Hello
Everybody! This is where I respond to Rik's critique of my editorial "Globalism and George Bush".
Rik's responses appear in large
black text. To make readability less
confusing, my responses will appear
in (this) smaller red text.
Hi Rik. Thanks for your thoughts regarding this article. I'm very pleased Mike
liked my idea to pursue this type of forum. I had originally proposed this exchange with
him in mind after a series of rather contentious emails. He has graciously offered the
opportunity to you and set things in motion. I appreciate this and thank Mike for the
exposure. Although similar forums saturate the web, now there's one by a couple musicians
from our corner of cyberspace.
Hopefully, this forum can be a learning experience for us, as well as for others.
Now, regarding your critique:
In general, your response is a clear example of irresponsible journalism. Most of
your claims lack proper documentation. You are merely repeating unverified allegations.
The most responsible examples of journalism are supported by empirical evidence. Without
it, we too often rely on "selectively chosen anecdotes or vague and unprovable
hypotheses as supporting evidence" *. And although your hostility may provide for
some lively reading, representing the truth through claims, allegations, conjecture, and
innuendo, does not lead to a very high level of dialogue.
* No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe -
Matt Young
"Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without carefully thinking
through the various implications of their statements. They have sometimes displayed more
emotion than logic, made sweeping charges beyond what they reasonably support, failed to
adequately document their assertions, and, in general, have failed to do the homework
necessary to make their challenges credible."
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n02/proper-criticism.html
In a world where the media is so pervasive, it’s even more important
to question the integrity of the source. Masses
can be swayed by a partisan media. “Representatives”of
our freedom of speech can be bought and manipulated or merely promoted by powerful
interests who are uninterested or ignorant in matters most reflective of the truth. This is dangerous and more apt to produce results
unbeneficial to the best interests of the people.
In regards to the article "Globalism and George Bush", so much dreck to wade
thru…so little time.
Let’s address this line by
line…using direct quotes from the article.
"…but it doesn’t mean I have to
like or respect GW."
My comments below (in red) point out specific examples of irresponsible or "tabloid"
journalism.
Hmmm…does this mean
you like or respect the former occupant, good ol’ "Impeached Willie"?
A man who has pled guilty to Obstruction of Justice and Perjury in a civil case? He pled guilty? When? The United
States Senate acquitted Clinton of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury
( www.cnn.com ). Who took mucho money from Chinese Communist businessmen in exchange for
LORAL’s help in their Long Range Missile program, also known as their Space Program? ...conjecture and distortion Who sold overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom, and flights on
Airforce One, and membership on Trade missions for campaign contributions? That's
the way our political system works. Donors
have always received preferential treatment. What
President has not solicited contributions in exchange for favors? I wonder what George Bush Sr.'s motives were
when Rush Limbaugh stayed in the Lincoln bedroom in 1992! Who pardoned FALN
terrorists…WITHOUT Justice Department or FBI approval...no approval needed, and no
thought to their victims ...innuendo…just to curry favor with the NYC Puerto Rican vote for his
"wife’s" election bid to the Senate?...conjecture
Yeah…they deserve LOADS of respect and like.
Whatever happened to "innocent
until proven guilty"? A basic tenet of American jurisprudence
INNOCENCE, PRESUMPTION OF - The
indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the
person is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a person to prove
his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government has the burden of proving a
person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so the person is (so far as
the law is concerned) not guilty.
I've also heard Clinton is a murderer,
child-molester and guilty of treason. Ken Starr spent years and 40 million of our tax
dollars trying to prove all the "gate" claims to no avail. This was not
announced to the public, however, until after the 2000 election. (Talk about
"disenfranchisement"! )
The media and internet are saturated with damaging claims against democrats and
republicans alike. Most of what I've seen is subjective spin favoring the author's agenda.
Responsible journalism can always be backed by credible sources. Established news
organizations with a record of objectivity and fairness and legal documentation are
usually sufficient and more apt to determine the difference between opinion and fact.
for example:
opinion: "Bush is
unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically
uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these
things."
