From the American Taliban
Animaminima
Dan Clore
> http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
An informative read.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
G*rd*n
> > http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
cl...@columbia-center.org:
> An informative read.
Indeed. But no doubt our libertarian friends will continue
to mostly ignore these people while foaming at the mouth about
virtually non-existent "socialists".
Curly Surmudgeon
Why hoist a strawman then beat libertarians for it? That adds nothing to
the conversation and alienated a sizeable population that may be open to
anarchism.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G*rd*n
> >> > http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
cl...@columbia-center.org:
> >> An informative read.
G*rd*n:
> > Indeed. But no doubt our libertarian friends will continue
> > to mostly ignore these people while foaming at the mouth about
> > virtually non-existent "socialists".
Curly Surmudgeon <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com>:
> Why hoist a strawman then beat libertarians for it? That adds nothing to
> the conversation and alienated a sizeable population that may be open to
> anarchism.
I was hoping they would rush forward _en_masse_ and prove me
wrong.
Curly Surmudgeon
Baiting potential allies doesn't help our cause.
Divisive, polarizing, attacks are the hallmark of demopublicans and look
at what it's done to them. No statement is possible without an all-out
attack by the other side. This prevents resolving even tiny issues for
each side is out to draw blood from the other. Look at how existing
structures keep minorities at each other's throat and how that keeps them
powerless. There is no justification for blacks hating jews, mexicans
hating blacks, everybody hating asians. It's just a ploy to keep them all
off-balance and isolated.
Libertarians, anarchists, even the Greens and independents, should be
joining forces to bring down the two party system, not goading each other.
Let's support each other where our philosophies overlap and not devolve
into useless squabbling.
Libertarians are close cousins.
Craig Franck
> Animaminima wrote:
>
> > http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
>
> An informative read.
It would be more informative if it stated exactly where the quotes came
from.
The second quote from Ann Coulter (I'm not trying to defend her; she's
obviously a silly person with a pronounced personality disorder) was made
(IIRC) in the context of the "War on Terror," which is a war with Muslem
extremists.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
James A. Donald
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:03:57 +0000 (UTC), g...@panix.com
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> Indeed. But no doubt our libertarian friends will
> continue to mostly ignore these people while foaming
> at the mouth about virtually non-existent
> "socialists".
I don't see any state sponsored efforts to impose
Christianity. I do see state sponsored efforts to
impose Gaia worship and state sponsored efforts
indoctrinate children with socialist ideology.
Every schoolchild in America is taught that the grapes
of wrath is a docudrama, whereas in fact it is science
fiction/fantasy, set in a world where Marx's predictions
came true.
Christians have not murdered any significant number of
people to promulgate Christianity. Large numbers of
people have been murdered to promulgate various other
doctrines, the largest number of murders being to
enforce and impose socialism.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
WFKtBmboQrXAjauqsJ9J1NC5qb6XzMhjNhpT21ME
48VEvGXsarfQ74rGXFQwiypEgM/lD2I83K5r7S8bT
G*rd*n
> >> >> > http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
cl...@columbia-center.org:
> >> >> An informative read.
G*rd*n:
> >> > Indeed. But no doubt our libertarian friends will continue
> >> > to mostly ignore these people while foaming at the mouth about
> >> > virtually non-existent "socialists".
Curly Surmudgeon <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com>:
> >> Why hoist a strawman then beat libertarians for it? That adds nothing to
> >> the conversation and alienated a sizeable population that may be open to
> >> anarchism.
G*rd*n:
> > I was hoping they would rush forward _en_masse_ and prove me
> > wrong.
Curly Surmudgeon <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com>:
> Baiting potential allies doesn't help our cause.
>
> Divisive, polarizing, attacks are the hallmark of demopublicans and look
> at what it's done to them. No statement is possible without an all-out
> attack by the other side. This prevents resolving even tiny issues for
> each side is out to draw blood from the other. Look at how existing
> structures keep minorities at each other's throat and how that keeps them
> powerless. There is no justification for blacks hating jews, mexicans
> hating blacks, everybody hating asians. It's just a ploy to keep them all
> off-balance and isolated.
>
> Libertarians, anarchists, even the Greens and independents, should be
> joining forces to bring down the two party system, not goading each other.
> Let's support each other where our philosophies overlap and not devolve
> into useless squabbling.
>
> Libertarians are close cousins.
Looks like James has risen to the occasion, although this
evening he's on about Gaia instead of Marx or Pol Pot. Anyway,
we are assured that Christians never harm a fly.
Michael Gray
wrote:
>http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
Truly scary stuff.
Scary because it's real.
constan...@gmail.com
Socialist errors are interesting to me, because supposedly they are a
product of reason and the evidence of the senses, and it is fun and
often enlightening to see where the reason and the evidence gathering
go astray. Religious beliefs are not interesting to me, because the
"evidence" on which they are based is scripture, and I am not
interested in scripture, nor am I interested in the question of whether
scripture does or does not warrant whatever religious belief is in
question.
For example, one of the "American Taliban" says:
"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty
does not hear the prayer of a Jew."
How would I debate such an assertion? Would I challenge the guy to come
up with the place in the Bible where it says that? I could, but I would
not bother, because I am not interested in the Bible, let alone in what
the Bible does or does not warrant. So that assertion, the assertion
that God does not hear the prayers of Jews, just holds no interest for
me. It is about as interesting to me, as worth spending my time
debating, as the assertion that Godzilla would defeat Mecha Godzilla in
a one on one match (supposing there were no movie that settled this
question once and for all).
In contrast, consider this statement, which I took from the Anarchist
FAQ:
"The first problem in using marginal utility to determine price is that
it leads to circular reasoning. Prices are supposed to measure the
"marginal utility" of the commodity, yet consumers need to know the
price first in order to evaluate how best to maximise their
satisfaction."
The assertion contained in that quote does have the potential to
interest me, because it challenges a key element of the economic
theories that I am interested in, and it intends to do so not on the
basis of some scripture that must be taken on faith, but on the basis
of reason.
Curly Surmudgeon
I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm as anti-religionist
as it's possible to be without becoming violent but I don't attack
political groups because the Mor(m)ons are molesting prepubescent girls.
Curly Surmudgeon
> --
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:03:57 +0000 (UTC), g...@panix.com
> (G*rd*n) wrote:
>> Indeed. But no doubt our libertarian friends will
>> continue to mostly ignore these people while foaming
>> at the mouth about virtually non-existent
>> "socialists".
>
> I don't see any state sponsored efforts to impose
> Christianity. I do see state sponsored efforts to
> impose Gaia worship and state sponsored efforts
> indoctrinate children with socialist ideology.
>
> Every schoolchild in America is taught that the grapes
> of wrath is a docudrama, whereas in fact it is science
> fiction/fantasy, set in a world where Marx's predictions
> came true.
>
> Christians have not murdered any significant number of
> people to promulgate Christianity.
Whoa! Throw out the anchor!
Christians are demonstrably the most bloodthirsty religion this planet has
ever known. The numbers may be in the hundreds of millions when you
consider collateral damage. Can you say "smallpox"?
> Large numbers of
> people have been murdered to promulgate various other
> doctrines, the largest number of murders being to
> enforce and impose socialism.
Many, for sure but those killed for the Christan god outnumber all the
world wars over the last 500 years. North America was once home to about
100 million natives, central/south america even more. I'm constantly
amazed that Latinos revere Catholicism, the very same church that
decimated their ancestors and culture.
Can you say, "The Spanish Inquisition?"
constan...@gmail.com
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> Can you say, "The Spanish Inquisition?"
Christianity has a bloody history, but it has been de-clawed. The
Spanish Inquisition happened long ago.
(yes, yes, I know, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition)
James A. Donald
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:48:58 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
> Christians are demonstrably the most bloodthirsty
> religion this planet has ever known.
The Spanish inquisition killed a few thousand -
communists that are that low are declared saints.
>The numbers may be in the hundreds of millions when you
> consider collateral damage. Can you say "smallpox"?
Smallpox was not used to enforce Christianity. Most
Indians died before European settlement even began.
> Many, for sure but those killed for the Christan god
> outnumber all the world wars over the last 500 years.
> North America was once home to about 100 million
> natives, central/south america even more.
The were not killed for the Christian god - those of
them that were killed, were killed for land, and most of
them were not killed, but merely died of natural causes,
not due to any conscious intent.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
2gIlyXnt/132UX9JKWf3KsZith6XHxSkr+nAc/3t
4sOjrkQtg6sJJG2XfNbKeiM1YHXEAgydBI1s6BXZo
Toby
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:dk6lf15b101hbvh13...@4ax.com...
>
> Christians have not murdered any significant number of
> people to promulgate Christianity. Large numbers of
> people have been murdered to promulgate various other
> doctrines, the largest number of murders being to
> enforce and impose socialism.
How large is large?
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/crusades.html#1
"The total number of deaths due to the crusades had been estimated at
around nine million, at least half of which were Christians. Many of these
were simply innocent civilians caught in the carnage. "
There are grey areas as well. Do Christian sects killing each other count?
How about the "Christian" Europeans' wholesale slaughter of American
aboriginals? There was quite a slave trade to both Christian and Muslim
countries--estimates I have seen are 8M slaves dead in Christian countries
and 9M dead in Islamic countries. The number of women killed in witch hunts
may number into the millions.
No religion is blameless in this regard, but the proselytizing religions,
specifically Christianity and Islam, have always been bad in this regard
(I'm not counting socialism or communism here since they don't claim
religious standing).
Among major religions only Buddhism seems to have a fairly clean record.
Toby
Alex Russell
> --
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:03:57 +0000 (UTC), g...@panix.com
> (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>>Indeed. But no doubt our libertarian friends will
>>continue to mostly ignore these people while foaming
>>at the mouth about virtually non-existent
>>"socialists".
>
>
> I don't see any state sponsored efforts to impose
> Christianity. I do see state sponsored efforts to
> impose Gaia worship and state sponsored efforts
> indoctrinate children with socialist ideology.
Many of those examples are Christians who want the government to impose
christian values on everyone, or just plain bigotry. The usa government
has started to impose those values by limiting access to abortion and
trying to force people to add "under god" to the pledge of aliegence.
The fear is that these radicals are gaining political power in the usa
and that if they gain power they will be just as bad as the Taliban.
The idea that the usa was founded as a "christian country" is wrong. The
usa founding fathers had much experience with state imposed religion and
wanted nothing to do with it. Of course, christian values did shape much
of usa legal infrastructure along with english common law.
>
> Every schoolchild in America is taught that the grapes
> of wrath is a docudrama, whereas in fact it is science
> fiction/fantasy, set in a world where Marx's predictions
> came true.
I was under the impression that the Grapes of Wrath was set in the USA
during the Great Depression. The usa was not a socialist country then,
any more than it is now. The family being followed in the story had its
property foreclosed by the bank, a normal capitalist event, which sent
the family west. Then due the labour market they couldn't earn very
much, and what they did earn they were forced to spend at the "company
store" which used its monopoly to charge high prices.
Most of the hardship in the Grapes of Wrath was due to bad weather, a
prolonged drought, not any usa government policy. Greedy capitalists
willing to not only offer low wages, but then extract as much as those
wages back via the company store didn't help.
I'm curious as to what parts of the book you thought were "fantasy". I'm
also curious about what you think the family in question could have done
instead of what they did that would have made more economic sense.
What about the "company stores"? What policies of the usa government at
that time did you think were socialist (make work projects, allowing
unions?)? What policies should the usa government have implemented?
>
> Christians have not murdered any significant number of
> people to promulgate Christianity. Large numbers of
> people have been murdered to promulgate various other
> doctrines, the largest number of murders being to
> enforce and impose socialism.
Christians haven't murdered any one recently on a large scale. The
Crusades were certainly bloody. The christian church was very much
involved in the colonization of north and south america. Only a few
crazed anti-abortionist christians are murdering people in the usa
currently.
I can't recall any religion killing for socialism. Most communist whole
scale murders were athiests.
alex russell
James A. Donald
"James A. Donald"
> > Christians have not murdered any significant number
> > of people to promulgate Christianity. Large numbers
> > of people have been murdered to promulgate various
> > other doctrines, the largest number of murders being
> > to enforce and impose socialism.
"Toby"
> How large is large?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/crusades.html#1
>
> "The total number of deaths due to the crusades had
> been estimated at
> around nine million, at least half of which were
> Christians. Many of these were simply innocent
> civilians caught in the carnage. "
Your argument presupposes that the Crusades were a
wicked thing, and wholly the fault of the Christians.
The specific incident that provoked the crusades was
that the Mad Caliph massacred Christian tourists in
Jerusalem, but this was more a pretext than a cause.
The crusades were a response to Muslim expansion. They
wanted to establish Christian feudal lords in the
middle east as a counter attack to stop Muslim military
expansion. The crusaders did not engage in forcible
conversion. They conquered and ruled, and once the
locals submitted, that was it, though cities that
stubbornly resisted tended to be massacred.
And if it was true that the crusades were wholly a
matter of evangelism by the sword, which they were not,
still small stuff compared to the ideologies of the
twentieth century.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
i0DMhqkTXeAhM/G/N3e2bAZuOjU3IRAIwwRhIxsO
471PhWN/tZEWqe0ATDXyvSbklK9DKQMSXf0PSbyf+
James A. Donald
James A. Donald wrote:
> > I don't see any state sponsored efforts to impose
> > Christianity. I do see state sponsored efforts to
> > impose Gaia worship and state sponsored efforts
> > indoctrinate children with socialist ideology.
Alex Russell
> Many of those examples are Christians who want the
> government to impose christian values on everyone, or
> just plain bigotry.
