconstruction there, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. The rebels could thwart the retraining of Iraqi security forces, intimidate the local population and derail elections set for January, the officers say. They have further advised that despite taking heavy casualties in the weeklong battle, the insurgents will continue to grow in number, wage guerrilla attacks and try to foment unrest among Falluja's returning residents, emphasizing that expectations for improved conditions have not been met.
Senior Marine intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if American troop levels in the Falluja area are significantly reduced during reconstruction there, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. The rebels could thwart the retraining of Iraqi security forces, intimidate the local population and derail elections set for January, the officers say.
They have further advised that despite taking heavy casualties in the weeklong battle, the insurgents will continue to grow in number, wage guerrilla attacks and try to foment unrest among Falluja's returning residents, emphasizing that expectations for improved conditions have not been met.
You still seem optimistic about the situation in Iraq, and heaven knows failure there would be very bad for us. What form do you see a successful resolution taking there? Realistically, what do you think the chances are of achieving it? What can the administration do now to help bring it about?
Humility wants to be right, pride wants to be proven right. Neither want to be "wrong".
Yes, that is the way I've looked at it too.
President Bush and his cronies are wasting no time helping themselves again to the earnings of our children and grandchildren: Senate Backs Higher Debt.
Faced with the prospect of a government unable to pay its bills, the Senate voted on Wednesday to raise the federal debt limit by $800 billion. Though an increase in the debt ceiling was never in doubt, Republican leaders in both houses of Congress postponed action on it last month, until after the elections, to deprive Democrats of a chance to accuse them [quite correctly] of fiscal irresponsibility. ... With no end in sight to the huge annual budget deficits, which hit a record of $412 billion this year, lawmakers predicted on Wednesday that the new ceiling would probably have to be raised again in about a year.
Faced with the prospect of a government unable to pay its bills, the Senate voted on Wednesday to raise the federal debt limit by $800 billion.
Though an increase in the debt ceiling was never in doubt, Republican leaders in both houses of Congress postponed action on it last month, until after the elections, to deprive Democrats of a chance to accuse them [quite correctly] of fiscal irresponsibility.
With no end in sight to the huge annual budget deficits, which hit a record of $412 billion this year, lawmakers predicted on Wednesday that the new ceiling would probably have to be raised again in about a year.
Like cockroaches running from the light, the republicans attempted to conceal their latest theft:
Some Republican lawmakers had hoped to bury the measure in a broader spending bill that would attract less attention and that many Democrats would feel compelled to support.
President Bush, a consumate liar and dedicated thief, promised to cut his own deficit in half in five years (when he will be, conveniently for him, out of office). Two weeks after his election, this particular lie of his has been exposed by his own cronies. Of all the republicans in the Senate, only John McCain had the personal integrity to vote against stealing more money from our children and grandchildren.
What is there about being president that disqualifies a man from receiving even the most minimal human courtesy from you and allows you to freely characterize him as a "consumate liar and dedicated thief"?
I would also like to ask that, considering how bad things are here, have you taken steps to take control of your own future and secure those of your children and grandchildren, perhaps through judicious investments in other more enlightened countries, with an eye to possibly emigrating there? L2 has suggested Canada, but I think there might be plenty of space south of the border. Europe is a possibility as well. I just don't see that things are going to be getting any better around here for you, so maybe it's time to consider a amicable split.
In a pig's eye! I didn't leave when we had a liar and adulterer as president (Clinton, of course) and I won't leave now with a liar and thief as president (George W. Bush). What do you call someone who habitually tells untruths and who steals from those unable to defend themselves? A good man?
Is that what you called Clinton? I didn't, even though I much appreciated his restoring fiscal responsibility to our government. (It sure didn't take Bush long to destroy that, did it? Six months.)
Could it really be that you are willing to excuse lying and stealing by a president if he appoints the judges you want? Not me.
Please note that I stopped using Bush's nickname. However, I see no reason not to call a spade a spade. Do you?
If Bush succeeds in Iraq and captures bin Laden, I will give him credit for that as I give Clinton credit for what he accomplished. But, like Clinton, Bush is a miserable human being and a disgrace to the office he holds.
It's a sad commentary on our country that only moral degenerates appear to be electable to the presidency these days. But that's no reason to cut and run. And it's no reason to look the other way.
You're welcome to challenge the prez's statements and policies, but name-calling is divisive and serves no good purpose. "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he stumble." You're a hard man, BT, harder than you think.
I'm considering your words and will hold my fire (on the Bush name-calling) while I think this through some more. I worry that acceding to political correctness as you request tends to gloss over a real problem with the last two men in the White House--a lack of honesty and moral character. I hate to put my stamp of approval on that, regardless of the political objectives of the office holder.