Christopher Hitchens
fact: George W. Bush
was convicted of Drunk Driving (legal documentation provided at your request)
Yes, I lean more to the
left ideologically, but I stand to the right on some issues also. Bill Clinton lied about
having an adulterous affair with a consenting adult. Covering up a sexual affair is not an
offense against the state. Selling arms for hostages (Ronald Reagan) and lying about it
would, in my opinion, be more likely to warrant impeachment. Upon review of the
impeachment transcripts, I can't find where Clinton lied under oath ( I wonder how many
people have actually read these). Either way, there are convincing and reasonably
documented circumstances verifying lies and indiscretion from all our Presidents. GW lied
on several occasions about his DWI offense and under oath concerning the funeral home
case. (see links below)
Bill Clinton is no longer President. George Bush is.
For those who to wish to wallow
in their hatred for a past president and try to make Bush look good by doing so, it's a
free country. What's really important is where our
present leaders stand on the issues affecting our world and the quality of our
lives.
"Let’s not forget, by discontinuing the
vote count in Florida, he was "appointed" President by the politically partial
members of the Supreme Court".
Discontinuing the vote count? Which
one? The one on Election Day? The ones in SELECT, HAND PICKED Democrat
stronghold districts? The ones ordered by the "politically partial"
Florida Supreme Court, which violated State law and usurped the Legislatures' power as
well as Sec. of State Kathleen Harris?..and
Bush was given the crown through the"politically partial" supreme court coup
d'état.. http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/07/04/dershowitz/
http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/Dersch.html
The vote recount the was filmed destroying Republican
votes, by removing chads, thereby invalidating the ballot as a double punch? What film? If there was such an incriminating film,
why hasn't America seen it?? Maybe it was
the votes from Military men and women overseas that were argued against in court by
AlGore’s Washington DC shills, and after they were rejected, these justice and
fairness minded lawyers high five’d each other conjecture, innuendo and unproven accusations…knowing they had eliminated LEGALLY cast votes that were against their guy. conjecture and assumption Talk
about "disenfranchisement".
"All the while knowing Al Gore had clearly
won the popular vote."
With that popular vote win, and $2.00,
AlGore might be able to buy a cup of Starbucks Coffee. We have an Electoral College
that determines the election results, so small States like Rhode Island, or less populated
States like Montana are not overruled by larger populated States like California and New
York.
This means the a
candidate cannot just pander to the big cities and ignore the rest of the
populace…kinda how AlGore campaigned. "Kinda" how George Bush or any politician panders
socio-politically.
In the now famous Red
Zone/Blue Zone map,  the blue area for AlGore were, with few exceptions, big cities
along both coasts, up the Mississippi River, and Indian Reservations. The
predominant color on the map of the US was Red. But AlGore pandered to the urban
vote, at the expense of everyone else in the States. Look at the provided totals in
population, as well as their growth. This is the exodus from the stench that is the
modern urban area given form.
"the stench that is the
modern urban area given form"??!! What are you trying to say? I'm almost afraid
to ask.
Bush supporters have had a difficult time dealing with
the fact that their candidate failed to capture the majority of popular votes. That's why
they've plastered this map all over the web. Those who are ignorant of population
demographics are easily convinced GW captured the majority of popular votes. But once
you get past all the pretty blue and red colors (see demographic map below) you see where
the heaviest population areas are. Large areas of red (see blue/red maps) average only 1
to 5 persons per square kilometer. It's understandable because there are many of our farmers and country folk in these areas.
Most of the heaviest populated areas are within blue. It's interesting that within the
blue areas, you find the largest percentage of academia.
For a specific example why the "now famous" map is deceiving: Look at the state
of California ("county" map above). It's almost all red, yet Gore beat Bush by
over 1 million popular votes. Gore: 5,861,203 - Bush 4,567,429 (CNN)
I rest my case.
Bush won a majority of the electoral vote. (each state is allocated a number of electors
equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S.
Representatives. 538 electoral vote total. Receiving Florida gave Bush more than the 270
needed to win ) Well-informed Bush supporters should be most proud of the (smaller) blue
and red map below. This map reflects the electoral college results, which ensured the Bush
victory.
