Echoes of Orwell in Spain
Rachel
propaganda machine and "the ultimate betrayal of our young by our
government" (at http://www.progressive.org/april04/zinn0404.html )
appear uncannily similar to Orwell's responses to the Spanish Civil
War and its aftermath. It's all a little disheartening--the willful
blindness that Zinn and Orwell describe seems the greatest impediment
to peace. As long as the folks in power can remain blissfully ignorant
of the human price of war, they'll continue to blithely waltz into
unnecessary conflicts--after all, they won't see anything that hasn't
been carefully sterilized with euphemism.
/Rachel
Don Aitken
wrote:
There a rather similar echo in a recent London Review of Books (5 Feb)
article, reviewing a book I haven't read - "Empire of Capital" by
Ellen Meiksins Wood. "She argues, as does Michael Ignatieff, that, in
contrast to a war against a nation-state, a war against terrorism is,
by definition, unwinnable. But, far from being a military absurdity,
for Meiksins Wood this is precisely its point. The new American
doctrine is based on war without end." Remind anybody of anything?
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Martha Bridegam
Don Aitken wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2004 21:21:54 -0800, red...@warren-wilson.edu (Rachel)
> wrote:
>
> >Sixty-some years later, Howard Zinn's condemnation of the war
> >propaganda machine and "the ultimate betrayal of our young by our
> >government" (at http://www.progressive.org/april04/zinn0404.html )
> >appear uncannily similar to Orwell's responses to the Spanish Civil
> >War and its aftermath. It's all a little disheartening--the willful
> >blindness that Zinn and Orwell describe seems the greatest impediment
> >to peace. As long as the folks in power can remain blissfully ignorant
> >of the human price of war, they'll continue to blithely waltz into
> >unnecessary conflicts--after all, they won't see anything that hasn't
> >been carefully sterilized with euphemism.
>
> There a rather similar echo in a recent London Review of Books (5 Feb)
> article, reviewing a book I haven't read - "Empire of Capital" by
> Ellen Meiksins Wood. "She argues, as does Michael Ignatieff, that, in
> contrast to a war against a nation-state, a war against terrorism is,
> by definition, unwinnable. But, far from being a military absurdity,
> for Meiksins Wood this is precisely its point. The new American
> doctrine is based on war without end." Remind anybody of anything?
But the War on Poverty did end, right? So that means there's hope, doesn't
it?
/M
Henry
I think I see what you trying to do here, MAB, rhetorically--but if I do
see what I think I see, then I'm not sure I like how it looks.
Because...didn't poverty win that war?
cheers,
Henry
Alan Hogue
Not to mention drugs, which have thoroughly trounced us.
Martha Bridegam
Henry wrote:
You're right -- that was a bad attempt at sarcasm. I just meant that poverty
and terrorism are both evils to be fought against, and yet unfortunately
neither one is likely to be defeated in a "war."
/M
Gene Zitver
There is of course no way of knowing what Orwell would have thought about the
Iraq war. But I think Orwell, unlike Zinn, would have been hard-headed enough
to notice and point out the propagandistic use of Trumbo's novel by the
Communist party to encourage antiwar sentiment after the signing of the
Hitler-Stalin pact.
The novel was serialized in The Daily Worker in 1940. But the CP dropped its
antiwar line with the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 and Trumbo
wrote the screenplay for the war movie _Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo_.
Gene
Alan Hogue
...and what conclusion do you draw from this? Or perhaps I should ask,
why is the CP's use of the novel relevant to the article?
Alan H.
Rachel
> On 9 Mar 2004 21:21:54 -0800, red...@warren-wilson.edu (Rachel)
> wrote:
>
> >Sixty-some years later, Howard Zinn's condemnation of the war
> >propaganda machine and "the ultimate betrayal of our young by our
> >government" (at http://www.progressive.org/april04/zinn0404.html )
> >appear uncannily similar to Orwell's responses to the Spanish Civil
> >War and its aftermath. It's all a little disheartening--the willful
> >blindness that Zinn and Orwell describe seems the greatest impediment
> >to peace. As long as the folks in power can remain blissfully ignorant
> >of the human price of war, they'll continue to blithely waltz into
> >unnecessary conflicts--after all, they won't see anything that hasn't
> >been carefully sterilized with euphemism.