Still, I can see how calling a spade a spade in this case strikes people as harsh, so I'm mulling it over. Thanks for the constructive criticism.
Today's news from Afghanistan: Afghan Poppy Growing Reaches Record Level, U.N. Says.
The scale of poppy cultivation is particularly alarming, because of the growing stranglehold wealthy traffickers and drug lords hold over farmers, and their influence over the economy and government, Afghan officials and foreign experts said. The income from production and trafficking of opium in 2004 was estimated at $2.8 billion, equivalent to about 60 percent of the country's legal gross domestic product, or more than a third of the total economy, the report said.
The scale of poppy cultivation is particularly alarming, because of the growing stranglehold wealthy traffickers and drug lords hold over farmers, and their influence over the economy and government, Afghan officials and foreign experts said.
The income from production and trafficking of opium in 2004 was estimated at $2.8 billion, equivalent to about 60 percent of the country's legal gross domestic product, or more than a third of the total economy, the report said.
Today's news from Iraq: Wave of Violence in Iraq as Marine Is Killed in Fallujah.
A wave of violence engulfed Iraq as a US Marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed in Fallujah yesterday. And 17 other people died in attacks elsewhere in Iraq. Marine intelligence warned that the insurgency would grow despite massive offensives to crush the rebels. The Marine and Iraqi soldier died during continuing mop-up operations in the former insurgent bastion, raising the coalition toll in the fighting to retake the city to 51 US dead and eight Iraqis, the top US Marine commander there said.
A wave of violence engulfed Iraq as a US Marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed in Fallujah yesterday. And 17 other people died in attacks elsewhere in Iraq.
Marine intelligence warned that the insurgency would grow despite massive offensives to crush the rebels.
The Marine and Iraqi soldier died during continuing mop-up operations in the former insurgent bastion, raising the coalition toll in the fighting to retake the city to 51 US dead and eight Iraqis, the top US Marine commander there said.
1,154 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
568 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
On a positive note today, Bush's Treasury Secretary John Snow has succeeded in getting an agreement to reduce some of the debts Iraq incurred under Saddam's rule: Creditors to forgive up to 80 percent of Iraq's debt, German minister says.
Finance Minister Hans Eichel said a meeting with Treasury Secretary John Snow "created the basis on which the forgiveness of Iraqi debt can be settled mutually in the Paris Club" of creditor nations, which is owed about $42 billion by Iraq. We agreed that there should be a write-off of debts in several stages amounting to 80 percent in total,'' Eichel told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of ministers from the Group of 20 major economies.
Finance Minister Hans Eichel said a meeting with Treasury Secretary John Snow "created the basis on which the forgiveness of Iraqi debt can be settled mutually in the Paris Club" of creditor nations, which is owed about $42 billion by Iraq.
We agreed that there should be a write-off of debts in several stages amounting to 80 percent in total,'' Eichel told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of ministers from the Group of 20 major economies.
In addition to the $42 billion owed to the Paris Club nations, which this agreement addresses, Iraq owes $80 billion to Arab nations. Let's hope that amount can be reduced substantially also. Iraq will need all of its resources to rebuild.
Today's war news from Iraq: Fresh violence hits Iraq capital.
At least three policemen died when the rebels fired rocket-propelled grenades at their station in the Adhamiya area. An adviser to an Iraqi minister was killed in a separate attack, along with three other people. A US soldier also died, and nine others were injured, when their unit came under a co-ordinated attack, the US military said in a statement.
At least three policemen died when the rebels fired rocket-propelled grenades at their station in the Adhamiya area.
An adviser to an Iraqi minister was killed in a separate attack, along with three other people.
A US soldier also died, and nine others were injured, when their unit came under a co-ordinated attack, the US military said in a statement.
1,155 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
569 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Rather than characterizing the administration's words in a negative way, I decided to search for a few interesting quotes pertinent to the Iraq war. You can verify them all for yourself on the Internet. A similar series of quotes could be developed for any number of other important topics, and I might do that in the future when time permits. I think you'll remember many of these quotes, but it's interesting to see them juxtaposed.