It is not the Christians who are responsible for forced
participation of schoolchildren in superstitious
neopagan environmentalist rituals.
James A. Donald:
> > Every schoolchild in America is taught that the
> > grapes of wrath is a docudrama, whereas in fact it
> > is science fiction/fantasy, set in a world where
> > Marx's predictions came true.
Alex Russell
> I was under the impression that the Grapes of Wrath
> was set in the USA during the Great Depression
Only in the sense that "Atlas Shrugged" was set in 1950.
"Atlas Shrugged" was not set in our 1950, and the "The
Grapes of Wrath" was not set in our great depression.
"The Grapes of Wrath" depicts not the depression era
USA, but Marx's monopoly capitalism, where capitalism
*is* the state, and police directly enforce prices and
wages. It is a centralized command economy, in which
big capitalists give orders to little capitalists, and
the police directly enforce those commands - a state
enforced command economy run by a cabal of big
capitalists.
The Grapes of wrath depicts a police state reaching into
every transaction and applying its violence to control
every transaction
"The Grapes of Wrath" pushes a particular political
line, and you have to show that you have understood the
political line, or else your essay will be failed.
Essays set on "The Grapes of Wrath" frequently
constitute coerced affirmation. The schoolchild is
required to denounce capitalism, or else he does not
pass.
No school study of "the grapes of wrath" acknowledges
that Steinbeck's claim to dramatize real facts and real
stories is bullshit.
> The usa was not a socialist country then, any more
> than it is now. The family being followed in the story
> had its property foreclosed by the bank, a normal
> capitalist event, which sent the family west.
The seizure did not follow normal capitalist procedures
- it was a police action, administrative, rather than
economic. More important is what happened when the
family goes west.
The Joads are beaten up for asking for a job offer in
writing - not for organizing a violent confrontation
with their employer, and one of the Joads becomes a
fugitive for his proletarian sympathies - not for a
protest that turns violent. Those are not normal
capitalist events.
Requesting offers in writing is normal capitalism. What
we see in Steinbeck is not capitalism, but a command
economy, in which prices and wages are directly imposed
by the violence of the police.
Steinbeck is also wrong in detail. There was no dust
bowl in Oklahoma - the dust that he depicts is a
different disaster, afflicting a different time and
place. About four thousand okies, not the three hundred
thousand he claimed, wound up living in camps similar to
those he depicts. The okies were not refugees fleeing
dust and drought but migrants, for the most part
migrants who were responding to job offers. It takes
about three days to go from where the Joads lived, to
the urban centers of California where the okies were
headed, while Steinbeck has them go through a long
biblical style exodus suffering great hardship in the
wilderness. The vast majority of the okies went with the
intent of upward mobility, went because they expected
and intended upward mobility, and a large proportion of
them achieved it.
> Then due the labour market they couldn't earn very
> much, and what they did earn they were forced to spend
> at the "company store" which used its monopoly to
> charge high prices.
Commie fantasy - and there are not even company stores
in "The Grapes of Wrath"
> I'm curious as to what parts of the book you thought
> were "fantasy". I'm also curious about what you think
> the family in question could have done
> instead of what they did that would have made more
> economic sense.
> What about the "company stores"?
What company stores?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
cKIOidyEQQ9oPdYT0iblhiytp7Nrg7iq7Hr4p5al
48NTFuaQwzn5iysGQh5B8oa7GBIMg3a3m8zdpSoto
Toby
Nothing like Stalin or Pol Pot. I agree. Still, there was much more killing
done throughout history by Christians than by Buddhists, who were and are
not interested in converting others.
Toby
Curly Surmudgeon
-----------snip------------
>> And if it was true that the crusades were wholly a
>> matter of evangelism by the sword, which they were not,
>> still small stuff compared to the ideologies of the
>> twentieth century.
>
> Nothing like Stalin or Pol Pot. I agree. Still, there was much more killing
> done throughout history by Christians than by Buddhists, who were and are
> not interested in converting others.
Here in California millions of indians were worked to death, males in leg
irons, in the fields for the Catholics who beatified Father Junipero Serra
a few years ago. Serra was one of the major slave-masters.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:11:07 -0500, Toby wrote:
> -----------snip------------
>>> And if it was true that the crusades were wholly a matter of
>>> evangelism by the sword, which they were not, still small stuff
>>> compared to the ideologies of the twentieth century.
>>
>> Nothing like Stalin or Pol Pot. I agree. Still, there was much more
>> killing done throughout history by Christians than by Buddhists, who
>> were and are not interested in converting others.
>
> Here in California millions of indians were worked to death, males in
> leg irons, in the fields for the Catholics who beatified Father Junipero
> Serra a few years ago. Serra was one of the major slave-masters.
Before the denials begin:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/explorers/mexico.shtml
SERRA, JUNIPERO
Father Junipero Serra (1713-1784) was a Spanish Franciscan priest who
traveled to Mexico in 1749 to do missionary work and perform other church
functions.
In 1767, Serra went north from Mexico to what is now California and
continued his missionary work, converting native Americans zealously
(sometimes forcibly). He founded many missions in California, including
the Mission of San Diego (founded in 1769) and 8 other missions, which
were often built by the forced labor of Indians who were rounded up by
Spanish soldiers. The death rate of Native Americans at Serra's missions
was tremendously high; many more died than were baptized. Serra also
helped an expedition in locating San Francisco.
Father Serra was well-known for his acts of mortification of the flesh; he
wore heavy hair shirts with sharp wires that rubbed against his skin, he
whipped himself, and he burned himself with candles. Although the Catholic
church bestowed sainthood on Serra in 1988 for his missionary work, his
cruelty and the tremendously negative effect he had on Native Americans
have made him a very controversial saint to many people.
===================
Revisiting history; More teachers are exploring the adverse effects of
California's missions on Indians 02/20/2004 - SACRAMENTO CA By Stephen
Magagnini – Sacramento Bee Staff Writer The two sides of Father Junipero
Serra took center stage last week at Del Paso Manor Elementary School in
the Arden area, where 30 kids performed a musical titled "California
Missions - and More!"A pint-sized Father Serra declared, "I'm just a
humble Franciscan friar doing the best service I can," then sang
cheerfully, "grain is rising, so civilizing." But the Serra character was
followed by a mournful chorus of California Indians left homeless when the
missions were sold off after Mexico gained its freedom from Spain in 1821.
"Where do we go? You gave us shoes and taught us how to plow/But all the
land belongs to you now," they moaned in a minor key. "What do we do?
We've lost the skills to hunt and to track/Too late to learn too late to
turn back." Serra - who started the system of 21 California missions along
El Camino Real ("The King's Highway") from San Diego to Sonoma built
between 1769 and 1823 - looms large in California history. Schools,
streets and parks bear his name. A larger-than-life statue of Serra
perches piously in Capitol Park. A 20-foot concrete-and-steel sculpture of
Serra - a finger pointing out the path to heavenly enlightenment - sits
off Interstate 280 ("Father Junipero Serra Highway") near Hillsborough.
But while Serra remains a candidate for sainthood - Pope John Paul II
beatified the priest in 1988 - a growing number of elementary school
teachers are gingerly exploring the devastating effect Serra's beloved
missions had on tens of thousands of California Indians who gave their
lives and freedom to build and maintain them. Each year in California,
elementary school students, typically fourth-graders, take up the role of
the missions as they study the state's history. Though fourth-grade
textbooks have changed little in the last 30 years, the emergence of
California Indians as a political and economic force has generated new
respect for Indian sovereignty and a less-sanitized view of California's
mission history. Judy Dronberger, whose students performed "California
Missions - and More!", said that when she first began teaching six years
ago, she taught strictly by the book sanctioned by the state Department of
Education, which "led kids to the point where Father Serra was doing only
what was right, he was basically a good guy. It really doesn't question
him." Now, Dronberger and other teachers are using plays, videos, extra
readings and field trips to missions so that kids can decide for
themselves whether Serra was a saint or a sinner. Dronberger's students -
like many teachers - were divided on Serra's sanctity. Jacob Cannon, the
8-year-old who played Serra, said that what happened to the Indians "was
cruel and shouldn't have been done, but it wasn't his fault." Jacob's
classmate, Brooke Carroll, was less forgiving: "Trying to make (Indians)
into Christians was a good idea, but not making them into slaves. He
tricked people into thinking he was a good guy, but in the end they found
out he was sort of mean." Before long, even Serra's image as a
well-meaning missionary who wanted to "civilize" native Californians may
fade into history. Edward Castillo, chairman of the Native American
studies department at Sonoma State University, has received a state grant
to revamp California's public school curriculum to address Indian
sovereignty and more fully explore the impact of missions on indigenous
people. "We want to put the Indian back in mission history, not just as
victims, but as active participants," he said. "They had rebellions, they
poisoned priests, they occupied some missions and burned others to the
ground." Castillo, a California Indian from the Cahuilla and Luiseño
nations, said his ancestors were enslaved at several missions. "My
grandparents called it the 'slave church,' " he said. His book on the
impact of California's missions, "Indians, Franciscans and Spanish
Colonization," paints a picture of genocide. "About 70,000 Indians died at
California missions from 1769 to 1837, most from measles, mumps and
chickenpox, and there's not a single headstone for any one of them,"
Castillo said. "The average life span was 12. As they were dying, the
fathers were saying, 'You're dying because you're pagan.' " The
missionaries, however, kept meticulous records of those who died and why,
and Castillo said he helped raise $32,000 to erect a wall in 1998 at the
Sonoma mission listing the names of almost 700 Indians who died there. "We
put an asterisk next to the children's names," he said. Serra was more
quixotic than demonic, Castillo said. "He really thought he could take
these Indians and transform them into a perfect society under the careful
tutelage and strict discipline of the missionaries. The missions were only
supposed to last 10 years, then be turned over to the Indians, but the
Indians kept dying off." Castillo, a former public school teacher, doesn't
think fourth- graders need all the gory details, such as how soldiers and
some priests raped Indian women. "But you can teach that some of the
mission soldiers were cruel to the Indians and stole their wives, and that
some priests were good and tried to help the Indians," he said. Castillo
and Cindy LaMarr, president of the National Indian Education Association,
said it's up to individual teachers to give the Indian perspective on
California's missions. Jennifer Stampfli, a teacher at Frontier Elementary
School in Rio Linda, said that she wasn't satisfied with the standard
fourth-grade textbook, "Oh California!" So Stampfli got her Parent Teacher
Association to buy her students "California Studies Weekly," a newspaper
that gives a more detailed history of the mission era, including an
account of 600 Kumeyaay Indians who revolted at Mission San Diego de
Alcalá in 1775, burning it to the ground. "I realize I can speak the
truth," said Stampfli, 27. " I don't have to tell what's exactly in the
textbooks." Serra is treated more charitably at Holy Family, a Catholic
elementary school in Citrus Heights. "Father Serra is presented as a
wonderful human being acting in accordance with his conscience," said Vice
Principal Stephanie Jones. "He believed the native people needed to be
disciplined and enlightened and - just as they've been taught about
slavery - the children are taught that this was thought to be perfectly
correct. We've come a long way since then." Jones said Serra has a
legitimate shot at sainthood."He brought Spanish architecture to
California, he brought art, he brought education in a limited form to the
Indians, he taught them basic European agriculture, and he brought
Christianity and Catholicism to California, which exerted positive forces
and still do," she said. But Jones said her students also are taught that
Indians were mistreated and stripped of their culture. "The teaching of
history has changed as we have become a more educated and sensitive
society," she said. "When I was a child ... in San Francisco public
schools in the 1940s - Father Serra was presented as an absolute savior to
the 'heathens.' " Jones is happy today's kids get a less saccharine view
of Serra. Her fourth-graders now have a choice: They can make a model of a
mission, an Indian settlement or a California ranchero. "They're usually
Styrofoam," she said. "Things have improved since we had a classroom
filled with ants from the sugar cube missions the kids used to make in the
1970s and 1980s." Father Junipero Serra (1713-1784) Father Junipero Serra
grew up in on the Spanish island of Mallorca. He was educated by the
Franciscans and was ordained at age 24. Serra taught philosophy at a
university for a dozen years before choosing to be a New World missionary
in 1749. One theory is that he left Spain because he feared the
Inquisition would punish him for having a Jewish grandfather. He landed in
Vera Cruz, Mexico, then walked 260 miles to Mexico City, a trek that left
him disabled for life. After Serra spent 20 years in Mexico, the king of
Spain sent him to New California where on July 16, 1769, he founded San
Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions on the El Camino Real. The
missions included presidios, or fortresses, occupied by Spanish soldiers.
http://www.museumca.org/picturethis/1_2.html
"Missions, my lord, missions--that is what this country needs"
-Father Junipero Serra to Spanish Commandant General
This image depicts the Mission of Santa Clara de Asis in 1777. This is one
of 21 missions that were established in California by the Spanish between
1769 and 1823.
When the Spanish moved up the California coast, they established control
of the area through the building of missions. Missions were intended as a
combination of religious, economic, and political control. As Spain lacked
a sufficient number of colonists to populate California, the primary
purpose of the mission system was to make loyal subjects of Native
Americans by converting them to Catholicism. Once converted, the neophytes
would be taught European agricultural practices and social customs. By
concentrating the Native Americans at the missions, the Spanish hoped to
force them to abandon their traditional ways of life and become
agricultural laborers for the Spanish crown.