 |
The 2000
election results will be debated till the end of time. There are endless reports of
scandal and fraud from both sides. Most are fabrication, some are exaggeration, and
unfortunately, a few are true. I assure you for every democrat scandal you present, I can
reciprocate with an example of republican foul-play. The election is over. The most
reliable sources show Gore as the winner of the popular vote, and Bush the winner of the
electoral vote. Above and beyond all the controversy, this was an amazingly close
election. |
And while we are at it, the number of illegal votes by criminals, the bus crowd of the
minority community that goes out and grabs people at home or off the street and buses them
to polls to vote Democrat; the situation in Wisconsin, where Gore/DNC operatives bribed
homeless to vote with cigarettes and alcohol (Wisconsin allows you to register at the
polls on election day)…your response to these illegal acts is? And then there
was what happened in Missouri, where the polls were kept open after legal closing time by
a crony Judge buddy of House Minority Leader Dick Gephart, in order to BUS IN minority
votes. This turned out to be the margin in the vote between John Ashcroft and the corpse
of Mel Carnahan (since he was dead, and the law says he was no longer a legitimate
candidate, the Govenor illegally allowed his widow Jean Carnahan to accept his seat.
Ashcroft was too much a gentleman to protest.).
I've heard all these stories. Just more fabrications,
distortions and allegations which have never been proven. Let's see some responsible
documentation, if you can.
"Our current President is an alcoholic,
convicted drunk driver, and draft dodger."
Well, lets see. Alcoholic… Bush has
admitted this. Has Bill Clinton admitted to being a cokehead, like his brother has
said, and corroborated by Gennifer Flowers?
I've never heard or read any reliable information verifying
Clinton's use of coke. If you can provide something other than tabloid hearsay, I'd
be interested in reading it.
Convicted drunk driver… And were you this concerned when Ted Kennedy ran for
President in 1980? After all, he killed Mary Jo Kopechne, left her to drown ...."he killed Mary Jo Kopechne, left her to drown"...this
transparent and malicious implication clearly demonstrates your opportunistic level of
reason and shameful sense of justice.., and had his family
connections reduce his charges to leaving the scene of an accident...can
you document this? I'm waiting.... Try that yourself,
and see what you are charged with.
Based on the known facts and Kennedy's statement, I'm certainly not convinced he
purposely let Kopeckne drown. I would feel the same way if it was George Bush driving the
car that night. Would you?.... It's about JUSTICE, not partisan angst. Those who claim
Kennedy is a murderer are either ignorant of the facts or part of a partial and
mean-spirited mob mentality. And despite your intent, this incident does not exonerate
Bush's DWI.
Draft dodger…well, you are really out
there. Bush was a pilot (no mean feat, btw.) in the Texas National Guard. Bill
Clinton was the draft dodger. Just ask the Colonel he got to do the ROTC deferral
for him, then Bill dodged the draft when he received a high lottery number for the
draft. Bill’s connections in Arkansas really helped here, especially while he
was in England. He was thrown out of Oxford because he sexually assaulted a woman
(see further down), and then he went on to…MOSCOW. I’ll let you make the
connections, if you can. You have
conveniently placed the burden of making the connection between "MOSCOW" and
Clinton on me. In that you have made this insinuation, the burden of proof is on you, so
why don't YOU make the connection for me. I can't wait to hear it.
Although I'd rather be addressing more
important issues, I can play this game too. The claims below are documented with sources.
1. Bush was arrested for Drunk Driving (two DWI arrests for Dick Cheney)
2. Bush repeatedly lied about his DWI
3. Bush lied under oath
4. Bush avoided military service and was AWOL from the National Guard.
5. He was "assigned" the F-102 aircraft, a plane phased out and safe from combat
6. He skipped all medical exams after drug testing began in the National Guard (he was
removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical)
7. Bush was a drunk and drug abuser until the age of 40. He straightened out only after
his wife threatened divorce.
8. Bush was also arrested for theft and disorderly conduct.
These links belong to sites unfriendly to Bush, but the sources are thorough and legitimate.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/09/bush/
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~pearly-abraham/htmls/GWB3.html
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bush-arrests.html
http://members.tripod.com/~pearly-abraham/htmls/GWB2.html
Gee, tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't
Al Gore volunteer for Vietnam?
You got to trash Clinton for 8 years
(and you still can't stop). Well, sorry, but the party's over. Now it's time to trash
someone who really deserves it. It seem you guys can dish it out, but you just
can't take it. Welcome to America.
"He ‘won’t talk’ about
his former drug use and was at best a mediocre student at college"
Because someone has done something in their past that they are
not proud of, does this mean that they are now unable to advise others to not do the
destructive things they did in the past…that hindsight gives perfect clarity that is not available in the moment? At least
he didn’t try to lame his way out by saying he "didn’t inhale".