The Iraq War In Quotes
"When I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the old west, a wanted poster. It said: 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.' All I want and America wants Osama bin Laden brought to justice. That's what we want."- George W. Bush, September 17, 2001
"I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about Osama bin Laden."- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."- Andrew Card, September 7, 2002
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12, 2002
"The entire world knows beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein holds weapons of mass destruction in large quantities."- Dick Cheney, September 23, 2002
"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
- George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading theworld."- Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."- Ari Fleischer, January 9, 2003
"Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28, 2003
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28, 2003
"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28, 2003
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, February 5, 2003
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons." - George W. Bush, February 8, 2003
"Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." - George W. Bush, February 8, 2003
"The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush, March 17, 2003 "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, March 21, 2003
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda." - George W. Bush, "Mission Accomplished speech," May 1, 2003
"President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them." - Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, article, July 6, 2003
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."- Robert Novak, column, July 14, 2003
"Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons." - Dick Cheney, October 10, 2003
"Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself yesterday from a politically charged investigation into the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity, and his deputy announced the appointment of a special prosecutor in the case. The probe into the disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation to a newspaper columnist will be overseen by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago."- Washington Post, December 31, 2003
"We've found a couple of semi-trailers at this point...I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, January 22, 2004
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." - 9/11 Commission report, June 16, 2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." - George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
"Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years."- Comprehensive Report on Iraq WMD, Key Findings (page 11), September 30, 2004
"Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter..."- Comprehensive Report on Iraq WMD, Key Findings (page 13), September 30, 2004
"With the destruction of the Al Hakam facility [in 1996], Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced biological warfare weapons quickly."- Comprehensive Report on Iraq WMD, Key Findings (page 17), September 30, 2004
"In spite of exhaustive investigation, the Independent Study Group found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing biological warfare agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons."- Comprehensive Report on Iraq WMD, Key Findings (page 19), September 30, 2004
"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess death and air strikes from US-led coalition forces accounted for the most violent deaths. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children."- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, report, October 8, 2004
Moots:Due to the far-ranging cerebral profundity and emotional range of your fermenting mash —and I don’t say that lightly as a self-possessed pedant might presumptiously venture while composing some “piled high and deep” debate as he verily goeth—I’m going to build this arcological bridge of “Matter Becoming Spirit” between us in two spannable solarian twin towers ala Big Mack.
Alas tonight, my late night narrow-gauge steam engine still blows:
To Be Continued
In the meantime, here’s some free-spirited epistemological advice from a veteran scribe:
Until you master language, it will master you
You’ve thrown the good dog a handsome bone and what will eventually follow, for better or worse, after a more thorough reading of your Nov 17th post, will be ground through the mill resting upon this crumb-laden cyberspace soul kitchen table, as neither debate nor dissection but rather an ambitious avante garde annotation…
If you’ve ever wondered why Paul mentions a fellow “Christian” who ascended to the “3rd Heaven” yet never mentions any biographical details about Jesus the Man himself and you truly want to understand the epistemological foundations of Original Christianity, may I suggest you get started on an excellent non-partisan “Just the Facts, Ma’am” site such as Peter Kirby’s where you can experience the 1st century theological turmoil firsthand:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.comhttp://www.earlyjewishwritings.com
In the meantime for more than reasonable seasonal holiday reasons, just follow Joni Mitchell’s bouncing ball:
River
It’s coming on ChristmasThey’re cuting down treesThey’re putting up reindeerAnd singing songs of joy and peaceI wish I had a riverI could skate away on
Giving Thanks to all for a Happy Turkey-Lurk,
Columnist Tom Friedman today made a point today similar to one of Cousin Jack's: Postcards From Iraq.
Readers regularly ask me when I will throw in the towel on Iraq. I will be guided by the U.S. Army and Marine grunts on the ground. They see Iraq close up. Most of those you talk to are so uncynical - so convinced that we are doing good and doing right, even though they too are unsure it will work. When a majority of those grunts tell us that they are no longer willing to risk their lives to go out and fix the sewers in Sadr City or teach democracy at a local school, then you can stick a fork in this one. But so far, we ain't there yet. The troops are still pretty positive.
Mark Danner today wonders what would have happened in Iraq if the Bush administration had applied the Powell doctrine: A Doctrine Left Behind.
No one can say how many lives could have been saved had the responsible officials asked the right questions. As it happens, those questions had been laid out with courage and clarity back in 1992, by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, Colin Powell. While the Powell Doctrine is generally thought simply to prescribe the setting of clear objectives and the use of overwhelming force to achieve them, it also sets out a series of questions that policymakers must ask and answer before committing American lives to war. They make sobering reading today: "Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood? Have all other nonviolent policy means failed? Will military force achieve the objective? At what cost? Have the gains and risks been analyzed? How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?"