>
> There a rather similar echo in a recent London Review of Books (5 Feb)
> article, reviewing a book I haven't read - "Empire of Capital" by
> Ellen Meiksins Wood. "She argues, as does Michael Ignatieff, that, in
> contrast to a war against a nation-state, a war against terrorism is,
> by definition, unwinnable. But, far from being a military absurdity,
> for Meiksins Wood this is precisely its point. The new American
> doctrine is based on war without end." Remind anybody of anything?
But hasn't Oceania ALWAYS been at war with Iraq?
-r
Gene Zitver
>...and what conclusion do you draw from this? Or perhaps I should ask,
>why is the CP's use of the novel relevant to the article?
Perhpaps it's not. But it's symptomatic of a sort of selective pacifism
(one-eyed pacifism, Orwell called it) which Zinn seems to have adopted. He
calls WWII "the great victory over fascism," which suggests he's not a
pacifist, but he uses the language of pacificism to denounce a war he opposes.
Or so it seems to me.
Gene
Rachel
...which omission might have occurred because Zinn is not as
"hard-headed" as Orwell, or which might just be a result of the fact
that they wrote, however ideologically similarly, in different times
and different contexts.
/r
Martha Bridegam
Rachel wrote:
Well, I don't know about Trumbo one way or the other, but I'm inclined to agree with Gene that Zinn
isn't really in the same writerly category as Orwell. I've enjoyed reading a lot of Zinn's stuff, but
always with the mental footnote that his work is palpably promoting a "line." Not the "line" of any
particular organization precisely, but his own strain of generic Left conventional wisdom about how the
world works and what has mattered in history.
I mean, you get the feeling that he first did a lot of reading, then arrived at a fixed theory about the
kind of behavior to watch out for from large businesses, the U.S. govt, etc., then moved on to the task
of finding examples in the world to suit his fixed theory. It is a sad commentary on our world that he
does often happen to be right, and far more often than a stuck clock. But you do always more or less
know what kind of thing he's going to say.
If Mr. Lucas is still reading he may disagree at this point, but I think Orwell stayed mostly empirical.
He had serious blind spots, but his basic rule was perception first, analysis afterward.
/M
Rachel
Really? I'm inclined to give Zinn a little more credit, but that may
be contextual: I discovered his writing via his autobiography (You
Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train), and I tend to be forgiving in
direct proportion to my frame of reference regarding the writer in
question.
/r
Kelwin Delaunay
"Rachel" <red...@warren-wilson.edu> wrote in message
news:bf45f6ab.04030...@posting.google.com...
I don't think "the folks in power [are] blissfully ignorant of the human
price of war." I think they are very much aware of it and have made sure
they and theirs not only do not have to pay it, but can profit from it.
Kelwin
Kelwin Delaunay
"Martha Bridegam" <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:404F5C7B...@pacbell.net...
>
> But the War on Poverty did end, right? So that means there's hope, doesn't
> it?
>
> /M
>
LOL I'm sure you had your tongue in your cheek, but not so sure all will
read it that way.
Kelwin
Kelwin Delaunay
"Gene Zitver" <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040310210714...@mb-m11.aol.com...
I don't think you've read Zinn very closely. He does not think of WWII as a
wonderful thing and he is most certainly not proud of his part in it.
Kelwin
Kelwin Delaunay
>
> Really? I'm inclined to give Zinn a little more credit, but that may
> be contextual: I discovered his writing via his autobiography (You
> Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train), and I tend to be forgiving in
> direct proportion to my frame of reference regarding the writer in
> question.
> /r
One of my favorites, which, I believe, is from that:
"The so-called channels that you are always asked to go through are not
channels but mazes into which you are invited to get lost."
I only wish that he had left out "always."
Kelwin
Martha Bridegam
Rachel wrote:
> ....
> > If Mr. Lucas is still reading he may disagree at this point, but I think Orwell stayed mostly empirical.
> > He had serious blind spots, but his basic rule was perception first, analysis afterward.
> >
> > /M
>
> Really? I'm inclined to give Zinn a little more credit, but that may
> be contextual: I discovered his writing via his autobiography (You
> Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train), and I tend to be forgiving in
> direct proportion to my frame of reference regarding the writer in
> question.