Initially, the natives of California were awestruck by the appearance of
the Spanish. After their shock faded, many were eager to trade with the
foreigners. As the missions were established, some Native Americans were
drawn out of curiosity, accepting baptism without understanding the
cultural and social ramifications. Some came to the missions because of
dissatisfaction with life in their home community. Many others were
forcibly rounded up. Whatever the reasons, once the Native Americans
arrived at the mission, they entered an entirely new life.
The steps taken by the Spanish to force the Native Americans to comply
with their plans of conversion could be brutal. As the Fathers felt
responsible for the souls of the Native Americans, those who tried to
leave the mission after being baptized found that they were not free to do
so. Likewise, those who refused to work were beaten or imprisoned. A
French traveler, Jean Francois de La Perouse, who visited California in
1786, likened conditions at a mission to a slave plantation.
"Everything reminded us of a habitation in Saint Domingo, or any other
West Indian slave colony…We mention it with pain, the resemblance to a
slave colony is so perfect, that we saw men and women loaded with irons,
others in the stocks; and at length the noise of the strokes of a whip
struck our ears."
Besides physical punishment, the process of concentration helped to
maintain control over the Native population. The mixing of the various
tribes of California in the same location meant a loss of communal
rituals, dances, and languages. The communication that would have been
vital to effective resistance by the Native Americans was made nearly
impossible.
The Spanish view of Native Americans helped to justify their harsh
treatment. Many of the Franciscans who traveled through the state saw
California Indians as
"…the most unhappy people in all the world…in fine, they are so
savage, wild and dirty, disheveled, ugly, small and timid that only
because they have the human form is it possible to believe that they
belong to mankind."
The process of missionization would have devastating effects on the Native
American population of California. After 65 years of the missions, over
60,000 Indian deaths were recorded. The California Indian population,
which had numbered some 300,000 prior to 1769, had fallen to 150,000 by
1845, with the tribes living along the coast the hardest hit. This decline
was primarily the result of disease. However, the end of the mission
period did not signify a renewal for the Native Americans. The process of
depopulation begun with the Spanish would accelerate under Mexican rule
and reach a climax with the coming of the Americans.
etc...
Dan Clore
> http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
For more information on subjects raised in this thread, read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1559501642/thedanclorenecro
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
> "Dan Clore" wrote
>>Animaminima wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
>>
>>An informative read.
>
> It would be more informative if it stated exactly where the quotes came
> from.
True.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
As a proclaimed "libertarian" who pretends to feel concerned
about anti-Semitism, the statements on the page might
interest you apart from any attempt to debate the assertions
quoted on that page. (Few if any of them merit any debate.)
These people represent an extreme threat to liberty.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > And if it was true that the crusades were wholly a
> > matter of evangelism by the sword, which they were
> > not, still small stuff compared to the ideologies of
> > the twentieth century.
"Toby"
> Nothing like Stalin or Pol Pot. I agree. Still, there
> was much more killing done throughout history by
> Christians than by Buddhists,
Bhuddists have regularly committed genocide in order to
impose their religion, and are arguably doing so today.
http://www.google.com/search?q=genocide+karen
Muslims, on the other hand, very seldom attempt to
exterminate unbelievers, rather they reduce them to
second class status, and subject them to rape,
subjugation, humiliation, frequent confiscation of
property, so that they tend to convert over time, and if
they don't convert, their women folk wind up in muslim
harems, and thus the children tend to be raised muslim.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
65I+cpwFMLGT8jeIasU/wBkvaeKoac2JdESKqgf9
4q7EgUshkNvTtglOiXGP0oS9AYhJ7rrtZQE7nR81t
constan...@gmail.com
Dan Clore wrote:
> >>>>http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
> These people represent an extreme threat to liberty.
I don't think so. These are quotes picked for their out-thereness. The
very out-thereness of the statements places a limit on their ability to
sway people and achieve an effect. Greater internal threats are the
state itself, and the mainstream of political opinion.
Dan Clore
The party in power lies outside the state and outside of
mainstream political opinion? I see three Presidents, a
Representative, three Senators, a Governor, a Secretary of
the Interior, an Attorney General, a state Senator, a
General, and two judges (one of them Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court). Along with these it includes the
fundamentalist Christian groups and political pundits who
support these politicians.
constan...@gmail.com
Dan Clore wrote:
> constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Dan Clore wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
> >
> >>These people represent an extreme threat to liberty.
> >
> > I don't think so. These are quotes picked for their out-thereness. The
> > very out-thereness of the statements places a limit on their ability to
> > sway people and achieve an effect. Greater internal threats are the
> > state itself, and the mainstream of political opinion.
>
> The party in power lies outside the state and outside of
> mainstream political opinion? I see three Presidents,
I was talking about the quotes, not about the poeple. Some of these
quotes (by no means all) are dangerous, or rather, are not dangerous
but would be dangerous if the speaker had the power to act on them. For
example, this quote would be dangerous if the speaker had the power to
act on it:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
That's George Bush Sr. So, that's a quote which would be dangerous if
Bush Sr. had the power to act on it, i.e., had the power to revoke the
citizenship of atheists like me. But he did not have that power, even
though he was the POTUS, in part because the power of the POTUS is
limited, and in part because the opinion in question is a far-out
opinion. So the POTUS can make really out-there comments, and does not
by virtue of that show himself to be a threat, since he does not have
the power to act on those comments.
I am an atheist, and I read this comment by Bush Sr., and I do not feel
threatened. And lo and behold, I still have my citizenship, and looking
in the papers, I don't see any sign that my citizenship is about to be
revoked. Looks like I was right not to feel threatened.
Thus: the quote does not represent an extreme threat to liberty.
G*rd*n
Dan Clore:
> > >>These people represent an extreme threat to liberty.
> > > I don't think so. These are quotes picked for their out-thereness. The
> > > very out-thereness of the statements places a limit on their ability to
> > > sway people and achieve an effect. Greater internal threats are the
> > > state itself, and the mainstream of political opinion.
Dan Clore:
> > The party in power lies outside the state and outside of
> > mainstream political opinion? I see three Presidents,
> I was talking about the quotes, not about the poeple. Some of these
> quotes (by no means all) are dangerous, or rather, are not dangerous
> but would be dangerous if the speaker had the power to act on them. For
> example, this quote would be dangerous if the speaker had the power to
> act on it:
>
> "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should
> they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
>
> That's George Bush Sr. So, that's a quote which would be dangerous if
> Bush Sr. had the power to act on it, i.e., had the power to revoke the
> citizenship of atheists like me. But he did not have that power, even
> though he was the POTUS, in part because the power of the POTUS is
> limited, and in part because the opinion in question is a far-out
> opinion. So the POTUS can make really out-there comments, and does not
> by virtue of that show himself to be a threat, since he does not have
> the power to act on those comments.
>
> I am an atheist, and I read this comment by Bush Sr., and I do not feel
> threatened. And lo and behold, I still have my citizenship, and looking
> in the papers, I don't see any sign that my citizenship is about to be
> revoked. Looks like I was right not to feel threatened.
>
> Thus: the quote does not represent an extreme threat to liberty.
The people who actually believed in Naziism in Germany were
probably about as much a minority as the American religious
right, and they didn't have any power either until, pretty
suddenly, the _did_ have power. One might say the same about
Islamic fundamentalists -- I doubt very much if they form a
majority anywhere. But a quarter or a third of the population
is enough to swing an election, a coup, or a civil war, and
certainly enough to staff a totalitarian state.
Today, we have one major political party nurturing this monster
in its breast. It's like watching _Alien_. Only the monster
isn't inside -- it sticks its head out and hisses and spits
poison for all to see. Some people who might not like its full-
grown form think it's cute or funny. It'll be a joke until it
isn't a joke any more.
Meanwhile, though, on guard against the socialists!
G*rd*n
> ...
> The Grapes of wrath depicts a police state reaching into
> every transaction and applying its violence to control
> every transaction
A bunch of poor people get kicked off the land they're living
on but do not own, get in an old truck, and head west, at
random with thousands of other people. They are harassed by
local police and mobs, but there doesn't seem to be any general,
overarching authority. They're following a sort of myth
generated by a previous generation of real-estate developers
and labor recruiters, and of course when they get where they're
going there's no there there -- just more trouble. I can't
imagine something like this happening in a totalitarian state.
The first thing the Joad family would have had to do is get
internal passports. Your reading of this book is most
curious.
That it is taught in schools is also curious. The characters
depicted must seem like Martians to the pupils. I thought
everybody had to read _The_Lord_of_the_Flies_, _The_Catcher_in_
the_Rye_, and _The_Autobiography_of_Malcolm_X_ -- far more
subversive, all of them, than _Grapes_of_Wrath_, and yet
clearly not subversive enough to cause any trouble. Part of
the immunization rituals. No? They're actually reading
Steinbeck?
G*rd*n
> > > > http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
cl...@columbia-center.org:
> > > An informative read.
G*rd*n:
> > Indeed. But no doubt our libertarian friends will continue
> > to mostly ignore these people while foaming at the mouth about
> > virtually non-existent "socialists".
> Socialist errors are interesting to me, because supposedly they are a
> product of reason and the evidence of the senses, and it is fun and
> often enlightening to see where the reason and the evidence gathering
> go astray. Religious beliefs are not interesting to me....
My remark was not really directed towards any particular
individual, although it may seem to be constructed that way,
but toward a particular, rather persistent theme.
I can understand not wanting to debate fundamentalist (actually
dominionist) ideas with their proponents, who in any case don't
post much in these newsgroups. On the other hand, it seems to
me that they present a considerably greater threat to liberty
than a few thousand powerless socialists, and some libertarians,
one would think, might be concerned with how to deal with it.
And maybe they do, and I just happen to miss the articles. Where
are they?
constan...@gmail.com
You seem to think that socialism is a failed ideology. It's rather
interesting that even socialists are claiming that socialism is dead. I
don't recall you claiming this before. What I recall is that
occasionally an anti-socialist will point out socialism is dead and all
we're doing now cleaning up the remaining trash, and then as I recall
socialists will sometimes reply that socialism is doing quite well,
making a comeback, all the European states are socialist so obviously
it's very healthy, and so forth. Or is it that you're claiming that
socialism alive and healthy but is not dangerous? If so: pull the other
one, it has bells on it. If socialism is alive, it's dangerous.
Anyway, this obsession that the left has with religious folks is an
extension of left-wing antipathy to religion in general. Since
libertarians do not share this particular left-wing pathology, they're
not likely to follow the zealously anti-religious left in prophesying
an impending theocracy. Libertarians are less intrinsically afraid of
religious people than leftists are. One of the reasons for this may be
that leftism is itself a kind of religion, and like many religions it
is extremely intolerant of other religions.
constan...@gmail.com
You're like the boy who cried wolf. Leftists have been prophesying a
right wing theocracy for so long that it gets old and the rest of us
stop listening. You keep seeing new signs of it, just like the certain
devout folks keep seeing new signs of the end of man's reign on Earth
(in fact the page provides an example of this from Reagan: "For the
first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon
and the Second Coming of Christ."). Now, because one of our enemies was
an actual theocracy, with a new name ("Taliban"), you've taken this old
wine (the worry about the impending theocracy) and poured it into a new
bottle labeled "American Taliban". And of course even the two-word
combo "American Taliban" was set up in advance because of the actual
American fellow who fought on the side of the Taliban and was caught.
That happened a few years ago. So even this new label is already
showing age - you're pouring old wine into a not so new bottle.
You're like those guys who walk around with a sign saying "the end is
near, repent". Christians have been doing this doomsaying for a long,
long time. They're better at it than the alarmist environmentalists,
and they're better at it than you guys. The Jehovah's Witnesses do this
end-is-near stuff better than you guys. The end never happens, but they
keep seeing the signs of it, and they're pretty good at weaving events
into their mythology. They perpetually claim that we are in "the Last
Days" before Armageddon.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> > The Grapes of wrath depicts a police state reaching
> > into every transaction and applying its violence to
> > control every transaction
G*rd*n
> A bunch of poor people get kicked off the land they're
> living on but do not own, get in an old truck, and
> head west, at random with thousands of other people.
> They are harassed by local police and mobs, but there
> doesn't seem to be any general, overarching authority.
The first confrontation is with a capitalist accompanied
by a cop. The cop takes orders from the capitalist, and
imposes his economic transactions by force. Lesser
capitalists are in due course shown to be under the
command of greater capitalists. The confrontation with
evil capitalists and evil capitalism is everywhere a
confrontation with police *imposing* evil capitalist
transaction terms.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ujoU9iSA11pXLp8PepLgTn0FwWusYTTpYXlbopeh
4HUFPN/8Q85CNRseDzsoV5J2RaT164FpzxluLLGId
G*rd*n
> > > > > > http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
cl...@columbia-center.org:
> > > > > An informative read.
G*rd*n:
> > > > Indeed. But no doubt our libertarian friends will continue
> > > > to mostly ignore these people while foaming at the mouth about
> > > > virtually non-existent "socialists".
constan...@gmail.com:
> > > Socialist errors are interesting to me, because supposedly they are a
> > > product of reason and the evidence of the senses, and it is fun and
> > > often enlightening to see where the reason and the evidence gathering
> > > go astray. Religious beliefs are not interesting to me....
G*rd*n wrote:
> > My remark was not really directed towards any particular
> > individual, although it may seem to be constructed that way,
> > but toward a particular, rather persistent theme.
> >
> > I can understand not wanting to debate fundamentalist (actually
> > dominionist) ideas with their proponents, who in any case don't
> > post much in these newsgroups. On the other hand, it seems to
> > me that they present a considerably greater threat to liberty
> > than a few thousand powerless socialists, and some libertarians,
> > one would think, might be concerned with how to deal with it.
