From London: God Help America

[davidm]

Perhaps, in evaluating the election, we should take our cue, both rhetorically and substantively, from America's Finest News Source.

Nation's Poor Win Election for Nation's Rich

From the news article:

"My family's been suffering ever since I lost my job at the screen-door factory, and I haven't seen a doctor for well on four years now," said father of four Buddy Kaldrin of Eerie, CO. "Shit, I don't even remember what a dentist's chair looks like... Basically, I'd give up if it weren't for God's grace. So it's good to know we have a president who cares about religion, too."

Kaldrin added: "That's why I always vote straight-ticket Republican, just like my daddy did, before he lost the farm and shot himself in the head, and just like his daddy did, before he died of black-lung disease in the company coal mines."

On the bright side, though, the resignation of Ashcroft means he won't be strategically covering up exposed "parts" of Justice Department statues any longer.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by lunachick

The talking didn't work. The nation was still taken over, because all the talking with no action made it easy for the sharks and the rats to take what they want anyway.

What action should have been taken, and how could you figure that out without talking about it?

[Petra]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

What action should have been taken, and how could you figure that out without talking about it?

Ironically, I'm still thinking about that.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Ironically, I'm still thinking about that.

Well FWIW, I wish I had an answer for you myself. It's just that too often I hear "enough talk, we need action!" followed by "anyone know where to get a truck filled with fertilizer?"

[Petra]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

It's just that too often I hear "enough talk, we need action!" followed by "anyone know where to get a truck filled with fertilizer?"

It's another dilemma, isn't it?

Do you smile sweetly at your rapist, or do you fight back?

[Adam]

Oh, I meant to say this before. When I went back and reread the OP to cherry pick the gun-totin' sister-lovin' bit for my last post, I realized that, despite the tone, there's at least one bit of what I consider extremely insightful commentary in it:

Al-Qaeda's existence is fuelled by the outpourings of America's Christian right. Bush is its commander-in-chief. And he and bin Laden need each other to survive.

Both need to play Lex Luther to each others' Superman with their own fanatical people. Maybe that's why the mightiest military machine ever assembled has failed to catch the world's most wanted man.

I don't know about the insinuation at the end that Bush is intentionally not catching bin Laden so as not to lose his bestest bogeyman, but the fact that extremists on the other side use our actions to drum up the same sort of support we give our leaders when we're attacked is certainly something I wish more Americans would think about more often.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Degenerate Hieroglyph

Perhaps, in evaluating the election, we should take our cue, both rhetorically and substantively, from America's Finest News Source.

Speaking of the Onion, I about gave myself an anyeurism laughing at this picture, captioned "Kerry Captures Bin Laden One Week Too Late":

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by lunachick

It's another dilemma, isn't it?

Do you smile sweetly at your rapist, or do you fight back?

I understand vm's point. And I keep wondering who is really the terrorist?

I'm not a proponent of violence. I rather suspect that much related to "power" is backed by the theat of violence. More of what I had in mind is a recent communique from Adbusters. I'm intrigued that someone actually cares to "rethink the Left" and create new memes. Anybody else familiar with the jammers?

Is where the real change needs to take place even in the ballot box? Or are we all mistakenly assuming that? There's Emma's Dictum: If votes had the power to change anything, they'd be illegal. If that's the case, what does have the power to change things and how can it be manipulated to our mutual benefit?

Maybe we need to seriously consider drawing lines and creating two new nations out of the one and then allow everybody two years to migrate to the other. Partition. Just like India and Pakistan...Wouldn't that be joyful?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I understand vm's point. And I keep wondering who is really the terrorist?

I often wonder that myself.

I rather suspect that much related to "power" is backed by the theat of violence. More of what I had in mind is a recent communique from Adbusters. I'm intrigued that someone actually cares to "rethink the Left" and create new memes. Anybody else familiar with the jammers?

I am a bit. Unfortunately the first issue I bought had a bunch of angry letters to the editor about an allegedly anti-semitic article in a previous issue, which lead me to post this thread which resulted in my being pretty wary of AdBusters.

Is where the real change needs to take place even in the ballot box? Or are we all mistakenly assuming that?

I don't know, but I've always suspected not. That's why I've never voted. You folks (lisarea, specifically) convinced me to give it a try this time around, but I wasn't really sold on the value of it. I've always been a radical non-conformist, and as such have often pondered violent revolt. At the time of the Oklahoma bombing I respected their dedication to their beliefs despite their having targetted civilians, and I wasn't as appalled by their tactics as some were.

This is because I shared their anger and sadness about the massacre in Waco, and I accepted - as they did - that there was no legal recourse. So from my perspective the fact that McVeigh and company declared war on America and subsequently bombed a federal building wasn't substantially morally different from anything the American government does routinely. I don't think "terrorism" is a particularly meaningful word in that light.