> /r
I haven't read that. Maybe it would give a different impression. What's it like?
/M
Martha Bridegam
Kelwin Delaunay wrote:
Yes, apologies again. That was a cockeyed attempt at grim humor that probably
should have been withdrawn or rephrased.
/M
Martha Bridegam
Kelwin Delaunay wrote:
That's a good line. Though I find it becomes interesting when you take the
inviters at their word and go through the "channels" with more energy than
they expect. At that point, the absurd results of their invitation become
your best argument that something has to change.
Works every time with the bureaucratic telephone referral runaround
anyway. I guess it's a bit different when the subject is a bigger one like
emancipation or the vote.
/M
Alan Hogue
I'm not as familiar with Zinn as I'm sure many around here are, but I do
think this article is ambiguous in this way and I was wondering about it
myself. But when I looked back over it I couldn't find any statement
that was false.
Alan H.
ballyvara
Spot on.
Hey, I wonder how this fits into Zinn's line:
www.boston.com/dailynews/071/nation/Oklahoma_attorney_killed_in_at:.shtml
This was someone I had known and worked with, along with the other two
people killed in this attack: one a woman from Baghdad who was working
with Fern on women's rights (they had, along with another women's
rights activist from the UK, organized several Women's Rights Centers
in Iraq. Members from these women's rights organizations had brought
a petition to the IGC to have a minimum percentage of women's
representation in the transitional assembly).
The other guy was funding local newspapers, TV and radio and free
media projects. They all were coming back from the Karbala Women's
Center, where they had had a meeting with the members about how the
women could make their own TV, radio and print media.
Hey, I met Dan Rather on the road between Fallujah and Ramadi today,
waiting for the road to be cleared after an IED: if you watch the CBS
Evening News, you might see me in the footage: khaki cargo pants,
button down shirt with flak jacket and an AK-47
Gene Zitver
>Hey, I wonder how this fits into Zinn's line:
>
>www.boston.com/dailynews/071/nation/Oklahoma_attorney_killed_in_at:.shtml
>
>This was someone I had known and worked with, along with the other two
>people killed in this attack: one a woman from Baghdad who was working
>with Fern on women's rights (they had, along with another women's
>rights activist from the UK, organized several Women's Rights Centers
>in Iraq. Members from these women's rights organizations had brought
>a petition to the IGC to have a minimum percentage of women's
>representation in the transitional assembly).
>
>The other guy was funding local newspapers, TV and radio and free
>media projects. They all were coming back from the Karbala Women's
>Center, where they had had a meeting with the members about how the
>women could make their own TV, radio and print media.
>
>Hey, I met Dan Rather on the road between Fallujah and Ramadi today,
>waiting for the road to be cleared after an IED: if you watch the CBS
>Evening News, you might see me in the footage: khaki cargo pants,
>button down shirt with flak jacket and an AK-47
When I heard about the two civilians killed, I immediately thought of you. I'm
glad you're OK, but what a sad loss of people trying to do something good.
I'll look for you on the news tonight.
Gene
Martha Bridegam
ballyvara wrote:
> ...www.boston.com/dailynews/071/nation/Oklahoma_attorney_killed_in_at:.shtml
>
> This was someone I had known and worked with, along with the other two
> people killed in this attack: one a woman from Baghdad who was working
> with Fern on women's rights (they had, along with another women's
> rights activist from the UK, organized several Women's Rights Centers
> in Iraq. Members from these women's rights organizations had brought
> a petition to the IGC to have a minimum percentage of women's
> representation in the transitional assembly).
>
> The other guy was funding local newspapers, TV and radio and free
> media projects. They all were coming back from the Karbala Women's
> Center, where they had had a meeting with the members about how the
> women could make their own TV, radio and print media.
>
> Hey, I met Dan Rather on the road between Fallujah and Ramadi today,
> waiting for the road to be cleared after an IED: if you watch the CBS
> Evening News, you might see me in the footage: khaki cargo pants,
> button down shirt with flak jacket and an AK-47
That's tragic. Not the Dan Rather part. The part about your colleague. I hope it doesn't diminish her
individuality to call this a classic tale: an honorable death for a wholly good cause in the midst of a murky
situation made by better guarded people acting with more ambiguous intentions. That does begin to fit the
title of this thread.