> > And maybe they do, and I just happen to miss the articles. Where
> > are they?
> You seem to think that socialism is a failed ideology. It's rather
> interesting that even socialists are claiming that socialism is dead. I
> don't recall you claiming this before. What I recall is that
> occasionally an anti-socialist will point out socialism is dead and all
> we're doing now cleaning up the remaining trash, and then as I recall
> socialists will sometimes reply that socialism is doing quite well,
> making a comeback, all the European states are socialist so obviously
> it's very healthy, and so forth. Or is it that you're claiming that
> socialism alive and healthy but is not dangerous? If so: pull the other
> one, it has bells on it. If socialism is alive, it's dangerous.
I'd say that organized socialism is about as effective these
days as organized Zoroastrianism. That doesn't mean there are no
Zoroastrians left, or that they have nothing to say; just that not
much is to be expected from them. I have often asked those who
rant about this or that evidence of socialism where, exactly, they
see ownership or control of the means of production actually being
turned over to the workers or the people, and of course there is
no answer.
The only way socialism can possibly come into being is by the
aforesaid workers, the aforesaid people, actually doing it, that
is, building and managing worker-owned businesses. It can't
come from a government, a ruling class, military force or crime.
Nor is it going to come to pass from academic debates or even
normal electoral politics. It is apparent from history that
when these methods are used, they wind up producing more of the
same, that is, ownership and control of the means of production
by an elite.
Since people in general do not seem very interested in doing
socialism at present, however, I don't think it's going to
happen any time soon. I think I've said all this before.
> Anyway, this obsession that the left has with religious folks is an
> extension of left-wing antipathy to religion in general. Since
> libertarians do not share this particular left-wing pathology, they're
> not likely to follow the zealously anti-religious left in prophesying
> an impending theocracy. Libertarians are less intrinsically afraid of
> religious people than leftists are. One of the reasons for this may be
> that leftism is itself a kind of religion, and like many religions it
> is extremely intolerant of other religions.
I believe that what most leftists are concerned with about
the religious Right is not that they're religious, but that
they propose to take away other people's rights and freedom,
often by violent means, coupled with the fact that they seem
to have a lot of influence over at least one of the major
political parties. By contrast, socialists are few in number,
divided against one another, and have no influence whatever
on either of the major political parties.
constan...@gmail.com
Let's consider an example. How is freedom of speech limited?
1) It is limited by government ownership of the airwaves, which allows
government to tell TV and radio what they can or cannot broadcast.
Government ownership of stuff is something that leftists frequently
defend.
2) It is limited by regulations of commercial speech. Anti-capitalists
are great proponents of bashing companies.
3) Campaign finance reform. It's obviously a ploy by those in power
regardless of political stripe to concentrate their power by limiting
the capacity of outsiders to speak on political issues, but among the
outsiders this has been promoted mainly by the left. A brief survey of
Daily Kos (a prominent left wing blog) shows that the posters favor
campaign finance reform and shows that they believe that campaign
finance reform is under threat from the right. A brief survey of Free
Republic and Power Line, two right wing blogs, shows that they consider
campaign finance reform to be a disaster, a great evil.
The main danger to liberty, the actual danger, is coming from the left.
Meanwhile, over on the religious right, we have President Bush (Sr.)
suggesting that athists should not be citizens of the United States,
and nothing coming of that. He expresses that opinion, but it goes
nowhere. That is not a danger to liberty. Opinions that go nowhere are
not a danger.
BIG_ONE
> I thought
>everybody had to read _The_Lord_of_the_Flies_, _The_Catcher_in_
>the_Rye_, and _The_Autobiography_of_Malcolm_X_
i read them all at school age ... but none were on a syllabus,
nevertheless it's an interesting couple of books, but surely not for
#everyone#
James A. Donald
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:01:30 +0000 (UTC), g...@panix.com
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> I believe that what most leftists are concerned with
> about the religious Right is not that they're
> religious, but that they propose to take away other
> people's rights and freedom,
Yet strange to report, the left does not get excited
when the FEC not merely proposes to take away other
people's rights and freedoms, but actually does so.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4xVTkv7KLa5mtrGt6TchIHyj9/mJpY4o6EeSvx8R
4Twk7fY2fHU0OEUiUDZTsMZjfSvrbsmJ90TSKw2xH
Toby
> "Toby"
>> Nothing like Stalin or Pol Pot. I agree. Still, there
>> was much more killing done throughout history by
>> Christians than by Buddhists,
>
> Bhuddists have regularly committed genocide in order to
> impose their religion, and are arguably doing so today.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=genocide+karen
I think in the case of the Karens the fact that the Burmese military hunta
contains people who are Buddhist does not translate into Buddhists trying to
impose their religion, but rather authorities trying to stay in power. If
your analogy is correct, then any killing done by people who were Christians
would equate to Christian killing. BTW what other Buddhist genocides have
you got to sell me today?
Toby
Toby
>
> 1) It is limited by government ownership of the airwaves, which allows
> government to tell TV and radio what they can or cannot broadcast.
> Government ownership of stuff is something that leftists frequently
> defend.
>
Actually the government has this funny thing called "freedom of speech" in
its constitution, and the FCC AFAIK does not impose rules on what can or
cannot be said on the air, although it does field complaints brought by
private parties.
Rupert Murdoch has much more control over what can be said on his airwaves
than the government does, and of course the same applies to other private
media owners, left or right.
Toby
brique
Toby <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
news:42fdc008$0$16181$bb4e...@newscene.com...
that own one'.
brique
BIG_ONE <telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f9cqf1toljavqemar...@4ax.com...
'The Lord of the Flies' was on the English schools syllabus back in the
70's.
brique
> --
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:01:30 +0000 (UTC), g...@panix.com
> (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > I believe that what most leftists are concerned with
> > about the religious Right is not that they're
> > religious, but that they propose to take away other
> > people's rights and freedom,
>
> Yet strange to report, the left does not get excited
> when the FEC not merely proposes to take away other
> people's rights and freedoms, but actually does so.
Yet, strange to report, James rarely gets excited when the right not merely
proposes to take away other peoples rights and freedoms, but actually does
constan...@gmail.com
You are expressing your own distinctly non-libertarian view of liberty,
according to which the greater threat to liberty than government is
private ownership of the press and the television and radio stations.
Your own distinctly non-libertarian view of liberty is obviously
irrelevant to the issue of whether libertarians should, *in light of
their own idea of liberty*, find the right wing religious wackos to be
a threat to liberty. We have been arguing about whether right wing
religious wackos pose a serious threat to liberty, and the leftists
here have been arguing that libertarians should, in light of their own
(libertarian) views on liberty, agree with the leftists that right wing
religious wackos pose a serious threat to liberty.
If the other left-wingers want to press the point you're pressing, then
they will have accomplished two things:
1) They will have proven themselves unable to argue effectively on
libertarian terms that the right wing religious nuthouse is a danger to
liberty since they are quickly forced to retreat to their own leftist,
anti-capitalist conception of liberty in order to make the case.
2) They will have shown why the left is, from the point of view of
libertarians, a danger: for, as you have illustrated, the left
apologizes for or even denies the evident government control of the
media (your defense of the FCC) and provides justification for further
government control (i.e., supposedly to limit the power of people like
Rupert Murdoch).
Lee Rudolph
>I'd say that organized socialism is about as effective these
>days as organized Zoroastrianism.
One salient difference is that, by all accounts, the remaining
Zoroastrians find themselves running out of vultures to pick
the bones of their dead.
Lee Rudolph
Toby
> --
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> > I don't see any state sponsored efforts to impose
>> > Christianity. I do see state sponsored efforts to
>> > impose Gaia worship and state sponsored efforts
>> > indoctrinate children with socialist ideology.
>
> Alex Russell
>> Many of those examples are Christians who want the
>> government to impose christian values on everyone, or
>> just plain bigotry.
>
> It is not the Christians who are responsible for forced
> participation of schoolchildren in superstitious
> neopagan environmentalist rituals.
What neopagan ritual are we talking about here? I remember having to plege
to one nation under God with my hand on my heart, but my memory is a little
hazy on the environmentalist rites.
By socialist ideology are we taking about things like sharing our crayons,
or what?
Toby
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Bhuddists have regularly committed genocide in order
> > to impose their religion, and are arguably doing so
> > today. http://www.google.com/search?q=genocide+karen
"Toby"
> I think in the case of the Karens the fact that the
> Burmese military hunta contains people who are
> Buddhist does not translate into Buddhists trying to
> impose their religion, but rather authorities trying
> to stay in power.
http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/Infosheet/1999/990913.htm
: : Recently, the U.S. State Department has
: : charged the Government of Myanmar of
: : systematically using force to propagate
: : Buddhism, the dominant religion, over other
: : religions
http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/LIOB04-KMW-rel.free.htm
: : This article primarily focuses on the
: : practices of division between Buddhists and
: : non-Buddhists and suppression of non-Buddhist
: : religions by the military regime
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
X+YvlPqJKFgsBNqkG+RgJY/M/vYozNFQGpsoLL2y
4sWsNnI6fYdiKj5BeQ3d6AEXMEZLkK6YZfcAJHORf
James A. Donald
Constantinople:
> > Let's consider an example. How is freedom of speech
> > limited?
> >
> > 1) It is limited by government ownership of the
> > airwaves, which allows government to tell TV and
> > radio what they can or cannot broadcast. Government
> > ownership of stuff is something that leftists
> > frequently defend.
On 13 Aug 2005 04:43:05 -0500, "Toby"
<kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
> Actually the government has this funny thing called
> "freedom of speech" in its constitution, and the FCC
> AFAIK does not impose rules on what can or cannot be
> said on the air,
Compare the political content of stuff broadcast over
the government owned air waves, with stuff transmitted
over comparable privately owned media. There is a
marked difference. Broadcast television is far more
pro state than cable television, though not nearly as
pro state as PBS and BBC, where the studios are also
government owned. They speak as if the hand of the
state was on their throats.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
vbu9I8dSeiNwXb6heiX6Mz6mPw6i3C2WZBoEab8F
4wv6gqSWeni1qOe16Nro4KcuY9o1rJ96C20M5LAjr
Toby
<constan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123933707.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Hey don't blame me, I'm only speaking from 20 years of experience in TV
journalism. I'm not arguing either in defense of "leftists" or your
so-called "libertarians".
I've worked for a slew of different companies as a freelancer, and I've
always found the public networks (like the BBC) much more balanced than the
privates, and since they do not have to operate strictly on a profit basis
they can offer much more varied fare, and undertake more ambitious
productions. In German public TV the proportions of TV journalists of
differing political stripes are assigned to roughly represent the political
makeup of the nation. Since the airwaves are a common (and limited)
resource, they need to be controlled by a common body. We are not talking
here about cable--I agree that since the number of cable channels is
theoretically unlimited (or at least very great) there doesn't need to be as
much control there.
Toby
>
Toby
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ddkod6$pb9$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Too much DDT. And anyway the laws about the disposal of corpses have become
much too strict.
Toby
James A. Donald
On 13 Aug 2005 10:11:06 -0500, "Toby"
<kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
> I've worked for a slew of different companies as a
> freelancer, and I've always found the public networks
> (like the BBC) much more balanced than the privates
You mean much more inclined to agree with your
totalitarian viewpoint.
Recollect that the BBC refused to admit that Saddam
airport had fallen until Comical Ali conceded.
Someone who gets his information from the BBC is apt to
believe that Hong Kongers dwell in third world suffering
and poverty, under the iron heel of the evil
multinationals - the BBC does not actually tell them
this, but it carefully avoids mentioning anything that
would disturb this comforting belief.
When George Bush says something it is "controversial",
according to the BBC. When Sharon says something, it is
"controversial". When Arafat says something, it is
never "controversial" When OSAMA BIN LADEN says
something, it is never "controversial"
In response to the terror attacks, Blair made a
statement in parliament that the BBC found politically
incorrect. The BBC then REWROTE BLAIR to make him more
mealy mouthed and less unkind to those attacking
Britain. They toned him down a bit. That is just plain
falsification of the very recent past. Seems that Blair
was a little too Churchillesque for their tastes.
The epicenter of the tsunami was Aceh. After the
tsunami, for a long time all aid was delivered by the US
and australian navies, mainly the US navy. The BBC
actively concealed this from its viewers. When covering
aid to Aceh, it lied about what was going on
In the photoessay on aid in Aceh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4205841.stm they
selected, captioned and cropped eight photos so as to
avoid letting the viewer know it is a military force
being photographed, and which military force it is. For
example the marine is photographed out of uniform, and
captioned "volunteer" - which in the context of an
international aid mission implies he is a civilian.
In
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4140961.st
m the US role was mentioned, but falsely represented as
part of and subordinate to a UN aid effort.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
kmY6E9GS30k2nkD9HKIqpQ8kJaIbNM9ayTdBQsiw
48lbVimsedEigpqXyuxMBwxmr/9Vdtaep1IbwE4m/
brique
> --
> Constantinople:
> > > Let's consider an example. How is freedom of speech
> > > limited?
> > >
> > > 1) It is limited by government ownership of the
> > > airwaves, which allows government to tell TV and
> > > radio what they can or cannot broadcast. Government
> > > ownership of stuff is something that leftists
> > > frequently defend.
>
> On 13 Aug 2005 04:43:05 -0500, "Toby"
> <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
> > Actually the government has this funny thing called
> > "freedom of speech" in its constitution, and the FCC
> > AFAIK does not impose rules on what can or cannot be
> > said on the air,
>
> Compare the political content of stuff broadcast over
> the government owned air waves, with stuff transmitted
> over comparable privately owned media. There is a
> marked difference. Broadcast television is far more
> pro state than cable television, though not nearly as
> pro state as PBS and BBC, where the studios are also
> government owned. They speak as if the hand of the
> state was on their throats.