There's Emma's Dictum: If votes had the power to change anything, they'd be illegal. If that's the case, what does have the power to change things and how can it be manipulated to our mutual benefit?

I would love to find an answer to that question. I fear the best we can hope for is baby-steps toward a better tomorrow, but as is painfully evident this comes at a cost and we have fairly good reason to believe the people we've elected to do the job are only looking out for their own best interests, which won't necessarily benefit us.

Maybe we need to seriously consider drawing lines and creating two new nations out of the one and then allow everybody two years to migrate to the other. Partition. Just like India and Pakistan...Wouldn't that be joyful.

Someone at SC linked to this site full of cool maps. The last one is who voted for whom by county and adjusted for population. It's a much more encouraging picture than the standard red/blue going around:

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I often wonder that myself.

Have you ever managed to question anyone who throws around the "terrorist" label with regards to Islamists as to what they mean by the term or how they define it? I haven't had the opportunity, but I suspect that if one could get a coherent definition that the U.S., particularly U.S. foreign policy, would fall neatly into that definition.

I take it that we (being the U.S.) still have the world's largest nuclear arsenal...still active and targeted, presumably...is somehow NOT terrorism of the highest degree? That the U.S. has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the world and continues to produce them somehow exempts us from being a purveyor of WMD? I just don't understand the perspective, I guess.

I am a bit. Unfortunately the first issue I bought had a bunch of angry letters to the editor about an allegedly anti-semitic article in a previous issue, which lead me to post this thread which resulted in my being pretty wary of AdBusters.

Wary is great. I encourage it. I'm wary because their message is a might extreme for me. As was the message of the Oklahoma City bombers...What was I to learn from that other than I am not safe from my own fellow citizens? Or, that when extremists avenues for change are foreclosed, we all suffer? That message was not clear and thus, unlike you at the time, I had no such respect for the bombers. I still don't.

That's not to say that I don't think that violence is a valid response...I think it can be under certain circumstances. But I don't yet think we've reached those conditions; even though I do think we have made a step closer to those kinds of alternatives becoming reality. I'm just not sure what those conditions and circumstances are or should be.

My selecting the Adbusters folks was based upon my seeing something "constructive" being done. I do appreciate your link to the discussion thread with Doctor X, et al, regarding the potential "anti-Semitic" article. I, too, find it a strange thing to select out in terms of characteristics of high-profile members of the identified group, considering that almost every major social-intellectual movement in the United States has significant numbers of Jews in the ranks of their policy makers and leadership. I'd bet good money that there are such on the board that governs the Adbusters Foundation. And, in the campaigns of all the Democratic contenders. The reason I can see such is that Jews, as a group, give high status to education, intellectualism and community involvement and leadership.

Also... I'm rather curious as to why, when Islamic bashing occurs (and the whole situation with the Homeland Security and the "profiling" of travelers that is done) nobody screams about "anti-Semitism". The Arabic peoples are Semites, too. How is it that we always forget such?

I don't know, but I've always suspected not. That's why I've never voted. You folks (lisarea, specifically) convinced me to give it a try this time around, but I wasn't really sold on the value of it. I've always been a radical non-conformist, and as such have often pondered violent revolt. At the time of the Oklahoma bombing I respected their dedication to their beliefs despite their having targetted civilians, and I wasn't as appalled by their tactics as some were.

This is because I shared their anger and sadness about the massacre in Waco, and I accepted - as they did - that there was no legal recourse. So from my perspective the fact that McVeigh and company declared war on America and subsequently bombed a federal building wasn't substantially morally different from anything the American government does routinely. I don't think "terrorism" is a particularly meaningful word in that light.

I can't agree with your assessment of the McVeigh response, but I agree that it was not morally different than anything the American government does routinely. Like invading sovereign nations on fabricated pretexts and in the absence of any act of war perpetrated against the U.S. The whole posturing of the American government over Iraq and the "war on terrorism" appears highly hypocritical to me. Am I missing something?

I would love to find an answer to that question. I fear the best we can hope for is baby-steps toward a better tomorrow, but as is painfully evident this comes at a cost and we have fairly good reason to believe the people we've elected to do the job are only looking out for their own best interests, which won't necessarily benefit us.

Agreed. So.... Do "we", being those here on this board, have any role in what unfolds from this point on? How about critical assessment of all sides in the debate over national direction and foreign policy?

Someone at SC linked to this site full of cool maps. The last one is who voted for whom by county and adjusted for population. It's a much more encouraging picture than the standard red/blue going around:

Kewl maps. From the adjusted maps, it certainly looks like an urban/rural split to me, but that's probably far too simplistic of a view.