/M
Pete Bayle
This is the most repulsive thing you have ever posted in a long line
of repulsive things.
You are a disgrace.
Let us deconstruct.
honorable death - she will appreciate that no doubt
for a wholly good cause - glad you approve
in the midst of a murky situation - of course, even with Martha's
acute vision, it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys
made by better guarded people - 600 better guarded people died over
there
acting - yes at least they are acting on behalf of democracy and
freedom, human rights and women's rights
with more ambiguous intentions - says who? our little Martha, the
Queen of ABGO.
Read the post again, The guy is in a flak jacket with an AK-47. The
assholes are trying to kill him. And any other Amercian or foreigner
they can.
You have blood on your hands. You provide the excuses.
Hell, the murderers probably thought they had killed "one of those
better guarded people acting with more ambiguous intentions" when they
slipped up and went out to get a burger.
That would have been all right, wouldn't it?
Martha Bridegam
Martha Bridegam wrote:
To correct a tendentious misreading:
The "better guarded people" I mean are not soldiers. I'm thinking of the policy planners, and Halliburton
officials, and assorted other armchair interventionists who are not in Iraq at all.
/M
Pete Bayle
What a fuckwit and a coward.
You mean my "tendentious misreading"? The times are right. I'm betting
you mean me.
Far be it for the princess to dirty her hands by admitting she reads
my posts. What happened? Your PLONK doesn't work anymore. Or is every
on else too boring now that Kelwin has attacked you for being a whore
and you've drvien Robbie away?
You think you made it better. Just landing at Baghdad airport takes
more courage than you've had in your whole effing life. You think a
terrorist with a mortar or a rocket gives a shit who he kills when he
fires at a building housing westerners. Or if he misses and kills
Iraqis.
You going to be happy if Wolfowicz (who Hithcens admires by the way)
or Bremer or one of those guys get killed, to satisfy your moral
smugness.
Why do you think the poster was carrying an AK-47? What if he had shot
the thugs dressed as Iraqi policemen? What if he made a mistake? And
killed some civilians or real Iraqi police? What if he had been killed
himself because some asshole thought he was an occupying power?
But you'd defend him wouldn't you, because he reads Orwell, and he's
nice to you, so he must be honorable, LOL. Why don't you ask him how
he learned to use that AK-47? What a moral midget.
You think Iraq is some labor demonstration? Some homeless march in LA?
Some anti-war rally in DC? ooooooooooooooooooooh. So brave.
Let's give Martha the Congressional Medal of Honor for her brave work
as a lawyer in Caleefornia.
The people running Iraq are like surgeons attempting to transplant
democracy and freedom and human rights into a very sick and
traumatized patient, for the first time in history. They are
improvising as they go. And they have done a miraculous job in one
year.
While people like you criticize them, every step of the way, because
things are not perfect, and because you don't approve, (NOTE MARTHA
DOES NOT APPROVE) of their politics. And as if Iraqis need an excuse
to kill other Iraqis. As if we aren't trying to fix the problem. As if
we haven't paid an enormous price in life and money for this just
cause?
But you give them no credit.
Shameful.
But of course you are incapable of shame.
Gene Zitver
>Hey, I wonder how this fits into Zinn's line:
>
>www.boston.com/dailynews/071/nation/Oklahoma_attorney_killed_in_at:.shtml
>
>This was someone I had known and worked with, along with the other two
>people killed in this attack: one a woman from Baghdad who was working
>with Fern on women's rights (they had, along with another women's
>rights activist from the UK, organized several Women's Rights Centers
>in Iraq.
Here's more on Fern Holland from Friday's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51727-2004Mar11.html
It's telling that in addition to working at children's hospitals in Siberia and
Africa, building schools in Namibia and running a legal assistance clinic for
victims of sexual abuse in Guinea, she also worked for a law firm in Washington
specializing in protecting the rights of American workers-- to overtime pay,
union representation and the like.
Regardless of what one thought of the Iraq invasion, I think all those who
identify themselves as part of the Left ought to feel a special sense of
solidarity with her and what she was doing.