How confusing... in one post james characterises the BBC as follows:
"In response to the terror attacks, Blair made a
statement in parliament that the BBC found politically
incorrect. The BBC then REWROTE BLAIR to make him more
mealy mouthed and less unkind to those attacking
Britain. They toned him down a bit. That is just plain
falsification of the very recent past. Seems that Blair
was a little too Churchillesque for their tastes."
Now, he points out :
"Broadcast television is far more
pro state than cable television, though not nearly as
pro state as PBS and BBC, where the studios are also
government owned. They speak as if the hand of the
state was on their throats."
Some discrepancy, surely? Or perhaps it's supposed to be further evidence of
the mendacity of non-privately-owned media?
Ivan Matosevic
[...]
> I believe that what most leftists are concerned with about
> the religious Right is not that they're religious, but that
> they propose to take away other people's rights and freedom,
> often by violent means, coupled with the fact that they seem
> to have a lot of influence over at least one of the major
> political parties.
However, do you really think that a significant trend of increase in
the influence of the Christian fundamentalists can be observed? It
seems to me that, compared to the situation from several decades ago,
the amount of governmental support for religion has substantially
decreased even in the US (elsewhere in the Western world, it has
dropped to almost zero). Even during the administration of Bush II,
there have been further significant steps in the direction of
secularism (for example, the Supreme Court striking down sodomy laws).
Nowadays, the fundamentalists are mostly fighting over novel issues
opened by the general rise of secularism, which were totally
unimaginable until very recently, such as the gay marriage. The only
major issue where there exists a widely perceived threat of
fundamentalists getting their way is the legal status of abortion.
However, it seems to me that this is highly unlikely for the same
reasons why any radical change is unlikely in the mainstream politics
anywhere; politicians usually know how to keep the loyalty of
extremists while appeasing them only on marginal issues.
Of course, this might be my mistaken impressions based on what the
media say; I don't have any first-hand experience of living in the US.
But I would be surprised if the general trends there were *so much*
different from what I saw in Canada and Western Europe.
Toby
> --
> James A. Donald:
>> > Bhuddists have regularly committed genocide in order
>> > to impose their religion, and are arguably doing so
>> > today. http://www.google.com/search?q=genocide+karen
>
> "Toby"
>> I think in the case of the Karens the fact that the
>> Burmese military hunta contains people who are
>> Buddhist does not translate into Buddhists trying to
>> impose their religion, but rather authorities trying
>> to stay in power.
>
> http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/Infosheet/1999/990913.htm
> : : Recently, the U.S. State Department has
> : : charged the Government of Myanmar of
> : : systematically using force to propagate
> : : Buddhism, the dominant religion, over other
> : : religions
You believe everything the State Department says? Here is the rest of your
quote:
Recently, the U.S. State Department has charged the Government of Myanmar
of systematically using force to propagate Buddhism, the dominant religion,
over other religions and also of restricting Buddhist monks in their
promotion of human rights and political freedom.
It is regretful that the U.S. State Department is not aware that Buddhism
does not force-propagate its faith. It is against the fundamental belief of
Buddhism to act in such manner and in Myanmar Buddhism is practiced
devotedly. More importantly, the tenets of Buddhism (Theravada) strictly
prohibit the monks from participating in any kind of political or commercial
activities.
Myanmar is one of the very few countries in the world where all the major
religions live together peacefully and where freedom of religion is actually
practiced. Minor isolated cases may happen sometimes as are happening
elsewhere in the world but prompt action taken by the Government together
with the religious leaders of the respective religions has always managed to
prevent any kind of religious incidents from being occurred or find peaceful
solutions for any kind of problems.
The Government of Myanmar believes that without substantial evidence it is
improper to accuse other nations or governments just based on hearsay. The
appropriate American expression for this case is " People living in glass
houses should not throw stones".
Not that one can believe the Myanmar military junta either. But you also
forgot the rest of the quote below:
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/LIOB04-KMW-rel.free.htm
> : : This article primarily focuses on the
> : : practices of division between Buddhists and
> : : non-Buddhists and suppression of non-Buddhist
> : : religions by the military regime
It continues:
"This suppression appears to be an attempt to utilize religious issues for
political advantage."
Later the article states:
"Since the great majority of Burmese people are Buddhists, Buddhism is the
most suitable tool for Burmese generals who wish to build up nationalism
based on religion. Consequently nationalism, as promoted by the present
military regime, is strongly linked with Buddhism. Many booklets and
leaflets in the country believed to be published by the junta urge Buddhist
Burmese to promote Burmese nationalism based on Buddhism....
Even though the military regime uses Buddhism as a tool in its control, it
does not hesitate to suppress Buddhist monks who participate in
demonstrations against it. Buddhist monks have played an important role in
all political change in Burma since British colonial rule. Nowadays, the
monks are among the most active of Burma's people in the struggle for the
restoration of democracy and human rights. Accordingly they are under close
scrutiny by military intelligence personnel and their agents....
Buddhist monks at one time imposed sanctions against the military rulers by
refusing to participate in any ceremony sponsored by the members of the
military government, and refusing alms from military personnel and their
family members. The military regime carried out a program of massive
retaliation against these monks...
The military regime has never shown any sign that it will not uphold
Buddhism and the interest of the Buddhists, since it needs their support.
Whenever there is a crackdown on Buddhist monks, the regime refers to the
monks in question as "men in monks' dress". This usage reflects the regime's
reluctance to confront the people by undermining Buddhism. Therefore, it is
incorrect to interpret harassment of Buddhist monks as suppression of
Buddhism. Such an interpretation may lead to misunderstandings about how the
regime is trying to divide Buddhism and other religions.
Authorities' repression of other religions
In most cases, if the military regime faces a political crisis, it attempts
to overcome it by distracting people from the political issue to another
issue. The method that Military Intelligence, known as the brains of the
military regime, often uses is to create riots among the people. Racial and
religious riots often emerge in the midst of political crises. With
precedents for communal violence, the military regime has found it expedient
on numerous occasions to exploit religious and racial riots, especially when
these can be directed towards Muslims, to divide the public and distract
attention from other social issues."
This is generals conveniently using Buddhism for their political ends, not
Buddhists trying forcibly to covert others.
Any other Buddhist genocides you'd like to sell me today?
Toby
Toby
Toby
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:v5fsf1p1m3vb2aum3...@4ax.com...
Toby
>
> Compare the political content of stuff broadcast over
> the government owned air waves, with stuff transmitted
> over comparable privately owned media. There is a
> marked difference. Broadcast television is far more
> pro state than cable television, though not nearly as
> pro state as PBS and BBC, where the studios are also
> government owned. They speak as if the hand of the
> state was on their throats.
So you advocate selling the electromagnetic spectrum to the highest bidder?
Do you also advocate selling the Colorado river to the highest bidder?
Toby
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > > > Bhuddists have regularly committed genocide in
> > > > order to impose their religion, and are arguably
> > > > doing so today.
> > > > http://www.google.com/search?q=genocide+karen
"Toby"
> >> I think in the case of the Karens the fact that the
> >> Burmese military hunta contains people who are
> >> Buddhist does not translate into Buddhists trying
> >> to impose their religion, but rather authorities
> >> trying to stay in power.
James A. Donald:
> > http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/Infosheet/1999/990913.htm
> > : : Recently, the U.S. State Department has charged
> > : : the Government of Myanmar of systematically
> > : : using force to propagate Buddhism, the dominant
> > : : religion, over other religions
"Toby"
> You believe everything the State Department says? Here
> is the rest of your quote:
>
> Recently, the U.S. State Department has charged the
> Government of Myanmar
> of systematically using force to propagate Buddhism,
> the dominant religion, over other religions and also
> of restricting Buddhist monks in their promotion of
> human rights and political freedom.
>
> It is regretful that the U.S. State Department is not
> aware that Buddhism does not force-propagate its
> faith. It is against the fundamental belief of
> Buddhism to act in such manner and in Myanmar Buddhism
> is practiced devotedly. More importantly, the tenets
> of Buddhism (Theravada) strictly prohibit the monks
> from participating in any kind of political or
> commercial activities.
You believe what a government that practices mass murder
and slavery says?
I quoted the government of Burma's reply to the
accusation, because that came up on google ahead of the
original accusation.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
wI82saMjCsNGiVSp+qBpIM17tnCNEcT9u2IcE+Om
4Bl7xLCSlDlnLr9WKAxC0El9GOQV1PuGhmpX5yoMl
Toby
> You believe what a government that practices mass murder
> and slavery says?
Of course not, but as the second link points out, religion is being used in
service of politics, because it can inflame nationalist feelings that that
government wants it incite.
And your other Buddhist genocides?
Toby
brique
Toby <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
G*rd*n
> > I thought
> >everybody had to read _The_Lord_of_the_Flies_, _The_Catcher_in_
> >the_Rye_, and _The_Autobiography_of_Malcolm_X_
BIG_ONE <telav...@fuckyou.co.uk>:
> i read them all at school age ... but none were on a syllabus,
> nevertheless it's an interesting couple of books, but surely not for
> #everyone#
They were on the syllabus several years ago. Now, my kid being out of
school, I've lost contact. When _I_ went to school, we read more classical
stuff, but that was back in the Dark Ages. The point I was trying to make,
however, was that the books were much more subversive than _Grapes_of_Wrath_.
That book may indeed be taught as history, but it's clearly history which
no one thinks has any important connection to the present. It's a freak
show. Whereas you can still see the remnants of the world of Malcolm X
out on the street, although it too is passe'.
James A. Donald
On 13 Aug 2005 19:11:03 -0500, "Toby"
> And Fox News is not also biased?
I don't see Fox news doing a Dan Rather. Their slogan
is "We report, you decide". So far no one has caught
them in any campaign lies, unlike the BBC, Dan Rather,
and the like. If their slogan is so obviously untrue,
why has no one caught them in a good lie yet?
I hear NPR doing media analysis, and I see Fox doing
media analysis. Fox usually finds lots of juicy stuff,
some flagrant distortions, and often enough some fairly
startling lies. NPR's stuff is dry as dust - basically
that Fox fails to appreciate what nice people the
mainstream press are, and how good their intentions.
According to NPR evidence of disagreement with NPR is
supposedly evidence of bias, while according to Fox,
willful misrepresentation of the facts is evidence of
bias.
The trouble with Fox is precisely that it is non
political. Mostly covers disappearance of pretty girls
and stuff like that. The accusation of "cheerleading"
is because when there is a war on, Fox tends to report
retreats, advances, the enemy running away, stuff going
BOOM, instead of standing around mournfully reporting
that war is hell today, as it was yesterday and the day
before.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
KyHOKgiLw418sMGlxnKJaQo+SrvQ56HQV7v+XF0/
4XaoWWXranUuJMkIgzARVojL9JUwUKC+kClYj+7qz
James A. Donald
On 14 Aug 2005 01:42:02 -0500, "Toby"
> as the second link points out, religion is being used
> in service of politics,
And is not the same equally true of your favorite demon,
the Christian right? Fact is, in Burma, Christian
evangelism is forbidden, missionaries and churches shut
down, non Buddhists are persecuted, their men enslaved,
and women abducted and married to Buddhists.
Why is it that McViegh is a Christian terrorist because
he made a phone call to known Christian, while the
Burmese junta are not Buddhist persecutors when they
throw missionaries in jail and confiscate their bibles?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1fB1X+3yopLMDfOwD+/+If03Svq+LT+pDooEf6bf
4OgVRTZ3RpGFqsmU3y7Z3y6IAWVT7SrecWnBIM+lR
brique
> --
> On 13 Aug 2005 19:11:03 -0500, "Toby"
> <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
> > And Fox News is not also biased?
>
> I don't see Fox news doing a Dan Rather. Their slogan
> is "We report, you decide". So far no one has caught
> them in any campaign lies, unlike the BBC, Dan Rather,
> and the like. If their slogan is so obviously untrue,
> why has no one caught them in a good lie yet?
>
"Broadcast television is far more
pro state than cable television, though not nearly as
pro state as PBS and BBC, where the studios are also
government owned. They speak as if the hand of the
state was on their throats."
Or the one about which you said :
"In response to the terror attacks, Blair made a
statement in parliament that the BBC found politically
incorrect. The BBC then REWROTE BLAIR to make him more
mealy mouthed and less unkind to those attacking
Britain. They toned him down a bit. That is just plain
falsification of the very recent past. Seems that Blair
was a little too Churchillesque for their tastes."
Perhaps you are confusing your alternate universes again, James?
James A. Donald
Toby
> > And your other Buddhist genocides?
"brique"
> And not just 'other' but 'frequent' too. Come on
> James, tell us, please do!
Recent repression in Sri Lanka fell short of genocide,
but it was nasty enough.
Buddhist self congratulation on their tolerance
resembles Muslim self congratulation on their tolerance.
You don't have to go back very far to get bloodshed.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
rTuMYl2Go+V4304d0RZBSOCMsfMB0TaHH3t46aRp
4tR+bNlNhm2FnClpWlBUTTizgAd9/Rsyq3rQm8AXA
James A. Donald
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:41:35 +0100, "brique"
<briqu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> How confusing... in one post james characterises the
> BBC as follows:
>
> "In response to the terror attacks, Blair made a
> statement in parliament that the BBC found politically
> incorrect. The BBC then REWROTE BLAIR to make him
> more mealy mouthed and less unkind to those attacking
> Britain. They toned him down a bit. That is just
> plain falsification of the very recent past. Seems
> that Blair was a little too Churchillesque for their
> tastes."