Not like x42 (x meaning ex, and Clinton was the 42nd President.).
I like the way you (rather poetically)
made your point and I agree with you. That's why these witch-hunts into our politicians'
pasts are often more hateful than necessary. But You are the one most intent on
frivolous character assassination. So if you want to dance, you're going to have to pay
the fiddler.
We will never know what
kind of student x42 was, because he refused to release his college transcripts.
Can you document this? Either
way, would you really want George Bush to release his?
Incidentally, according to a report by the Lovenstein Institute, George Bush has
the lowest IQ of all presidents in the last 50 years. Here are the results of the study: The study determined the following IQs of each president as
accurate to within five percentage points:
182 William J. Clinton (D)
175 James E. Carter (D)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
091 George W. Bush (R)
http://www.bushnews.com/bushiq.htm
The credentials of the non-partisan academians who conducted this study are impressive.
"The conclusions
of the study, conducted by an independent think tank located in Scranton, Pennsylvania
were surprising. This think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists,
sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr.
Werner Levenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia A. Williams, a
world-respected psychiatrist. All members of the think tank are experts at being able to
detect a person's IQ from the criteria stated earlier."
While I certainly don't believe IQ represents the measure of a man, higher
analytical skills are more likely to reflect logical resolve.
My comments below (in red) point
out specific examples of irresponsible or "tabloid" journalism.
He may have gotten a
Rhodes scholarship to Oxford…but after he assaulted two women ...unproven accusation
at Oxford we will never know what kind of student he was. What’s
that…you don’t know about the Oxford allegations?(allegation - a statement asserting something without proof) Well read here…
Do you know about the New Haven
allegations?
"In 1965 Yale fratmates
including Terry Johnson, roommate to Bush, verified his relationship to then sixteen year
old Annette Lightfoot from New Haven. Although friends to Bush deny this, Ms.
Lightfoot claims George paid for
her abortion after impregnating her. Albany's Westgate Hospital in New York,
has provided records of the procedure upon request from Ms. Lightfoot's mother. A local
"Spot Light" news reporter claims two of Annette Lightfoot's
girlfriends will provide testimony verifying Ms. Lightfoot's virginity before the
incident. After two years and
an unexplainable silence from the Lightfoot family, it's assumed a financial settlement
was arranged. http://www.monk.com/roadscholar/roadscholar.html
Since this story first aired, there have been countless
accusations against George W. Bush involving rape, drug abuse, indecent exposure and even
cruelty to animals."....
....In less than an hour, I could have this (self) fabrication plastered all over the web
leaving thousands of gullible and/or willing readers believing it to be true without
verifying its authenticity. Case in point: That's how easy, misleading and dangerous
tabloid journalism is.
"President Bill
Clinton is facing a fresh sex scandal today over claims ...again, CLAIMS, NOT FACTS
that he raped a 19-year-old girl what's
her name, where does she live, how can this be verified?? while he was a student at Oxford in the Sixties.
The allegation (allegation - a statement asserting something
without proof) - together with claims (claim - to state to be true, especially when open
to question) that he sexually assaulted another student (what's her name, where does she live, how can this
be verified??) while at Yale - appear on a Washington
website, Capitol
Hill Blue
(http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/redirect?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capitolhillblue.com).
...no documentation found on website
It is claimed (claimed by who?...what are his credentials and
documentation?) the future president met the 19 year
old in an Oxford pub when he was a Rhodes Scholar in 1969. A retired State
Department official (what's his name and where does
he live?) is quoted by the website (what website and what is the site's credibility) confirming that the rape took place and saying: "There is no
doubt in my mind that this woman suffered severe emotional trauma.
"But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment
of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report to my superiors and
that was the last I heard of it."
He added that he was under the impression that while at Oxford
"Clinton was more interested in drinking, drugs and sex than studies."...opinion, innuendo Capitol Hill Blue says the alleged (An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place
but has not yet been verified) victim - who is now
married and lives near London - hired a lawyer and changed her phone number after saying
she would not go public with further details. Before moving to the London area she
is believed to have lived in Europe for a number of years, most recently in Germany.