No one can say how many lives could have been saved had the responsible officials asked the right questions. As it happens, those questions had been laid out with courage and clarity back in 1992, by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, Colin Powell. While the Powell Doctrine is generally thought simply to prescribe the setting of clear objectives and the use of overwhelming force to achieve them, it also sets out a series of questions that policymakers must ask and answer before committing American lives to war. They make sobering reading today:
"Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood? Have all other nonviolent policy means failed? Will military force achieve the objective? At what cost? Have the gains and risks been analyzed? How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?"
What a great list of questions! And how timeless is their relevance.
1,156 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
570 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
If you think I understood half of what you said you're half right. Don't put that annotation on the top shelf where I can't reach it.
Look, you Bush bashing idiots UP there. Your brains must have gotten frost bite sometime.
First, Bush needed the tax cuts to get out of the bad Clinton recession when he took over. No choice, but it worked and everyone is doing great now, except for lazy bums who will always be lazy bums.
The deficits are bad but they are from all the huge spending of the tax and spend dems who almost ruined the country before Bush took over. He can't fix everything right away, with the war on terror going on. Wise up and smell the coffee!
What is there about pretending to be president that qualifies a man for immunity from the judgments we would make about him were he anybody else behaving the same way?
Daniel C. Boyer
The annotation will be an eye-to-eye straight forward front guard view from the bow (as I'm seeing it now), Moots, but at the moment two hands are too few to juggle my current cyber work load and give your post the quality response it deserves.
Stalling for time
Run amok
How's that for a poetic title of my last post.
A rough draft thought-experiment, 25% visualized, whose sharper details I'd yet to fully focus.
I'll move on to the larger reply as soon as I'm able.
In the meantime...
Thanksgiving cheer to you and yours,
Excellent article in latest ish of National Geographic about the Pashtun tribes in NW Pakistan - helps explain why catching Bin Laden is difficult. In their culture offering sanctuary, even to your worst enemy, is the highest moral code.
Also learned, from another source, that the word "parse" is something that computer programmers use, not only grammaticians.
Daniel C. Boyer,
If you are the fine local artist of the same name, let me tell you that I value your work highly. If you are not the same person, you've picked a most distinguished handle for these discussion boards.
My National Geographic arrived only yesterday and I've not had a chance to read it yet, but I will. The tribal culture of Iraq, too, makes Bush's dreams of a democracy there very difficult to achieve: Iraq's Forbidding 'Triangle of Death'.
"Who hurts me, I hurt them," Abu Mohammed said, his words as much a lament as a threat.
Bitter differences in religion and culture, and feuds and old grudges among tribes will not disappear quickly in Iraq: Second Sunni opponent of election killed in Iraq.
Masked gunmen assassinated a Sunni cleric north of Baghdad on Tuesday -- the second such killing in as many days. Insurgents hit a U.S. convoy with a roadside bomb near the central Iraq city of Samarra, drawing return fire that killed one man.
Masked gunmen assassinated a Sunni cleric north of Baghdad on Tuesday -- the second such killing in as many days.
Insurgents hit a U.S. convoy with a roadside bomb near the central Iraq city of Samarra, drawing return fire that killed one man.
And, of course, Iraqis hold us responsible for the effects of our attack on their country as well: Child Malnutrition Doubles in Iraq.
Since the March 2003 invasion, malnutrition among children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years has grown from 4% to 7.7%, said Jon Pedersen, deputy managing director of the Oslo-based Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science, which conducted the survey.
Interesting about the word "parse." My dad originally taught the word to me as we fishermen use it, and only later did I find out about its use in language deconstruction.
1,158 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
572 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
I have a larger, more theoretical question for you to mull over in your spare time: given all the historical, cultural, political and religious factors that make any mideast policy almost certain to fail, what should be our role in the mideast, considering that our dependance on Arab oil compells us to be there?
The jury is still out on Bush's attempt to cultivate democracy in the region, but at least he has an overarching vision - a method to his madness, even his critics must concede. I'm not suggesting that I want to debate on the wisdom or practicality of that vision, but I would like to hear what your approach would be, if you were in his shoes.
It would be nice to wash our hands of the whole mess, but short of building a lot of nuclear power plants, I don't see a economically feasible alternative to oil, and that is the chain that binds us there.
BTW, how do fishermen use "parse"? I've never heard it in conversation.
My dad taught me that "parsing" a fish was taking out the bones correctly. This is not a haphazard operation either, but requires getting out all of the bones neatly and leaving all of the meat. Many fisherman I know use the word that way (and had similar childhood experiences with their dads). I didn't become aware of other uses for the word until well into my teens.