>
> Now, he points out :
>
> "Broadcast television is far more pro state than cable
> television, though not nearly as pro state as PBS and
> BBC, where the studios are also government owned. They
> speak as if the hand of the state was on their
> throats."
Blair is not the state. The BBC speaks on behalf of the
permanent and unelected oxbridge educated bureaucracy -
the state as an interest group, not on behalf of the
political party that supposedly runs the state. The
state as an interest group has no strong interest
against Churchilesque rhetoric, indeed an interest in
favor of it, but the oxbridge class tends to be PC, so
it culturally leans against such rhetoric. And so, the
BBC rewrites Blair to fix his political incorrectness.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
weCwvLIlflSTJGeKSKLuu0D4mMordbQQ11714124
4n1ltS7Ms2EtrkchGbLgI3raif5Nx3HcNdKy9YHN1
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Compare the political content of stuff broadcast
> > over the government owned air waves, with stuff
> > transmitted over comparable privately owned media.
> > There is a marked difference. Broadcast television
> > is far more pro state than cable television, though
> > not nearly as pro state as PBS and BBC, where the
> > studios are also government owned. They speak as if
> > the hand of the state was on their throats.
"Toby"
> So you advocate selling the electromagnetic spectrum
> to the highest bidder?
To the highest bidders, plural, as many high bidders as
there be.
For freedom of the press to work, we need many presses,
and so, we need many owners of the electromagnetic
spectrum. At present, all broadcast spectrum is the
property of one owner, so we hear only one voice.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
NLyTTymbQJt74mhXKclXpB/Jb0BtAnNmNAuxEiOp
44JbqshI0ziXQKLmi3T//pgc2O7YLzxI5clW1yU+P
brique
> --
> Toby
> > > And your other Buddhist genocides?
>
> "brique"
> > And not just 'other' but 'frequent' too. Come on
> > James, tell us, please do!
>
> Recent repression in Sri Lanka fell short of genocide,
> but it was nasty enough.
>
> Buddhist self congratulation on their tolerance
> resembles Muslim self congratulation on their tolerance.
> You don't have to go back very far to get bloodshed.
So, we can then cross Sri Lanka off the list of Bhuddist genocides. Tell us
then James, who *are* on your list of frequent other Bhuddist genocides?
brique
throat is powerless to actually squeeze it? But hark, for he is not the
government at all, it seems it is really some shadowy oxbridge-educated
bureaucracy. Where did Blair go to university then? Probably some powerless
red-brick non-entity which may explain his lack of real power.
It must be a real pain for Blair, there is is, controlling the purse-strings
of the BBC, deciding who gets to run it, and still the sneaky oxbridge
bastards end up running things.
brique
> --
> James A. Donald:
> > > Compare the political content of stuff broadcast
> > > over the government owned air waves, with stuff
> > > transmitted over comparable privately owned media.
> > > There is a marked difference. Broadcast television
> > > is far more pro state than cable television, though
> > > not nearly as pro state as PBS and BBC, where the
> > > studios are also government owned. They speak as if
> > > the hand of the state was on their throats.
>
> "Toby"
> > So you advocate selling the electromagnetic spectrum
> > to the highest bidder?
>
> To the highest bidders, plural, as many high bidders as
> there be.
I don't want to be a pedant, but surely there can be only one 'highest
bidder'?
>
> For freedom of the press to work, we need many presses,
> and so, we need many owners of the electromagnetic
> spectrum. At present, all broadcast spectrum is the
> property of one owner, so we hear only one voice.
It's damn terrible, that one voice.... the velvety oxbridge-conspiracy of
the BBC totally overwhelming the sparkiling clarion call to liberty of
Rupert Murdoch, the dulcet reasonable tones of Fox crushed beneath the
deranged cacophony of ABC, the muscular christian message of Disney
flattened beneath the six-inch spiked heel of MTV.
brique
two different British States.
So, to avoid more confusion, can you tell us which particular British State
has which BBC by the throat and which BBC has which British State by the
balls?
constan...@gmail.com
There was no discrepancy between the quotes to begin with.
> we also have
> two different British States.
> So, to avoid more confusion, can you tell us which particular British State
> has which BBC by the throat and which BBC has which British State by the
> balls?
The concept of different factions within the state vying for influence
is not a difficult one, surely.
Toby
> --
> On 14 Aug 2005 01:42:02 -0500, "Toby"
> <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>> as the second link points out, religion is being used
>> in service of politics,
>
> And is not the same equally true of your favorite demon,
> the Christian right? Fact is, in Burma, Christian
> evangelism is forbidden, missionaries and churches shut
> down, non Buddhists are persecuted, their men enslaved,
> and women abducted and married to Buddhists.
>
> Why is it that McViegh is a Christian terrorist because
> he made a phone call to known Christian, while the
> Burmese junta are not Buddhist persecutors when they
> throw missionaries in jail and confiscate their bibles?
The fact is, a lot more people have been killed in the name of Christianity
than in the name of Buddhism. And Christianity has been forced down a lot
more throats than Buddhism as well.
And of course, religion of any stripe can be and is co-opted in the
political struggle for power and dominance.
Toby
Toby
> --
> On 13 Aug 2005 19:11:03 -0500, "Toby"
> <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>> And Fox News is not also biased?
>
> I don't see Fox news doing a Dan Rather. Their slogan
> is "We report, you decide". So far no one has caught
> them in any campaign lies, unlike the BBC, Dan Rather,
> and the like. If their slogan is so obviously untrue,
> why has no one caught them in a good lie yet?
I guess you haven't seen "Outfoxed".
Toby
Toby
> For freedom of the press to work, we need many presses,
> and so, we need many owners of the electromagnetic
> spectrum. At present, all broadcast spectrum is the
> property of one owner, so we hear only one voice.
I might remind you that CBS, NBC and ABC in the US are hardly the
government--they are owned by private corporations.
It is a question of how to deal with common resources. Again I ask you:
should the headwaters of the Colorado river be sold to the highest bidder,
who can then use the river in any way s/he pleases, including to the
detriment of owners further downstream?
Toby
Curly Surmudgeon
> --
> James A. Donald:
>> > Compare the political content of stuff broadcast
>> > over the government owned air waves, with stuff
>> > transmitted over comparable privately owned media.
>> > There is a marked difference. Broadcast television
>> > is far more pro state than cable television, though
>> > not nearly as pro state as PBS and BBC, where the
>> > studios are also government owned. They speak as if
>> > the hand of the state was on their throats.
>
> "Toby"
>> So you advocate selling the electromagnetic spectrum
>> to the highest bidder?
>
> To the highest bidders, plural, as many high bidders as
> there be.
>
> For freedom of the press to work, we need many presses,
> and so, we need many owners of the electromagnetic
> spectrum. At present, all broadcast spectrum is the
> property of one owner, so we hear only one voice.
Why? The radio spectrum is not the property of the government to sell.
The FCC was created to make it avaialable and to avoid collisions, not
pimp it out to Corporations.
A license to transmit should be shared among the powerless, not just the
powerful. Instead of persecuting Pirate Radio operators, if we want
Democracy, we should be encouraging them.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
brique
<constan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124051724.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, it's nice to hear from the monkey, but I think the organ-grinder can
speak for himself as to what he meant.
>
James A. Donald
"James A. Donald"
> > Why is it that McViegh is a Christian terrorist
> > while the Burmese junta are not Buddhist persecutors
> > when they throw missionaries in jail and confiscate
> > their bibles?
"Toby"
> The fact is, a lot more people have been killed in the
> name of Christianity than in the name of Buddhism.
Not in this century, not in the last century, and not in
recent centuries.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
12qdPKPiKRvF9ujO3GZmpcPAXTCRZx1yzi1aW37D
4gQ+0KDrSVcaJI31hrI7a52zWaY1KRZXoxICDti9v
James A. Donald
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:44:51 +0100, "brique"
<briqu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Which BBC is this you mention? The one about which you
> said :
>
> "Broadcast television is far more pro state than cable
> television, though not nearly as pro state as PBS and
> BBC, where the studios are also government owned.
> They speak as if the hand of the state was on their
> throats."
>
> Or the one about which you said :
>
> "In response to the terror attacks, Blair made a
> statement in parliament that the BBC found politically
> incorrect. The BBC then REWROTE BLAIR to make him
> more mealy mouthed and less unkind to those attacking
> Britain. They toned him down a bit. That is just
> plain falsification of the very recent past. Seems
> that Blair was a little too Churchillesque for their
> tastes."
Blair is not the state. The permanent oxbridge
bureaucracy is the state, and the permanent bureaucracy
does not like it when Blair gets excessively
churchillian.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
u63VACnTauRymgJ2np2ucNJyfWSDfkuGI8jHO+kj
47FGxpPZIA0i6E+oGuAexOS2CX0R3R6ZRFIWx/FJc
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > I don't see Fox news doing a Dan Rather. Their
> > slogan is "We report, you decide". So far no one
> > has caught them in any campaign lies, unlike the
> > BBC, Dan Rather, and the like. If their slogan is
> > so obviously untrue, why has no one caught them in a
> > good lie yet?
"Toby"
> I guess you haven't seen "Outfoxed".
Probably because they did not have anything as juicy as
Rathergate.
But since you mentioned it, I looked it up. Again,
they just don't have anything - Like NPR, they complain
that Fox supposedly shows bias because it disagrees with
them, not because it disagrees with the facts, while NPR
is supposedly neutral because they all agree perfectly
with each other. "Outfoxed" has an empty barrel, which
they loudly advertise as full.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
+LF5mbD2WWSn+Q1PvGVwdyprf/7xO+j/Qx/uzLd6
4Fat1nVqCC/Xt4qvKV4bZpg+N2nHgKyNCTEjtcSiT
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Blair is not the state. The BBC speaks on behalf of
> > the permanent and unelected oxbridge educated
> > bureaucracy - the state as an interest group, not on
> > behalf of the political party that supposedly runs
> > the state. The state as an interest group has no
> > strong interest against Churchilesque rhetoric,
> > indeed an interest in favor of it, but the oxbridge
> > class tends to be PC, so it culturally leans against
> > such rhetoric. And so, the BBC rewrites Blair to
> > fix his political incorrectness.
"brique"
> You mean the Prime Minister of the government which
> has the BBC by the throat is powerless to actually
> squeeze it?
Reread.
I also suggest you watch "Yes Minister", a show which
realistically depicts the minister as indeed powerless
to squeeze the throat of his overly powerful public
servant.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
75EwP/CmVB+nmwJBYFbwzvJpRIezPhLkFPqSbH5D
4pY/4rtePmz+GYV3UkrYwDxW5enxf5EK376xqt/kS
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > > > Compare the political content of stuff broadcast
> > > > over the government owned air waves, with stuff
> > > > transmitted over comparable privately owned
> > > > media. There is a marked difference. Broadcast
> > > > television is far more pro state than cable
> > > > television, though not nearly as pro state as
> > > > PBS and BBC, where the studios are also
> > > > government owned. They speak as if the hand of
> > > > the state was on their throats.
"Toby"
> > > So you advocate selling the electromagnetic
> > > spectrum to the highest bidder?
James A. Donald:
> > To the highest bidders, plural, as many high bidders
> > as there be.
brique
> I don't want to be a pedant, but surely there can be
> only one 'highest bidder'?
Obviously you have not been on ebay much.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4Iv1CcV85G+m2L9kbej777k4ypRC2wcLFqId4v+1
4hgcUd79mY0daddHf3ii1lFJeqt/R1uX7oCM2Ufa/
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > For freedom of the press to work, we need many
> > presses, and so, we need many owners of the
> > electromagnetic spectrum. At present, all broadcast
> > spectrum is the property of one owner, so we hear
> > only one voice.
"Toby"
> I might remind you that CBS, NBC and ABC in the US are
> hardly the government--they are owned by private
> corporations.
They broadcast over government owned airwaves.
Compare with PBS and NPR, on the one hand, where a
government owned studio broadcasts over a government
medium, and compare with cable on the other, where
privately owned studios broadcast over a private medium.
Pretty clear that government ownership dictates
political content. The political position of the
broadcaster is closely related to the degree of
government ownership.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
MHNUE47Y4ll0g5hUEEfZYa53VzAMpZviEaz9czEi
4MP2MUeL54PVHnnYLO+CA+o0JgP1N+fMJV1u5mUMH
James A. Donald
"Toby"
> > > So you advocate selling the electromagnetic
> > > spectrum to the highest bidder?
James A. Donald:
> > To the highest bidders, plural, as many high bidders
> > as there be.
> >
> > For freedom of the press to work, we need many
> > presses, and so, we need many owners of the
> > electromagnetic spectrum. At present, all broadcast
> > spectrum is the property of one owner, so we hear
> > only one voice.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Why? The radio spectrum is not the property of the
> government to sell.
Sure it is. They have sold lots of spectrum - just so
far they have not sold any spectrum for broadcasters,
selling only those portions of the spectrum that do not
threaten their domination of what people hear and see.
There is a proposal to chuck broadcasters off a part of
the UHF spectrum, so that it can be sold to cell phone
operators. If they can sell it to cell phone operators,
they could sell it to broadcasters.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
e24THGLrlTQmsNIYdBJwHtu9Le0izdG0Fn1U9Xvm
4crdxiz338xHFTrdfb4a2iOFVHBY4MKzS/lDiJAOV
Curly Surmudgeon
> --
> On 13 Aug 2005 19:11:03 -0500, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>> And Fox News is not also biased?