Women students who were at Oxford at the same time as Clinton have
accused him of "boorish behavior", claiming he would press himself up against
them and frequently suggest they should be honoured to have sex with him. ...unverified accusations
The Yale University allegations (A statement asserting something without proof...An assertion made by a party that must be
proved or supported with evidence) centre on an
incident in 1972 - where Clinton had returned from Oxford to study. A 22-year-old woman (what's her name, where does she live, how can this
be verified??) student complained to campus police she
had been sexually assaulted by him. The web-site (what website and what is the site's credibility?) claims (claimed
by who...what are his credentials and documentation?)police
confirmed the report. Like the woman in England, the Yale victim was tracked down, but she
too refused to give her married name or to discuss the allegations. ...how convenient
The Capitol Hill Blue allegations (A statement asserting something without proof...An assertion made by a party
that must be proved or supported with evidence) come
as Monica Lewinsky prepares to launch her book about her relationship with the President -
written by British journalist Andrew Morton - with a series of television
interviews. She arrives in the UK this week. Public opinion appeared to be turning
against the President when he and Hillary Clinton took a break in Utah over the weekend to
celebrate their daughter Chelsea's 19th birthday on the ski slopes. There women
protesters carried placards reading "Rapist resign."
© Associated Newspapers Ltd., 01 March 1999
I can back my
allegations…can you?
Citing a newspaper or website
that merely repeats an allegation, does not prove the allegation is true. Lies about
Clinton have been repeated so many times that many people, obviously including yourself,
believe them to be true.
Associated Newspapers may have printed this story but the journalistic integrity wherein
is ZERO. You can't provide any documentation supporting these allegations.....can you?
Again, whatever happened to "innocent
until proven guilty"?
"Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without carefully
thinking through the various implications of their statements. They have sometimes
displayed more emotion than logic, made sweeping charges beyond what they reasonably
support, failed to adequately document their assertions, and, in general, have failed to
do the homework necessary to make their challenges credible." http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n02/proper-criticism.html
"Separation of Church and State is a
centerpiece of our secular society"
Well, I’d agree with
you, if you would remember that the full text says...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances." This means that however pissed off you
are, no matter what you believe, others have a right to believe what they want. And,
if they happen to be a majority, you must respect their rights as a majority. Being
a minority does not mean that you always get your way, like it seems to be now.
Do you really think I believe people
don't have the right to believe in something??? I believe in pluralism.
Unfortunately, many Americans do not, although some say they do. Diversity is our
strength, not our weakness. I respect the rights of both the majority and the
minority. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with them or reframe from speaking out when
I feel they are wrong or misguided. You may not like it, but it's my right (and duty) to
expose what I believe to be the folly of ignorance and injustice.
It is unconstitutional for the government to favor one religion over another or to create
policy based on any one religious precept. Separation of Church and State is so elemental
to the ideas of our country's founders and so necessary for true freedom, it distresses me
to see it debased.
"The United States of America should have a
foundation free from the influence of clergy." - George Washington
"Many are either unaware or reluctant to
accept that secularism is a prerequisite for democracy."
We are a Representative
Republic, not a Democracy. You had better thank whatever you believe in that we are,
since the classic definition of a democracy is 6 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have
for dinner.
OK, have it your way.... If America is a representative republic, do you believe secularism is a
prerequisite for our representative republic? If you don't, better read up on the
constitution.
For a non-partisan definition of democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or
through elected representatives. www.dictionary.com
If you really want to get technical defining America, both terms may lack sufficient, semantic specificity.
Perhaps "Representative Democracy" would be most conclusive.
Secularism is the new religion of the
liberal masses. You want to believe in nothing, fine. Just stop criticizing
those who believe differently. Remember; the First Amendment works both ways.
Your definition of secularism is
incorrect. This word has adaptive quality and there are some who couple it with religious
belief. It's an unfortunate, common and often opportunistic mistake. "Secularism
is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man
to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the
practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible —
which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material
means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who
would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service" (Principles of Secularism)
If you think I believe in nothing, you are quite wrong. Contrarians are
frequently accused of nihilism. Among other things, I believe in the beauty and
intuitive goodness naturally inherent in humanity. I believe in ethical behavior, justice,
compassion, honesty and the promotion of science, reason and rational behavior.
The last two sentences in your above statement are truly oxymoronic in nature: If
the First Amendment works in both ways, why should I stop criticizing those who believe
differently??!!?? It's
one thing to quote the first amendment, it's another thing to understand it. You
say "Just stop criticizing those who believe differently"? I fear your ilk
could be the bookburners of the past.