As far as democratizing the Middle East is concerned, we can only hope now that Bush succeeds against the immense obstacles. The time for considering those obstacles soberly was before the attack on Iraq. To succeed now in Iraq and the Middle East we will need a much deeper commitment than Bush has made, in my view, and even the rich will have to pay some taxes to support the effort.
I think you're right about nuclear power. Although nuclear power poses problems of waste, safety, and expense, there's no real alternative on the horizon now. Even if we maintain the flow of oil from the Middle East for a few years, eventually the oil will run out. It seems that will happen well before fusion power becomes feasible.
You also asked how I would approach the Middle East situation, but I have to run now and don't have time for a lucid post on that topic. I'll get to it though soon.
I'm looking forward to your thoughts, because the mideast seems to be like roofing tar. One can start out with clean clothes and a clean stick, but somehow by the end of the job it's all over your clothes and the stick is stuck to your hand. On one hand the governments over there demand that we involve ourselves in the region and on the other the jihadists hate us for it.
A book you may find interesting is Steven Pressfield's fictional autobiography of Alexander the Great, "The Virtues of War". Same region, same problems. Pressfield makes some interesting observations on the character of the East, where "everyone is a slave to someone else". Food for thought.
Have a good Thanksgiving, everyone. Going hunting tomorrow. McAfee stinger is cleaning out Korgo worm out of home computer, looks like it will take 8 days. Some of the computer types suspect that Norton and McAfee produce the viruses so they can sell their antiviral software subscriptions, which I had let expire.
Something else to mull over - are computers changing our brains - our cognitive processes? I see where some people are writing books about the blending of machines and minds into an indistinguishable entity. Reminds of something Wendell Berry, who as far as I know, still refuses to use a computer, wrote about the mind in a broader sense that includes local place and culture, and not residing merely within the brain. More food for thought. Must be driving L2 wild.
Yes, we are one and the same. Thank you.
I'm playing catch-up here due to current heavy workload, Been There, but I did want to take the time to address a couple of your backlogged points and questions.
You write:
"Cousin Jack, Yesterday you asked: The "Pentagon Papers"? What are the "Pentagon Papers"? Here is a VVA link that explains them: History of the Pentagon Papers. This is not the only time in our history when people took big risks to expose the lies of our government."
"Cousin Jack,
Here is a VVA link that explains them: History of the Pentagon Papers. This is not the only time in our history when people took big risks to expose the lies of our government."
Indeed I am familiar with the Pentagon Papers (I came of age during the great upheavals of the Vietnam War) and of course I support people speaking up to expose government lies (if they've actually got the provable goods, as Ellsberg did). I guess my dry sarcasm in this case just didn't cut through the printed page. I do appreciate the link however.
No one has made the case though that President Bush lied about WMD to the American People and there is nothing in the congressional report on our pre-war intelligence failures that disputes this.
The "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" can be found in bite-size pieces at this address if you want to study all 524 pages: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
The "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" can be found in bite-size pieces at this address if you want to study all 524 pages:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
Evidently you disagreed with this statement of mine regarding Colin Powell's resignation: "He had hoped to use his position to protect our country from the neo-cons surrounding Bush, but found the task overwhelming and exhausting." As usual, however, you did not post the specific nature of your disagreement with my statement. Do you think he did not really use his position to battle the neo-cons (perhaps he was actually a closet neo-con himself)? Hardly.
"He had hoped to use his position to protect our country from the neo-cons surrounding Bush, but found the task overwhelming and exhausting."
My disagreement is that you characterize the purpose of Colin Powell's position as one of protecting "our country from the neo-cons surrounding Bush". If you can find Mr. Powell stating this in his own words somewhere than I'll accept your premise. Otherwise it's just more pundit spin. I am already overdosed on polemics and hearsay from the recent election battle and still don't learn anything relevant from it.
You needn't feel obliged to reply to this post, Been There. I've already made the point that I respect your constructive policy criticisms. It's the occasional use of personal invective against Bush (a point Moots has raised as well) within your daily blog that I found unneccessary.
Of course, I could do without Look2it as your hell-raising pom pom girl too, but that may just be too much to ask in one post. ;o)
Anyway, back to the present day.
Keep up your Good "Just the facts, Ma'am" Fight and you'll keep my respect.
I wish I had more time to do such ethics digging myself as I have some issues (which I've raised in the past) about the way this administration got us into Iraq even if it was to do a job that I'd long felt needed doing.
Right now though, I'd rather just stay focused on the troops who are engaged in this difficult work to the best of their abilities and leave the instant 24 news cycle analysis of their every move to those who prefer such activity.
It takes all kinds to make this world go 'round.