>
> I don't see Fox news doing a Dan Rather.
Of course not, they lie about Bush in the opposite direction. Are you
implying that Rather's information was false or the document? If the
document, yeah, it was later believed to be a forgery. If the information
then that was shown to be true.
Nor will you see Fox issuing an apology as Rather did so your implications
of journalist integrity do hold true.
> Their slogan
> is "We report, you decide". So far no one has caught them in any
> campaign lies, unlike the BBC, Dan Rather, and the like. If their
> slogan is so obviously untrue, why has no one caught them in a good lie
> yet?
Many people have however those who deny have their collective heads too
far up their anal orfice to see.
> I hear NPR doing media analysis, and I see Fox doing media analysis. Fox
> usually finds lots of juicy stuff, some flagrant distortions, and often
> enough some fairly startling lies. NPR's stuff is dry as dust -
> basically that Fox fails to appreciate what nice people the mainstream
> press are, and how good their intentions. According to NPR evidence of
> disagreement with NPR is supposedly evidence of bias, while according to
> Fox, willful misrepresentation of the facts is evidence of bias.
>
> The trouble with Fox is precisely that it is non political. Mostly
> covers disappearance of pretty girls and stuff like that. The
> accusation of "cheerleading" is because when there is a war on, Fox
> tends to report retreats, advances, the enemy running away, stuff going
> BOOM, instead of standing around mournfully reporting that war is hell
> today, as it was yesterday and the day before.
Here are just a few Fox lies beginning with the Iraq invasion:
March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is
planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing
severe flood damage.
March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to
detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch
coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that
coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the
"Mother of All Sunburns."
March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a
100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical
weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A
former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays
the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points
are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made
on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly
conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were
pesticides.
March 24: Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in
Baghdad are destroying documents. [How could he know this?]
March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why
coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the
discussion makes it clear that she doesn't know the difference between Al
Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!! Juliet Huddy is a beautiful woman but not very
bright.]
March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around
Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical
weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that
Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost
certainly containing chemical agents.
April 7: Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have
discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles containing sarin
and mustard gas. Initial tests show that the deadly chemicals are not
"trace elements."
[In the coming weeks, this embarrassing non-discovery is quickly stomped
down the Memory Hole. The missiles were never mentioned again.]
April 9: The crowd around coalition troops toppling the Saddam statue in
Baghdad looks strangely sparse despite the network's assertions to the
contrary. The perspective is always in close and even then there is no
mob storming the statue to hit it with their shoes. Just a handful of
people. It's constantly asserted that there's a huge crowd. [I'm
perplexed. Where's the huge crowd?!]
April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at
Al Tuwaitha. [In the coming weeks this "discovery" was expeditiously
shoved down the Memory Hole as well.]
April 10 (2:59 EDT): A report noting with surprise "how little" the
Iraqis were celebrating the coalition invasion. [An interesting
contradiction of the allegations of widespread celebration just the day
before with the toppling of the Saddam statue.]
April 10 (3 p.m. EDT: Reporter Rick Leventhal) Fox "Breaking News"
report: A mobile bioweapons lab is found. Video of a tiny tan
truck—about the size of the smallest truck that U-Haul rents – which
had its cargo bed and fuel tank shot up with bullets after a looter tried
to drive it away. Repeated assertions that this is most definitely a
"bioweapons" lab. A graphic sequence is shown of a large Winnebago-type
vehicle that is massive compared to the tiny truck found. The irony of
this escapes the Fox newscasters and defense "experts."
[This was the first "bioweapons lab" found, not the larger one later found
in Mosul. A week later it is briefly conceded that the tiny truck was
probably never a bio weapons lab, but promises that real ones will pour
forth from the landscape continue. The second phantom lab, a large
tractor-trailer truck was discovered around May 2 by Kurdish fighters.]
April 10: To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins
running old footage of Saddam Hussein's September 1975 trip to Paris to
meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant. [Because Fox
strives so hard to be "Fair and Balanced," it's all the more curious how
it fails to inform its audience about another trip four years later, this
one to Baghdad on December 19, 1983 made by Reagan envoy and then former
secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (see pic below). The network again,
because it's so very "Fair and Balanced," also inexplicably forgot to tell
its audience about another trip by Rummy to Baghdad, this time on March
24, 1984, the very same day that a U.N. team found that Iraqi forces had
used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent on Iranian soldiers. Rummy
obviously wasn't too concerned about the charges of gassing, as in 1986
when he was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination
of 1988, he listed his restoration of diplomatic relations with WMD-using
Iraq as one of his proudest achievements.
April 7: Repeated ominous footage of barrels buried in a below-ground
shed near Karbala. The implication is that the Iraqi landscape is replete
with these types of shelters, all of them brimming with evidence of
chemical weapons. [These were revealed to be agricultural chemicals as
well.]
April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons."
April 15: Fox analyst Mansoor Ijaz claims that the top 55 Iraqi leaders
(along with the whole stash of chemical and biological WMDs they have
taken with them) are now living it up in Latakia, Syria. [This is the
same 55 that appeared on the deck of cards and is still being captured
– far from all living it up in Syria.] On The Fox Report anchor
Shepard Smith completely breaks with any pretense of objectivity and
openly mocks actor Tim Robbins after playing an excerpt of Robbins'
speech to the National Press Club. "Oh, that was so powerful!" Smith
mocked. [Impressive objectivity there, Mr. Smith.]
April 16: Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting
of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff. [Right now there are so
many claims and counterclaims about the looting it's hard to tell what
happened. In a Fox segment on May 19 a coalition official asserted that
170,000 items were definitely not missing. Of course he refused to give a
ballpark estimate of what was missing, which he'd surely have in order to
plausibly deny that the original estimate was wrong.]
April 18: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful."
April 21: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqi Shiites "ungrateful
SOBs" and "fanatics." He concludes that "[we] can't tolerate a
fundamentalist state" in Iraq.
April 22: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O'Reilly Factor that
the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10. [This is the same
Robert Maginnis who predicted a double-ring defense of Baghdad in the
Washington Times on January 7.] O'Reilly states that if no WMDs are found
within a month from today, then that spells big trouble. O'Reilly
promises to explore the issue a month later. [Cool, let's hold his feet
to the fire on that promise. On an earlier show he said that U.S.
credibility would be "shot" if no WMDs were found. ]
May 8: Fox News Military Analyst Major General Paul Vallely states on The
O’Reilly Factor that "Middle East agents" have told him that Iraq’s
WMDs along with 17 mobile weapons labs (1 of which was captured around May
2) are now buried in the Bakaa Valley in Syria 30 meters underground. He
also claims that France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing
them with travel papers [a charge that even the Pentagon later denies
although it's apparent that's where Vallely got his information].
May 11: On The Fox Report with Rick Folbaum it is conceded that the
nefarious captured trailer contains not a shred of evidence of WMDs, but
Folbaum hints that what’s important is that the trailer could have been
used to make them. [Hmmm. I thought we went to war for actual WMDs, not
for the ability to make WMDs.]
May 16: Special Report with Brit Hume. Muslims, citing Islam's ban of
alcohol, are torching liquor stores and threatening their Christian
owners. Under Saddam's secular regime, Christian names were banned and
schools were nationalized, but guns and alcohol were freely available;
there was tolerance for Iraq's 1 million Catholic and Protestant
Christians. In New and Improved Neocon Iraq, there's a letter circulating
in Baghdad threatening violence to even the families of women who refuse
to wear the traditional Muslim head covering. [The report is yet another
interesting and reluctant concession of unintended consequences.]
May 19: O'Reilly discusses a number of inflammatory and bogus charges
that were floated in the U.S. media about France (e.g., France supplied
Iraq with precision switches used in nuclear weapons, French companies
sold spare parts to Iraq for military planes and helicopters, France
possessed illegal strains of smallpox, France helped Iraqi leaders escape
to Europe by providing them with travel papers). Recall this last charge
was made by Major General Paul Vallely on May 8 on The O'Reilly Factor.
Again, the Pentagon denies all such charges although much of the Beltway
thinks it's obvious that the Pentagon is the source of them. O'Reilly
claims that Vallely is only irresponsible if the charges don't turn out to
be true. O'Reilly refers to documents that prove that the French
government was briefing Saddam right until the war started. [Briefed on
what?]
May 20: O'Reilly concedes that the Private Jessica Lynch rescue story
could be a fraud, as asserted by the BBC and Los Angeles Times columnist
Robert Scheer. "Somebody is lying," he states. He says that if the U.S.
military has concocted a fraud, then it will be a terrible scandal but if
the BBC and Scheer are wrong, nothing will happen to them. He says he is
skeptical of the BBC and Scheer.
To prove his point he brings on no other than Colonel David Hunt. [Geez.
Transcript here.] Over and over, Hunt calls the allegations of staged
rescue an "assail on the finest soldiers in the world." He claims that
the ambulance with Lynch in it that drove up to a Marine checkpoint was
never shot at, its drivers demanded $10,000 for information on Jessica,
Saddam Hospital was guarded by uniformed Iraqi soldiers and Fedayeen,
Jessica's life was saved, and coalition forces didn't trash the hospital.
What were his sources for this information? The special ops members on
the raid, some of whom are his friends and former colleagues. Over and
over Hunt kept saying, "They're the best soldiers in the world, they're
the best in the world. Why would they make this up?"
[What followed next was an exchange that's priceless and one of many that
goes by far too un-analyzed on Fox every day:]
Hunt: In my opinion it's an assault, an effrontery to the finest men and
women in our service, it's an assault on Jessica, it's an assault on these
great guys, these great special operations guys ... at a minimum we should
no longer buy the L.A. Times, no longer buy the Toronto Free Press, and
shut the BBC off. It's a government to government issue...this is calling
into question the veracity of the finest soldiers in the world and it's
uncalled for, it's absolutely unbelievable."
O'Reilly: If you [Hunt] turn out to be right, nothing will happen to
Scheer...he'll just go along blithely printing his lies and living his
life and getting paid for it.
[To the Colonel: U.S. special ops soldiers may be the best in the world
at what they do, but how does it logically follow from that assessment
that particular actions taken during the raid were not excessive and
unjustified? How is the BBC's story an assault on Jessica?! What do you
mean when you mention a "government to government issue" given that the
U.S. government now controls Iraq?! Is the Pentagon the most effective
check on its own possible misdeeds? How convenient if you're suggesting
that it is. Who is your source that Iraqi doctors were trying to ransom
Jessica? Why hasn't this allegation made its way into any other news
reports?]
[To O'Reilly: If the raid does turn out to be mostly staged, there'll be
no terrible scandal precisely because you, Fox News, and the Pentagon will
assert just the opposite and allow yet another embarrassment to slide into
the Memory Hole. This is exactly why your demand for accountability from
the BBC and L.A. Times is so hollow and hypocritical. Instead of plumbing
the U.S. military to investigate itself, why don't you interview Iraqi
doctor Harith al-Houssona as the London Times did on April 16 (where the
story was first broken, not by the BBC or Robert Scheer) who actually
saved Lynch's life instead of the U.S. special ops who could have
jeopardized it? The doctor testifies that all Iraqi forces left the day
before the raid and that Jessica was delivered by an ambulance that had to
return to the hospital because it was shot at by Marines. Why would he
lie? You say you automatically trust the Pentagon. Why, when tales of
Lynch's heroics in fighting off 500 Iraqi soldiers with one hand while
severely wounded and tales that she had amnesia have already been proven
bogus?]
May 22 (5:54 a.m. CDT): Richard King, a military doctor, appears on Fox
and Friends with promises by the show's hosts that he will verify that the
Jessica Lynch rescue wasn't staged. King doesn't prove anything. He
states that he arrived at Saddam Hospital the day after the rescue,
concedes damage and mal-treatment of doctors at the hospital, and that he
"was told " that the hospital was guarded by hostile forces but doesn't
specify who told him. [The testimony of the hospital staff contradicts
this last hearsay.]
May 22: O'Reilly fails to live up to his promise to make a big stink if
no WMDs are found by today. In his Talking Points Memo he wonders why the
U.S. has caught such informed Iraqis as Dr. Germ and Ms. Anthrax and has
gotten no leads. He states that more time is needed [contradicting what
he said more than a month ago, when he said that if no WMDs were found
after 2 months U.S. credibility would be "shot" and there would be big
trouble]. He ends his Memo saying Bush must candidly address the
situation soon.
June 2: [Unfortunately for O'Reilly, Bush isn't candidly explaining
anything.] A video clip on Fox and Friends is shown with Bush in Poland
claiming that "[w]e found" weapons of mass destruction. His evidence?
Two trailers found near Mosul that were supposedly used as mobile
bioweapons labs. [A June 7 article by the Times' Judith Miller reports
serious doubts by some analysts that the two trailers were used as mobile
bioweapons labs. Said one senior analyst about the initial CIA report,
it "was a rushed job and looks political." Yes, they violated U.N.
resolutions but this is another red herring to suggest WMDs.]
June 4: O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: [Surreal.] O'Reilly says that
the WMD issue has now been politicized [!!]. The war was a just war
because there's now great progress between Palestinians and Israelis and
that alone made the war worthwhile [?!!]. Also the mass graves and other
horrors discovered add to the case for war. The intelligence was either
wrong or more time is needed to find the WMDs. [Again contradicting what
he said on and before April 22.]
June 11: Fox reports a bus blast in Jerusalem caused by Hamas, killing 15
and wounding at least 100. [Looks like the real reason for war according
to O'Reilly (Israeli-Palestinian peace) has also disintegrated, but don't
expect O'Reilly to admit it.]