Gene
Martha Bridegam
Gene Zitver wrote:
Yes, and there is surely some irony in the likelihood that a administration
inflected by the paternalist hard right, whose members probably opposed her work
as a labor lawyer in the U.S., is now likely to take credit for the work she did
promoting women's rights in Iraq. And irony that she was doing her best to defend
the rights of women in a situation made possible by the U.S. invasion and
occupation, but at a time when many members of formerly secular Iraqi society seem
to be reacting to the destruction of institutions and certainty in their lives by
giving themselves over to the fascistic fundamentalism that is the worst enemy
facing us all. Yes, I'm speaking from a distance, but it looks like our invasion
and especially the lawless interregnum with all the looting broke and polarized
that country unnecessarily. As an unintended and probably unconsidered consequence
of the invasion, we've created the kind of social uncertainty there that offers
easy recruits to authoritarian extremism. In a society already conditioned by
dictatorship to accept the idea of absolute authority, people probably find it
easier to transfer their loyalty directly from Saddam to the fundamentalists than
to think or act independently. And a hero who was genuinely "a uniter, not a
divider" died as a result, along with, yes, 600 or more soldiers, whose returning
coffins have been kept out of our news photos as a matter of official policy and
whose funerals our chief executive has thus far lacked the gratitude to attend.
All of this is painfully, ironically wrong. Wrongfooted. Distorted.
Breech-birthed. Bad. Hence what I said yesterday.
And good people in and out of uniform do heroic good work cleaning up the mess,
and of course the destruction and polarization has happened now, like it or not,
and there's nothing to do but work to mend it, and the mending is good and
necessary work, and I'm ashamed not to be helping there too.
But the likes of Karl Rove will never truly mourn the death of a feminist labor
lawyer.
It's such a damn tragedy.
/M
Kelwin Delaunay
"Pete Bayle" <pete_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8d9486cd.04031...@posting.google.com...
<snip the dishonest, vicious, profane, personal attack>
Best presentation of your views you can make?
Kelwin
Martha Bridegam
Martha Bridegam wrote:
At the foot of the Feminist Majority Foundation obituary for Ms. Holland
(<http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8346>), they've posted
this appeal asking the public to urge the Bush Administration to use its authority in
Iraq on behalf of women's rights:
<http://capwiz.com/fmf1/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=5037156>.
/M
Rachel
Pretty intense; it's been a few years, though, so my facts may be a
bit off in the following... Zinn's first teaching job was at Spelman
College, a black women's college in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1956. Zinn's
support of the Civil Rights Movement had previously been essentially
laissez-faire, but after encountering first-hand the situation in
Georgia, and later Alabama--desegregation occurring numbingly slowly,
if at all, and lawmakers' and police's blatant refusal to recognize or
protect the rights of black citizens--he reached the conclusion that
becoming active in the Movement was a matter of conscience. He was one
of the central Civil Rights organizers in Atlanta, and later in Albany
and Selma. During the Vietnam War, he joined the Berigans' delegation
to North Vietnam, and before his arrest, Philip Berigan spent months
hiding in the Zinns' home. Looking back, Zinn's life and the evolution
of his political beliefs parallel Orwell's in a surprising number of
ways: both see to share the same wistful, slightly romantic
perspective on the lower classes; both became politicized as a direct
result of experiencing priviledge and power in environments of civil
inequality (although Zinn became an activist almost immediately after
first moving to the South), and both have repeatedly identified their
histories of political protest as rooted in patriotism. I'm not saying
they're equivalent figures, but it's interesting to look at the points
of intersection, and of those, there are more than I had initially
guessed.
/r
Pete Bayle
>
> Yes, and there is surely some irony in the likelihood that a administration
> inflected by the paternalist hard right, whose members probably opposed her work
It's about the credit isn't it? You can't stand the fact that someone
you disapprove of may get credit for doing something that you and your
weak-kneed left wing friends couldn't accomplish in a thousand years.
I doubt the Iraqis care who gets the credit.
> as a labor lawyer in the U.S., is now likely to take credit for the work she did
> promoting women's rights in Iraq. And irony that she was doing her best to defend
> the rights of women in a situation made possible by the U.S. invasion and
> occupation, but at a time when many members of formerly secular Iraqi society seem
> to be reacting to the destruction of institutions and certainty in their lives by
> giving themselves over to the fascistic fundamentalism that is the worst enemy
> facing us all.