A free society cherishes non-conformity. - Commager
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social
ties; no religious basis is necessary. - Albert Einstein
"As a world leader, his refusal to
support the Kyoto treaty, clearly demonstrates his shallow,
short-sighted, isolationist stance and ill-regard for our planet and it's inhabitants. To
many around the world, we are seen as we often are: greedy, militaristic, arrogant and
self-righteous. No wonder so many people hate us."
Isn’t it funny that no other Country ratified the Kyoto treaty after it
was signed, and only Germany and Japan have done so earlier this year. These two
Countries have a huge radical enviroMENTAList faction.
What's not funny, is how misinformed you are: Where are you getting your information?
Rush Limbaugh? (pretentious, transparently deluded and insidiously deceitful ayatollah of
the airwaves)
As of May 2001, 168 countries have signed the treaty, including the European Union and
most of its members, Canada, Japan, China, and a range of developing countries. Of the 34
countries that have already ratified or acceded the treaty, only Cyprus and Romania are
European countries. (United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/factsheets/2001/07-24-01.shtml
"If one wants to be a world leader, one must know how to look after the entire earth
— and not only American industry." (EU Commission President Romano Prodi, on
U.S. President George Bush's rejection of the Kyoto protocol, April 2001)
In your
twisted view, opposition to a bad EnviroMENTAL treaty proves someone is
evil. Hmmm...no wonder people hate enviroMENTALists with their junk science
and holier-than-thou attitude to enviroMENTAL issues.
Hmmm....upon review of "Globalism and George Bush", I can't find anything that even
implies I said this.
To say I consider those opposed to the treaty evil, is clearly a sign you have nothing
rational (or logical ) to offer. Desperate and irresponsible fabrications such as
these do nothing to further productive and meaningful debate.
It's sad you connote negativity with the word "environmental". This planet is
our home and it's the only one we have. There are extreme and fringe environmental stances
on both sides. I oppose much of what they do also. But it's unfair and irresponsible to lump us all into one basket.
This is the way I see it. The Earth is finite. Our population growth has become
exponential. At the current rate, world population doubles every forty years
(Stephen Hawking The Universe In A Nutshell ). Although the amounts and
exact consequences are debatable, toxins poisonous to human beings are pouring into the
air we breathe. Sooner or later something's got to give. Even if our lifetimes are unaffected, I believe we owe it
to our descendants to take this seriously. I
believe it's in everyone's best interest to cut carbon dioxide emissions on a global scale and to seek alternative energy
sources. Afterall, our oil and coal supplies are also finite. Oil is also at the root of
our problems in the Middle East.
I care about our country. I also care about our world and all the beings who live here. I
care about our future. The world is simply getting too small for world leaders not to work
together. Now and in the future, political deprovincialization wilI be necessary to subdue
the challenges we will face. Our descendants will look back and be amused at our tribal
behavior. I wish Bush would at least have tried to compromise on the specifics of the
treaty he disagreed with.
I seem to remember in the
70’s, the same people who are screaming about Global Warming (massive barf alert)
were screaming about the coming ICE AGE! Call me when you can come to a conclusion
that is based in sound science, not radical Marxist doctrine and self-loathing for being a
success. As a musician, you use some of the finest woods in your
instruments…wood that primarily comes from the Rain Forest.
Here again, your hostility dwarfs your
rationale. No one knows for certain about the future of our global climate. Theoretical
scenarios and model experiments based on statistical evidence, however, support global
warming beyond natural variability, as a very real possibility. That's sound science.
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
I will never forget the hypocrisy of the musician
Gordon Sumner…aka Sting, when he was performing onstage in a concert to benefit
saving the Rain Forest. He had some Brazilian tribal chief present him with an award
for all he has done to help. Sting then launches into some drivel of a song, and I
get a good look at his Bass. As a Bassist, I know what I’m looking at. The neck
was made from…drumroll please…Rosewood! A hardwood that comes from...the
Rain Forest (also India, but predominantly it is Honduran or Brazilian Rosewood are
tonewoods). So, we all need to cut back…but pious, hypocritical liberals can do
whatever they want…kinda like how they all have HUGE mansions, limousines.
SUV’s, and are huge consumers…but they mouth some platitudes and
they CARE! WOW!