Happy Thanksgiving to all you posters and readers of these discussion boards! I hope all of you get to spend many satisfying hours with family and good friends over the coming days.
I hope everyone here had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday, as I did with my family and close relatives. It looks like winter is on its way!
While we were celebrating here, though, the problems in Iraq continued: Prospect of Iraq vote delay recedes but violence continues.
Another US soldier was killed early Saturday when a roadside bomb hit his vehicle in the restive Sunni town of Dhuluiyah north of Baghdad. Three bodyguards for the governor of Diyala province were killed in clashes with rebels who attacked a national guard checkpoint in the city of Baquba, north of Baghdad, police said.
Another US soldier was killed early Saturday when a roadside bomb hit his vehicle in the restive Sunni town of Dhuluiyah north of Baghdad.
Three bodyguards for the governor of Diyala province were killed in clashes with rebels who attacked a national guard checkpoint in the city of Baquba, north of Baghdad, police said.
A sad personal note: yesterday, to my sorrow, Colin Powell announced the killing in Baghdad of Jim Mollen: American official murdered in Iraq.
I knew Jim and worked closely with him for a time. Although I disagreed with Jim about our attack on Iraq, he was a very well-intentioned man always in the thick of things. I felt sick yesterday, and only a bit better today. War takes its toll on all of us.
1,162 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
576 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Look2It, feel free to skip the following post. I'm going to include some history that I find interesting, but this will be longer than a sound bite.
In the glacially slow maneuvering among religious institutions, an interesting event has occurred: Pope Returns Stolen Orthodox Relics.
In a ceremony at the Vatican, representatives of Pope John Paul II are scheduled to return the relics of two fathers of the church -- Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Theologian -- to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual leader of the world's 250 million Orthodox Christians. The relics were taken from St. Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople by crusaders in 1204 and have been kept at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
In a ceremony at the Vatican, representatives of Pope John Paul II are scheduled to return the relics of two fathers of the church -- Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Theologian -- to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual leader of the world's 250 million Orthodox Christians.
The relics were taken from St. Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople by crusaders in 1204 and have been kept at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
The sacking of Constantinople exactly 800 years ago marked a low point in the relationship between the two Christian mega-churches that had once been unified. In 1204 Roman Catholic crusaders invaded the Orthodox Christian city of Constaninople, murdering and raping the Christian inhabitants, desecrating Christian churches and cathedrals, and stealing everything of value. By contrast, the great Muslim leader Saladin treated the people of Jerusalem mercifully when he conquered that city in 1187.
The Roman Catholic crusaders rationalized their actions by recalling the schism of 1054, when the Roman church began its independent existence. Before 1054, of course, the two mega-churches to come had been slowly growing apart for centuries. In the grand scheme of things, two historical developments made the split inevitable.
First, from about 450 to 1000, the dark ages enveloped Europe in long period of general turmoil and ignorance that was not endured by the eastern countries where Christianity flourished. During those centuries the Orthodox churches were able to, and did, remain faithful to the doctrines set by the original ecumenical councils, while the Roman Catholic church--under the severe pressures of the dark ages--gradually changed its beliefs and theology in ways unacceptable to the Orthodox.
Second, the Orthodox church continued to maintain the original, more democratic, tradition of Christianity, while the Roman church took on the political model of authoritarianism. Early in the dark ages, in 533, the Emperor Justinian decreed the bishop of Rome to be "head of all the holy Churches and of all the holy priests of God." A few decades later, in 607, the Emperor Phocas declared the bishop of Rome to be the head of all the churches of Christendom, even Constantinople.
To the democratic Orthodox, of course, such a change could not be made by an Emperor's decree, but could come only from an ecumenical council, in which all their elected bishops would have had a voice. Whereas the Orthodox believed that no Christian doctrine could be established or changed without a full ecumenical council, the Roman church now had a mechanism to add or change doctrine by papal decree. None of the Roman additions and changes--and there were many over the years--are considered legitimate by Orthodox Christians.
As Christians (those with an interest in history, anyway) know, the first council of Nice in the year 325 established much of the formal basis for Christianity including the first version of the Nicene Creed, which was modified a bit in 381 by the Council of Constantinople. The third ecumenical council, the Council of Ephesus in 431, forbade any further change to the Nicene Creed.
As an example of what happened during the ignorance of the dark ages, in 589 a church in Toledo, Spain added a clause (called the filioque) to the Nicene creed against the specific prohibition of the Council of Ephesus. Over time, the filioque gradually spread through the Roman church, and was a prime reason for the formal split in 1054. In 1274 the Roman church officially added the filioque to its version of Nicene Creed.