Sure. They had such wonderful instituitions. The ones that worked the
best where the ones dealing with torture, oppression and theft.
Weren't they?
> Yes, I'm speaking from a distance, but it looks like our invasion
> and especially the lawless interregnum with all the looting broke and polarized
> that country unnecessarily.
Unbelievable.
A country that attempts to kill two thirds of their population over
the last 20 years, using everything from draining marshes to poison
gas ...
But we polarized them.
Zitver. You telling my you want fools like her on your side?
If not why can't you find the balls to confront her? Is the left
really so craven and moronic to accept this kind of garbage?
If so you have gone mad. And woe to you when you reap the whirlwind.
From Le Monde (via Andrew Sullivan)
"If the trail back to Al-Qaida is confirmed, Europeans should rethink
the war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, as did the United
States after the attacks of September 11, 2001. . . . Will March 11
have in Europe the same effect as September 11 in the US? After having
spontaneously expressed their solidarity with the Americans, the
Europeans, preoccupied with other forms of terrorism, found that the
Americans had become consumed with paranoia. Contrary to the latter in
2001, Europeans today discover not only their own vulnerability, but
also that they are confronted with a new phenomenon, mass terrorism.
Like the Americans, they may now be forced to admit that a new form of
world war has been declared, not against Islam but against
totalitarian and violent fundamentalism. That the world's democracies
are confronted with the same menace and should act together, using
military means and waging at the same time a war for their ideals."
The age of irony is coming to an end.
Kelwin Delaunay
Of course not.
> > Yes, I'm speaking from a distance, but it looks like our invasion
> > and especially the lawless interregnum with all the looting broke and
polarized
> > that country unnecessarily.
>
> Unbelievable.
>
> A country that attempts to kill two thirds of their population over
> the last 20 years, using everything from draining marshes to poison
> gas ...
>
Worse than nonsense. If the Baathist regime had wanted to kill 2/3 of the
population, they most certainly would have done so by your own arguments and
those on your side. (They had plenty of weapons of mass destruction at
sometime in those 20 years provided to them by those you support didn't
they?)
<snip the balance of this bizarre screed>
Kelwin
ballyvara
Yikes, I have enough excitement and conflict in my life, so I really
didn't want to wade into this, but a correction of fact and a few
minute points.
> >
> > Yes, and there is surely some irony in the likelihood that a administration
> > inflected by the paternalist hard right, whose members probably opposed her work
Well, maybe some "members" (who knows?) opposed, but I know that what
Fern was doing was personally endorsed and personally supported at the
highest levels in Baghdad (Bremer) and in Washington (Rice) and
represented the policy of the CPA. Scan the titles of these CPA press
releases, focusing on the word "women" and sample them as you will:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/
Take it as one of the quirky little paradoxes of the war.
Tonight I was talking to a brilliant young Iraqi man who works with
us. There was one Orwellian theme. We was talking about the murders
of Fern and Salwa and Bob by these Iraqi police. He was very hard on
the police generally and had had a big run-in with the "new" Karbala
police not too long ago. He cited a work by a Syrian dramatist, name
sounded like Doure Dirlham (?), who, he said, had written a play about
a man taken into secret police custody for an unknown reason.
Immediately, without a word from the thugs, he is brutally slapped
across the face, and then beated when he doesn't talk. Finally, he is
asked as he is dying why he didn't talk. He says that the first blow
stripped him of his humanity; his humanity gave him the ability to
feel pain; and that without his humanity he had nothing to say.
A little like 1984, but certainly more heroic.
He also said that being an educated and aware Iraqi was "hell," in
that "hell is other people" sense.
He advised me not to stick around after July 1.
Martha Bridegam
>
> > Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> Yikes, I have enough excitement and conflict in my life, so I really
> didn't want to wade into this, but a correction of fact and a few
> minute points.
>
> > >
> > > Yes, and there is surely some irony in the likelihood that a administration
> > > inflected by the paternalist hard right, whose members probably opposed her work
>
> Well, maybe some "members" (who knows?) opposed, but I know that what
> Fern was doing was personally endorsed and personally supported at the
> highest levels in Baghdad (Bremer) and in Washington (Rice) and
> represented the policy of the CPA.