Just a few of Faux News lies...
Curly Surmudgeon
> --
> "Toby"
>> > > So you advocate selling the electromagnetic
>> > > spectrum to the highest bidder?
>
> James A. Donald:
>> > To the highest bidders, plural, as many high bidders
>> > as there be.
>> >
>> > For freedom of the press to work, we need many
>> > presses, and so, we need many owners of the
>> > electromagnetic spectrum. At present, all broadcast
>> > spectrum is the property of one owner, so we hear
>> > only one voice.
>
> Curly Surmudgeon
>> Why? The radio spectrum is not the property of the
>> government to sell.
>
> Sure it is. They have sold lots of spectrum - just so
> far they have not sold any spectrum for broadcasters,
> selling only those portions of the spectrum that do not
> threaten their domination of what people hear and see.
>
> There is a proposal to chuck broadcasters off a part of
> the UHF spectrum, so that it can be sold to cell phone
> operators. If they can sell it to cell phone operators,
> they could sell it to broadcasters.
You snippped the important part of my post and jumped on one section out
of context:
-----------snipped text-------------
The FCC was created to make it avaialable and to avoid collisions, not
pimp it out to Corporations.
A license to transmit should be shared among the powerless, not just the
powerful. Instead of persecuting Pirate Radio operators, if we want
Democracy, we should be encouraging them.
-----------snipped text-------------
The airwaves do not belong to the Federal Government any more than the
trees, water or air do. The Federal Government is trustee for natural
resources, not owner and operator.
James A. Donald
"Toby"
> >> And Fox News is not also biased?
James A. Donald:
> > I don't see Fox news doing a Dan Rather.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Of course not, they lie about Bush in the opposite
> direction.
If they did, you would have examples.
> Are you implying that Rather's information was false
> or the document?
Both: Dan Rather willfully closed his eyes to forgery,
and then lied about the events and the evidence that led
to his team presenting a forgery as news. Probably he
was at first self deceived, but in the ensuing cover up,
he was himself deceitful.
James A. Donald:
> > Their slogan is "We report, you decide". So far no
> > one has caught them in any campaign lies, unlike the
> > BBC, Dan Rather, and the like. If their slogan is
> > so obviously untrue, why has no one caught them in a
> > good lie yet?
> Many people have
If they had, you would be giving me chapter and verse.
More impressively, NPR and the like would be giving me
chapter and verse, instead of whining that it is
outrageous that Fox news frequently fails to support the
self flattering preconceptions of the wise, the good,
and the virtuous. If such examples existed, I would
hear them day and night on NPR. It would be all fox,
all day, all the time, as they were on the
torture-of-the-koran scandal.
> March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith
> reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as
> a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood
> damage.
>
> March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that
> Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm
> buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition
> forces.
He also planned to blow the bridges - but failed to do
so because his forces ran away instead of hanging around
to fire the detonator. The fact that these events did
not occur is not evidence that Fox was lied, but
evidence that war is unpredictable.
These stories are not equivalent to Dan Rather's. They
are not demonizing Saddam, nor inflating Bush - these
details are not political, and therefore cannot be an
illustration of bias.
> Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that
> coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker
> [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."
Actually he did not, and had he done so, that would have
been an opinion, a guess about what the military might
do, not news fact inaccurately reported.
All your examples are the same: They illustrate at best
error, not bias, and most of them do not even illustrate
error
I delete most of the examples without comment, except
for a couple of the silliest ones:
The silliest one being:
> March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks
> Colonel David hunt why coalition forces don't "blow
> up" Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the discussion
> makes it clear that she doesn't know the difference
> between Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!!
It illustrates no such thing, and in fact the military
did blow up Al Jazeera TV's facilities in Iraq, thereby
successfully discouraging the kind of reporting that
Juliet Huddy was complaining about.
Another one, not silly, but a cheerful lie, being:
> March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of
> a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard
> forces were planning to use chemical weapons on
> coalition forces.
Untrue
They *speculated* that the red ring *might* involve a
plan to use chemical weapons, not asserted that it did.
Your list is lengthy, but has no substance. It is one
third lies about what fox said, one third lies about
what in fact happened, and three quarters trivia and fog
of war.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
KMVPQN01TEFrp5DhvGczz4iyncMHzYl1uJsWQQej
43d6Ob+C9yoX/Hqeg4Q4NBLP186mTZpH+tEafJE5+
James A. Donald
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:38:50 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
> You snippped the important part of my post and jumped
> on one section out of context:
>
> -----------snipped text------------- The FCC was
> created to make it avaialable and to avoid collisions,
> not pimp it out to Corporations.
The FCC was created to take control of broadcasting, and
that is what it has been doing. Collisions were already
prevented by the courts recognizing squatters rights on
the spectrum. The creation of the FCC was a typical
insider deal: The state told the broadcasters to give
up their property rights in the spectrum to the state,
and in return the state would protect them from
competition, which was more of a threat to them than the
state is.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
2c8GH4xBGt38hDZtEUAIwZ5+fIvSWvkQT8tlrN2F
4mmU5q0vWEWzgjNmdKWoiKbI4kQrCmxxdyVYeHMig
Josh Dougherty
news:11240440...@iris.uk.clara.net...
It's simple really. The state is the state whenever it does something James
doesn't like. Conversely, when the state does something James likes, it's
not the state. Those who oppose the state doing what James likes are the
state.
So, you see, when BBC "lies" to make the state's war look worse than it
really is and diminish British morale (and to aid terrorists), that's BBC
slavishly speaking on behalf of the state. There is no contradiction here
because James supports the war. Therefore, "biased" liberal reporters and
the "educated" are the state, and the Prime Minister and both major parties
in power are not.
Is that clear now?
Josh Dougherty
Heh.
Well, it's funny because Blair is basically the British equivalent of Kerry
or Clinton, the Democrats. So the BBC is supposedly attacking the dominant
"Left" faction, apparently vying for increased influence for the British
Right, who also supported the same policies that the BBC are supposedly
lying to undermine.
Of course, there's always the outside possibility that the grinder and his
monkey believe that the Lib-Dems have the BBC by the balls.
Curly Surmudgeon
> --
> "Toby"
>> >> And Fox News is not also biased?
>
> James A. Donald:
>> > I don't see Fox news doing a Dan Rather.
>
> Curly Surmudgeon
>> Of course not, they lie about Bush in the opposite
>> direction.
>
> If they did, you would have examples.
Why did you snip the examples?
>> Are you implying that Rather's information was false
>> or the document?
>
> Both: Dan Rather willfully closed his eyes to forgery,
Oh, come on now. The man had 4 decades as a journalist, he made a
mistake, don't blow it out of proportion.
> and then lied about the events and the evidence that led
> to his team presenting a forgery as news.
What lie?
> Probably he
> was at first self deceived, but in the ensuing cover up,
> he was himself deceitful.
What coverup?
Ah, I see. When Fox News posts untrue events it's an error. When an
anti-bush post is found to be untrue it's a lie. Ever hear of subjective
interpetation?
> I delete most of the examples without comment, except for a couple of
> the silliest ones:
I notice that you have a tendency of doing that. Most often that's an
avoidence technique.
> The silliest one being:
>> March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt
>> why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the
>> discussion makes it clear that she doesn't know the difference between
>> Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!!
>
> It illustrates no such thing, and in fact the military did blow up Al
> Jazeera TV's facilities in Iraq, thereby successfully discouraging the
> kind of reporting that Juliet Huddy was complaining about.
Oh, man, you really are twisting reality. Would blowing up a CBS office
in Boise, Idaho be blowing up CBS?
> Another one, not silly, but a cheerful lie, being:
>> March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around
>> Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical
>> weapons on coalition forces.
>
> Untrue
>
> They *speculated* that the red ring *might* involve a plan to use
> chemical weapons, not asserted that it did.
Not speculation, assertions. Go read Faux's reporting from that era.
> Your list is lengthy, but has no substance. It is one third lies about
> what fox said, one third lies about what in fact happened, and three
> quarters trivia and fog of war.
So you say. So you also so that an excellent forgery provided Dan Rather
was his lie. You are so prejudiced that you cannot see beyond your own
bias.
Curly Surmudgeon
> --
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:38:50 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
>> You snippped the important part of my post and jumped
>> on one section out of context:
>>
>> -----------snipped text------------- The FCC was
>> created to make it avaialable and to avoid collisions,
>> not pimp it out to Corporations.
>
> The FCC was created to take control of broadcasting,]
You're talking out your ass.
> and
> that is what it has been doing. Collisions were already
> prevented by the courts recognizing squatters rights on
> the spectrum. The creation of the FCC was a typical
> insider deal: The state told the broadcasters to give
> up their property rights in the spectrum to the state,
> and in return the state would protect them from
> competition, which was more of a threat to them than the
> state is.
Man, what planet are you from? At least you're entertaining, you continue
to come up with some of the most outlandish bullshit on usenet. Congrats!
brique
> --
> "James A. Donald"
> > > Why is it that McViegh is a Christian terrorist
> > > because he made a phone call to a known Christian,
> > > while the Burmese junta are not Buddhist persecutors
> > > when they throw missionaries in jail and confiscate
> > > their bibles?
>
> "Toby"
> > The fact is, a lot more people have been killed in the
> > name of Christianity than in the name of Buddhism.
>
> Not in this century, not in the last century, and not in
> recent centuries.
Unlike all those frequent other Bhuddists genocides, we must assume, from
their frequence and otherness.
When are you going to share further information on these dastardly acts that
so few others frequently seem not to have noticed?
brique
> --
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:44:51 +0100, "brique"
> <briqu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > Which BBC is this you mention? The one about which you
> > said :
> >
> > "Broadcast television is far more pro state than cable
> > television, though not nearly as pro state as PBS and
> > BBC, where the studios are also government owned.
> > They speak as if the hand of the state was on their
> > throats."
> >
> > Or the one about which you said :
> >
> > "In response to the terror attacks, Blair made a
> > statement in parliament that the BBC found politically
> > incorrect. The BBC then REWROTE BLAIR to make him
> > more mealy mouthed and less unkind to those attacking
> > Britain. They toned him down a bit. That is just
> > plain falsification of the very recent past. Seems
> > that Blair was a little too Churchillesque for their
> > tastes."
>
> Blair is not the state. The permanent oxbridge
> bureaucracy is the state, and the permanent bureaucracy
> does not like it when Blair gets excessively
> churchillian.
>
agreeing to support the US invasion of Iraq then? An Oxbridge bureaurocrat?
Of course,we may never know, the BBC, epicenter of the Conspiracy of Grey
Men will have hidden that from us.
brique
> --
> James A. Donald:
> > > Blair is not the state. The BBC speaks on behalf of
> > > the permanent and unelected oxbridge educated
> > > bureaucracy - the state as an interest group, not on
> > > behalf of the political party that supposedly runs
> > > the state. The state as an interest group has no
> > > strong interest against Churchilesque rhetoric,
> > > indeed an interest in favor of it, but the oxbridge
> > > class tends to be PC, so it culturally leans against
> > > such rhetoric. And so, the BBC rewrites Blair to
> > > fix his political incorrectness.
>
> "brique"
> > You mean the Prime Minister of the government which
> > has the BBC by the throat is powerless to actually
> > squeeze it?
>
> Reread.
>
> I also suggest you watch "Yes Minister", a show which
> realistically depicts the minister as indeed powerless
> to squeeze the throat of his overly powerful public
> servant.
>
documentary. Next you will be telling us that Bush and his administration
did not decide to invade Iraq, it was a library clerk in Boise, Idaho.
brique
Josh Dougherty <jdoc1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mqadnQyoaeC...@comcast.com...
complain about which BBC's bias and corruption. It would be a bit silly if
my complaint ended up at the wrong Home Office and if I had complained about
the wrong BBC!
brique
Hacker by the balls.
It seems the poor Brits never realised that 'Yes Minister' was a seering
documentary expose of the true nature of conspiritorial British government
rather than the endearing comedy which ran for so many years on.......oh
dear, the BBC.
Must be some sort of conspiracy, surely?
>
brique
> --
> James A. Donald:
> > > > > Compare the political content of stuff broadcast
> > > > > over the government owned air waves, with stuff
> > > > > transmitted over comparable privately owned
> > > > > media. There is a marked difference. Broadcast
> > > > > television is far more pro state than cable
> > > > > television, though not nearly as pro state as
> > > > > PBS and BBC, where the studios are also
> > > > > government owned. They speak as if the hand of
> > > > > the state was on their throats.
>
> "Toby"
> > > > So you advocate selling the electromagnetic
> > > > spectrum to the highest bidder?
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > To the highest bidders, plural, as many high bidders
> > > as there be.
>
> brique
> > I don't want to be a pedant, but surely there can be
> > only one 'highest bidder'?
>
> Obviously you have not been on ebay much.
>
misuse.
constan...@gmail.com
It's not an incorrect use.
James A. Donald
"Toby"
> > > The fact is, a lot more people have been killed in
> > > the name of Christianity than in the name of
> > > Buddhism.
James A. Donald:
> > Not in this century, not in the last century, and
> > not in recent centuries.
brique:
> Unlike all those frequent other Bhuddists genocides,
> we must assume, from their frequence and otherness.
> When are you going to share further information on
> these dastardly acts that so few others frequently
> seem not to have noticed?
If one current genocide is not enough for you, I doubt
that digging back to ancient kings will impress.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
rBPpcEJnKrqL5w3Mb786Wy/aPYvjT8wrh2dShOdD
4QlA/qPLxm/Ku67R3zlU5pwuw0xnxAlKfl9TbReqp