Once you look past matters concerning the construction of
bass guitars, you might be able to see the full picture: These concerned musicians are responsible for
raising millions of dollars for related noble causes and educating their fans to the
ecological and political realities around the world. They are aware of the eco-sociological repercussions involved. Most of these
people are practical and are advocates of reasonable moderation; a moderation and
practical ecology that not only justifies and celebrates the use of rosewood, but ensures
the use of it in the future.
"Unfortunately, terrorism will always be
with us. There are ways, however, to insure the infrequency of such acts.
The United States can do this by promoting and practicing globalism as
opposed to nationalism."
There are 40 wars (what 40 wars?)being
fought in this world today, 38 involve Islam
Before I address globalism directly, I'd like to take a larger look at Islam and religion
in general:
Religion is the vehicle, but the enemy is not the religion of Islam. The enemy are those
who pervert the religion to support and justify terrorism. The enemy are those who subvert
the impoverished, uneducated and fearful into a frenzy of hate. When Bush said Islam was a
“religion of peace”, he was correct in the sense the original altruistic tenets
are of peace, mercy and forgiveness. (All the great religious traditions; Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians, have similar themes and similar tribal deities.
(e.g. Allah, Brahma, Budda, Jesus, etc.) In many respects religion is responsible for much
charity and noble accomplishment throughout history. These religions also often offer
commandments or edicts conducive to a peaceful and honorable existence. They offer
consolation for those who can’t face our mortality, resulting in the consequent
variations of life after death. Personally, I don’t believe there’s anyone
“up there” judging us. I believe humans are totally responsible for their
actions and answer to no one but themselves (except maybe our wives). Whether or not
religion is a viable or responsible application for human existence, when it is used as a
diplomatic tool, the results have proven disastrous.) However, religion has
historically been the “modus operandi” for so much murder, oppression, obscurantism and
suffering, it clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of it all.
Christianity itself has its own present and historically infamous record. Listed
below are just a few examples of what Christianity is responsible for or supportive of:
-The Crusades
-The Inquisition
-Witch Burning
-Pope Infallibility (e.g. the failure of the Pope to denounce the German's activities
during W.W.II )
-Concept of original sin
-Transubstantiation
-Homophobia
-Misogyny
-The injustices that happened in the Americas when the Europeans arrived
-The Fall of Rome
-And how about all those priests who like putting their penises in the butts of little
boys |
Fortunately,
starting with the Renaissance, education has helped the Western World recognize the folly
of
religious dogma (for the most part)..... So how best to fight terrorism? Nationalism, xenophobia and
isolationism will merely aggravate this blistering sore. I say, for the sake of humanity,
share our wealth. We should do all we can to liberate the impoverished and oppressed from
their economic and psychological vulnerability. We can do this by improving their living
standards through financial aid, fair trade and education. We can teach them to read and
give them access to books and world media. The more educated they become the more apt they
will be able to abandon
silly and dangerous fundamentalist notions. Killing the terrorists may cosmetically remove
the blemish, but it
does not cure the ill.
The more the fruits of
knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious
belief. - Freud
The Dark ages (circa 600AD to 1200AD) may have marked the worst in Christian oppression.
Today, Islamic fundamentalism seems the greatest threat to civility around the world.
Islam needs reformation.
| “Many
Muslims have denied that Islam is a religion of violence or compulsion. If so, they should renounce the traditions
referenced above (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_22_1.htm)
and the fatwas against dissenters, critics, blasphemers, and unbelievers. After all,
Christians and Jews reject or ignore many biblical passages that ordain death for witches,
homosexuals, bastards, adulterers, etc. Why not the same Reformation for modern-day
Islam.” (Paul Kurtz) |
The masses have always been easily
seduced and controlled by religion. That’s why leaders find its utility so
irresistible. Nonetheless, the measure of theocracy always falls short of true liberty and
justice. Theocracy not
only allows, but encourages its people to cradle bigotry and hatred in the name of their
religion. This is
why our nation’s founders emphasized the profound importance of separation of church
and state. Religious
freedom should belong to all human beings. Just keep it out of the selective and
manipulative hands of the government.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction. - Pascal
Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and
the rulers see as useful. -
Seneca
With or without religion, you will have good people doing good things and evil people
doing evil things, but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven
Weinberg
Believers on all sides share a conviction that the truth has been revealed to them and
that all other truths are delusions. - Wendy Kaminer
Onward to your point regarding globalism;
I'm not advocating globalism in its
strictest sense. I just feel the US should reevaluate it's international policies
and goals: A little more authentic, as opposed to opportunistic compassion. More teamwork
and appropriately directed guidance and support. At this point, a collective emphasis on
global concerns could ultimately be determinate to the longevity of our species. Someone's
got to do it. Bush is in a position to show some true insight. He could go down in history
as a true world leader. He could, if his painfully shallow mind would allow him to do so,
show the world that the strongest nation is also the wisest nation, by practicing a
prudent globalism that enhances not only the rights, health and prosperity of Americans,
but initiates the same for all the decent inhabitants of the world who are
circumstantially unable to do so.