Because after the Reformation Protestantism retained many of the unilateral Roman innovations, the Orthodox see the same errors in Protestant denominations that they believe to be in the Roman church.
Rock,
It's good to hear from you again! I hope you are doing well these days.
Thanks for your words about Jim Mollen. Jim volunteered to go to Iraq and, when he left, truly believed he could make a difference there. A staunch Republican, Jim saw the Iraqis as latent Republicans who needed a boost to get onto the correct path. I wish he'd lived to explain to America what he found when he got to Iraq.
No, I'm not Greek Orthodox nor was I raised in that church. In my travels over the years, though, I've met quite a few Orthodox Christians and became close friends with some of them. When I expressed my interest in their religion, they told me what it meant to them, which prompted me into some study of it. With friends, I've been able to attend Orthodox services in Greek, Russian, Serbian, Syrian, and American churches. Like you, I've found lots of fine people among the Orthodox.
Of course I've also met and made friends with many fine people who are Roman Catholic, including a couple of priests, and they most certainly do have a different (and absolutely sincere) perspective on the schism. Thoughtful Roman Catholics, though, don't deny that their church has changed over the years much more than has the Orthodox church. They believe instead that the Roman changes were truly authorized by God and that the Orthodox are remiss in not accepting them.
It's long been interesting to me to learn how various beliefs form in the first place and how folks sincerely come to hold them. To a great extent, it seems, people hold the beliefs that make them feel most comfortable. Often this comfort level comes with the locale of their births, and they would comfortably hold entirely different beliefs had they been born elsewhere.
As for myself, I don't believe that Jesus ever intended, much less authorized, the development of huge, complex, and arcane theologies from His life and teachings, whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant. Still less do I believe that He would want those theologies to be imposed on others by the use of military force or state power. To my mind, people who get caught up in such things totally miss the bigger picture of His life.
It might seem strange to us that people felt--and still feel--strongly about such arcane theological points as the filioque introduced in 589, but we're not so different these days. Witness Moots' very strong belief about the much newer, but just as arcane, theological point concerning the instant when life begins.
Today's news from Iraq: 2 U.S. Troops Killed in Combat in Iraq; 17 Bodies Found in Mosul.
A 1st Infantry Division soldier was killed by a roadside bomb north of the capital Saturday and a Marine died in the western town of Ramadi as clashes between American forces and insurgents continued across Iraq. In Khalis, about 40 miles north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi forces fought a three-hour gun battle with about 100 insurgents who overran a town hall and two police stations, local officials said. The attackers were eventually driven away, municipal official Saad Ahmed Abbas said. An Al Jazeera television news report said three Iraqi security guards were killed.
A 1st Infantry Division soldier was killed by a roadside bomb north of the capital Saturday and a Marine died in the western town of Ramadi as clashes between American forces and insurgents continued across Iraq.
In Khalis, about 40 miles north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi forces fought a three-hour gun battle with about 100 insurgents who overran a town hall and two police stations, local officials said. The attackers were eventually driven away, municipal official Saad Ahmed Abbas said. An Al Jazeera television news report said three Iraqi security guards were killed.
1,163 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
577 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Amen (if indeed the Historical Jesus portrayed in the gospels ever really existed and the non-apologetic scholarly case to be made for this premise has grown much stronger in recent decades). The Orthodox church, with it's mystical emphasis, is much closer to the Jewish-Hellenic Gnostic origins of original "Christianity" (though it wasn't called "Christianity" until at least the mid 2nd century). For a fascinating overview on what those mystical origins might have been concerned with here's a pdf file I highly recommend:
http://www.iwu.edu/~religion/ejcm/EJCM_Definition.PDF
Much if not all of what later evolved did so at the behest of Mediterranean politics and the usefulness of "Christianity" for consolidating Rome's fragmenting empire.
I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your friend Jim as well, BT.
Thanks for the wonderful link! Couldn't stop reading until I got all the way through.
By the way, I definitely found standing for several hours in the middle of the night during Russian Orthodox Christ-is-Risen services to be state-altering! It was a good thing for me that it was acceptable to mill around and mingle quietly with the other folks there. I got to do that half-a-dozen times, always memorable experiences, and an early-morning feast of mammoth proportions invariably followed. If you've never done that, I recommend it highly. The Russians welcome visitors with genuine warmth and hospitality.
Yeah, I'd like to try that at St. Basil's Cathedral sometime, Been There, if I ever get over to Moscow. The architecture alone looks to be state-altering.