So... I guess this is where I need to set out my apologies to liv, vm and beyelzu with regards to my intemperence in this thread. The same goes for all those who I offended inadvertantly. All I have to say for myself is that I have obvious hypersensitivity in regards to Bush and the neocon agenda. I still suspect them of cynical and illicit manipulation of election results. I lost my temper in my disappointment and depression. My apologies for my behavior. I shall attempt to be more temperate.


godfry

[livius drusus]

Thank you, godfry, for a great post, for your apology, for fixing the quote tags, and for using putting the quote bubble above your name so it looks really cute.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Have you ever managed to question anyone who throws around the "terrorist" label with regards to Islamists as to what they mean by the term or how they define it? I haven't had the opportunity, but I suspect that if one could get a coherent definition that the U.S., particularly U.S. foreign policy, would fall neatly into that definition.

We're talking about definitions of terrorism in this thread about Arafat's death.

I take it that we (being the U.S.) still have the world's largest nuclear arsenal...still active and targeted, presumably...is somehow NOT terrorism of the highest degree? That the U.S. has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the world and continues to produce them somehow exempts us from being a purveyor of WMD? I just don't understand the perspective, I guess.

I don't really understand it either, but I think it's founded on an inexplicable belief that we're trustworthy and others aren't.

Wary is great. I encourage it. I'm wary because their message is a might extreme for me. As was the message of the Oklahoma City bombers...What was I to learn from that other than I am not safe from my own fellow citizens? Or, that when extremists avenues for change are foreclosed, we all suffer? That message was not clear and thus, unlike you at the time, I had no such respect for the bombers. I still don't.

Well don't get me wrong, I don't have any respect for them now. But I like to think I am more "morally mature" - to coin a phrase - now. At the time, though, I respected what I saw as an expression of moral courage.

That's not to say that I don't think that violence is a valid response...I think it can be under certain circumstances. But I don't yet think we've reached those conditions; even though I do think we have made a step closer to those kinds of alternatives becoming reality. I'm just not sure what those conditions and circumstances are or should be.

Right. That's essentially what I meant. I didn't condone their action, but it made sense to me.

My selecting the Adbusters folks was based upon my seeing something "constructive" being done.

I agree that it's cool to see people making an active effort to effect positive change like that.

I do appreciate your link to the discussion thread with Doctor X, et al, regarding the potential "anti-Semitic" article. I, too, find it a strange thing to select out in terms of characteristics of high-profile members of the identified group, considering that almost every major social-intellectual movement in the United States has significant numbers of Jews in the ranks of their policy makers and leadership. I'd bet good money that there are such on the board that governs the Adbusters Foundation. And, in the campaigns of all the Democratic contenders. The reason I can see such is that Jews, as a group, give high status to education, intellectualism and community involvement and leadership.

Also... I'm rather curious as to why, when Islamic bashing occurs (and the whole situation with the Homeland Security and the "profiling" of travelers that is done) nobody screams about "anti-Semitism". The Arabic peoples are Semites, too. How is it that we always forget such?

I find the whole issue of anti-Semitism utterly confusing. First, most people don't even seem to agree on whether "Jewish" is a religious or ethnic demarcation. Second, as you say "Jews" aren't the only Semites. Third, so many people seem to staunchly believe that anti-Israel = anti-Jewish, which pretty much guarantees no acceptable criticism of a powerful and influential Nation in the Middle East without drawing fire from anti-racists. And on and on...

I can't agree with your assessment of the McVeigh response, but I agree that it was not morally different than anything the American government does routinely. Like invading sovereign nations on fabricated pretexts and in the absence of any act of war perpetrated against the U.S. The whole posturing of the American government over Iraq and the "war on terrorism" appears highly hypocritical to me. Am I missing something?

Right. As I said it's not that I think they did the right thing, but I understood it in context, and I don't think it was a fundamentally different action (morally) than what they were protesting.

Agreed. So.... Do "we", being those here on this board, have any role in what unfolds from this point on? How about critical assessment of all sides in the debate over national direction and foreign policy?

I definitely see that as a good start. Also we made the "Community Activism" forum specifically because we wanted to encourage people (like ourselves) to step beyond the talk and take action, and to provide a place for people who were interested in doing so to share resources and stories.

Kewl maps. From the adjusted maps, it certainly looks like an urban/rural split to me, but that's probably far too simplistic of a view.

Could be, could be. I've definitely heard variations on that theory bandied about.

So... I guess this is where I need to set out my apologies to liv, vm and beyelzu with regards to my intemperence in this thread. The same goes for all those who I offended inadvertantly. All I have to say for myself is that I have obvious hypersensitivity in regards to Bush and the neocon agenda. I still suspect them of cynical and illicit manipulation of election results. I lost my temper in my disappointment and depression. My apologies for my behavior. I shall attempt to be more temperate.

Thanks, godfry. I apologize as well for my abrasive tone. I understand where you're coming from.