"The World Economic Forum has lambasted America as a smug
superpower, too beholden to Israel at the expense of the Muslim world, and inattentive to
the needs of poor countries or the advice of allies."
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/02/04/wef_criticism/index.html
Thanks, but if Globalism means that we in the US have to let these viscious oppressive
Islamic nations have a say in what we do, sign me up for Nationalism right now.
In its more honorable sense, globalism
does not mean letting viscious oppressive Islamic nations have a say in what we do. Such
regimes would never gain entry to the United Nations. And if any nation allies itself to
such a regime for self-serving reasons, it's their own fault and they'll have to deal with
the consequences. (e.g. the ideological hypocrisy and subsequent
hatred of the US for its opportunistic alliance ($6 billion per year)
with Israel and sponsorship of undemocratic and repressive regimes for safeguarding its
own interests.)
In contrast to a corporate globalism involving international trade, multinational
corporations, internationalization of finance, and world-wide application of new
technologies, the globalism I more frequently reference is the belief that "we share one fragile planet the survival of which requires mutual respect and
careful treatment of the earth and of all its people". (Globalization
vs. Globalism: Giving Internationalism a Bad Name)
nationalism - The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently
rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. www.dictionary.com
Mutual respect and civil rights for all
human beings: Obviously, no quarter can be given to those who would take these rights away. We
are one species and in a very real sense, one family. Most are not as fortunate as we are
and many need help. In this modern era of nuclear, chemical and bioterrorism, it behooves
us to find ways to get along. Besides, today it's impossible for a country to safely
isolate itself. We just can't stick our heads in the sand especially in light of the
wealth and education we can share. Remember,
terrorist breeding grounds thrive best where oppression, ignorance and poverty prevail.
Nationalism
is an infantile disease. - Albert Einstein
When the UN shows it can do more in countries like
Zimbabwe; where whites are being slaughtered and run out of the country so Mugabe can grab
their property and land…in Kosevo where Muslims slaughtered Serbs, and were covered
up by the UN Peacekeepers…when they can tell the 140 countries that condemn
Israel’s self defense to mind their own business, read Syria, Yemen, Saudi
Arabia…then they can make claim to being a World Body. Until then, find a new home,
not that nice piece of prime Real Estate in New York City.
I find it hard to believe the UN
would cover up the slaughtering of any humans. However, if you can document this, I'll
consider your claim. I do know America is a member of the United Nations and it is
ultimately beneficial to us to accommodate it's physical location. It seems you would like
to trash the UN because it has made some mistakes and had some failures. But "Yikes-a-Hooty" Rik, look at the job it's got to do!
"The United Nations is
central to global efforts to solve problems which challenge humanity. The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in
the Charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly
relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural
and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these
ends." http://www.un.org/aboutun/basicfacts/unorg.htm
Our crowded and contentious world needs
a body such as the UN to mediate the complicated and inevitable issues unmanageable
by any one nation. Many self-righteous and arrogant isolationists
believe their country is too good for a world court. This is exactly why the UN is there.
It is there to protect against economic, militaristic and theocratic arrogance, depotism
and totalitarianism running awry, and to address all global humanitarian concerns. The UN
attempts to ensure a just representation for alI its 189 members, philosophically similar
to our electoral college. The system is much like the American representative democracy.
Not perfect, but it's the best we've got.
A parting quote by one of my favorite writers:
"We still inhabit the prehistory of our race,
and have not caught up with the immense discoveries about our own nature and the nature of the universe. The
unspooling of the skein of the genome has effectively abolished racism and creationism,
and the amazing findings of Hubble and Hawking have allowed us to guess at the origins of
the cosmos. But how much more addictive is the familiar old garbage about tribe and nation
and faith." Christopher Hitchens |