BTW: If you found that earlier pdf file to your liking, there are lots more of like kind to be found at this "Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism" website where I originally located it:
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/
BT, I feel much better these days, thanks for asking. Your travels sound so interesting, it must be wonderful to do that.
Count me as somebody who agrees with moots about when life begins, it seems so clear. Like grass is green and the sky is blue, some things are so clear they don't need to be in the Bible to be true.
I've never been inside St. Basil's, but certainly hope to enter one day. What a remarkable structure!
Thanks for the link to all the other links. It will take me a while to get through all of them, but I will do it eventually. Isn't the Internet great!
I'm glad you're feeling better and wish you were able to travel too.
As to when life begins, I can only say that what seems so clear to you and Moots doesn't seem clear at all to me, after long and careful consideration. I'm comfortable with the fact that there are things--many things--that I will not know with certainty or precision during my lifetime.
What I do know is that I'm directly responsible for my own decisions and actions and for providing a good example to my family, friends, and acquaintances--and even there I don't always succeed. I think we all need to focus on improving our own shortcomings instead of looking for shortcomings to correct in others, and I believe that Jesus told us that in many ways.
Today's news from Iraq: Two marines, three US servicemen killed south and west of Baghdad.
Well over 100 US servicemen have been killed in November, although no exact figure was immediately available. Close to 60 marines died in the Fallujah battle launched on November 9.
John Burns has a piece in today's NYT describing the missions of today's version of the old Vietnam war Swift boats: Shadow of Vietnam Falls Over Iraq River Raids.
That war is rarely mentioned among the American troops in Iraq, many of whom were not yet born when the last American combat units withdrew from Vietnam more than 30 years ago. A war that America did not win is considered a bad talisman among those men and women, who privately admit to fears that this war could be lost. But as an orange moon sank below the bulrushes on Sunday morning, thoughts of Vietnam were hard to avoid. Marines waded ashore through soft silted mud that caused some to sink to their waists, M-16 rifles held skyward as others on solid land held out their rifle barrels as lifelines. Ashore, sodden and with boots squelching mud, the troops began a five-hour tramp through dense palm groves and across paddies crisscrossed by deep irrigation canals. There were snatches of dialogue from "Apocalypse Now," and a black joke from one marine about the landscape resembling "a Vietnam theme park." But behind the joshing lay something more serious: the sense expressed by many of the Americans as they scoured the area that in this war, too, the insurgents might have advantages that could make them a match for highly trained troops, technological gadgetry and multibillion-dollar war budgets.
That war is rarely mentioned among the American troops in Iraq, many of whom were not yet born when the last American combat units withdrew from Vietnam more than 30 years ago. A war that America did not win is considered a bad talisman among those men and women, who privately admit to fears that this war could be lost.
But as an orange moon sank below the bulrushes on Sunday morning, thoughts of Vietnam were hard to avoid.
Marines waded ashore through soft silted mud that caused some to sink to their waists, M-16 rifles held skyward as others on solid land held out their rifle barrels as lifelines.
Ashore, sodden and with boots squelching mud, the troops began a five-hour tramp through dense palm groves and across paddies crisscrossed by deep irrigation canals.
There were snatches of dialogue from "Apocalypse Now," and a black joke from one marine about the landscape resembling "a Vietnam theme park."
But behind the joshing lay something more serious: the sense expressed by many of the Americans as they scoured the area that in this war, too, the insurgents might have advantages that could make them a match for highly trained troops, technological gadgetry and multibillion-dollar war budgets.
1,164 days have now passed since since September 17, 2001, when President Bush pledged to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."
578 days have now passed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush made his Iraq "mission accomplished" speech.
Bada Bing,
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. I don't care one whit about George Bush's personal failings at all, but I care a whole lot about his failings as the President of this country. This is the country that my children and (I hope) grandchildren will inherit when I'm gone.
Much as it hurts, I see it my duty as a citizen to display my suitable, healthy, and well-earned disrespect for our so-called leaders. Okay, maybe it doesn't hurt as much as it should, but I've already acknowledged that I have shortcomings. How about you?
Enjoy yourself while you fry your skin.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing another important states' rights case: Court to Hear Marijuana Case.
Today that federal-state clash continues at the Supreme Court, where the justices will hear oral arguments on whether the Constitution permits the federal government to take action against those who use homegrown marijuana for medicinal reasons within states where it is legal to do so.
The Bush administration argues that they have jurisdiction because the use of medicinal marijuana affects the overall supply and demand for drugs in the U.S., and thus comes under interstate commerce.
One of the parties to the case has a website describing her side of the dispute: How the Raich v. Ashcroft federal medical cannabis lawsuit was born, and who is involved.