I'm sure what I was saying probably looks different from your end, so you've probably
got good reason to be offended -- for which my apologies. But I have to point out that,
by quoting the particular words you've selected above, you're reacting to an assertion
I didn't make. You snipped in the middle of a phrase that continued "...whose members
probably opposed her work as a labor lawyer in the U.S...." If you go back and read
that post, you'll find I never doubted her work *in Iraq* was supported by the people
who hired her. I was talking about the work she'd done previously as a labor lawyer.
I'm sure the current admin. supported what she was doing for women in Iraq. I only
wonder if what Gene describes as her past advocacy for things like union representation
was something the Bush Administration would have been likely to support while she was a
lawyer in the U.S.
Of course, if you feel I've been unfair in thinking *that*, I'd be glad to know your
reasons why.
> Scan the titles of these CPA press
> releases, focusing on the word "women" and sample them as you will:
> http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/
>
> Take it as one of the quirky little paradoxes of the war.
This war seems to be nothing *but* paradox.
Maybe all wars are like that?
> Tonight I was talking to a brilliant young Iraqi man who works with
> us. There was one Orwellian theme. We was talking about the murders
> of Fern and Salwa and Bob by these Iraqi police. He was very hard on
> the police generally and had had a big run-in with the "new" Karbala
> police not too long ago. He cited a work by a Syrian dramatist, name
> sounded like Doure Dirlham (?), who, he said, had written a play about
> a man taken into secret police custody for an unknown reason.
> Immediately, without a word from the thugs, he is brutally slapped
> across the face, and then beated when he doesn't talk. Finally, he is
> asked as he is dying why he didn't talk. He says that the first blow
> stripped him of his humanity; his humanity gave him the ability to
> feel pain; and that without his humanity he had nothing to say.
>
All the more reason why the U.S. itself should absolutely not take anyone into secret
police custody for unknown reasons. We've got to be better than the people we're
fighting. We must not let ourselves resemble them. We are the side that has habeas
corpus, the rule of law, the right to counsel, and the right to hear and answer the
accusations against oneself. We have to grant these rights even to suspects who may not
individually deserve chivalrous treatment, not for their sake but in order to prove
that our side is the right one -- the one that believes in fairness. That's why the
existence of Guantanamo, for example, hurts so much.
>
> A little like 1984, but certainly more heroic.
>
> He also said that being an educated and aware Iraqi was "hell," in
> that "hell is other people" sense.
>
> He advised me not to stick around after July 1.
oh dear.
I don't know if you feel up to answering a serious question after the slanging match of
these past few days, but what *is* going to happen July 1? On a practical level, I
mean?
/M
Martha Bridegam
Rachel wrote:
Thanks for the summary. Edgy stuff. Interesting.
"Wistful" is a good word.
/M
selene1022
Do they know what happened yet with Fern? The last report I read, the
car was driven off the road and there were multiple gun shots into the
driver's side. I saw one of her close family friends on the news
yesterday. She must have been a remarkable person, and so brave. He
said that she had written to her family that she knew the danger, but
if she died, she would be doing what she loved doing the most. Where
would our sad sick world be without such beautiful spirits.
JV
Pete Bayle
> >
> > > Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Yikes, I have enough excitement and conflict in my life, so I really
> > didn't want to wade into this, but a correction of fact and a few
> > minute points.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and there is surely some irony in the likelihood that a administration
> > > > inflected by the paternalist hard right, whose members probably opposed her work
> >
> > Well, maybe some "members" (who knows?) opposed, but I know that what
> > Fern was doing was personally endorsed and personally supported at the
> > highest levels in Baghdad (Bremer) and in Washington (Rice) and
> > represented the policy of the CPA.
>
> I'm sure what I was saying probably looks different from your end, so you've probably
> got good reason to be offended -- for which my apologies. But I have to point out that,
> by quoting the particular words you've selected above, you're reacting to an assertion
> I didn't make. You snipped in the middle of a phrase that continued "...whose members
> probably opposed her work as a labor lawyer in the U.S...." If you go back and read
> that post, you'll find I never doubted her work *in Iraq* was supported by the people
> who hired her. I was talking about the work she'd done previously as a labor lawyer.
>
> I'm sure the current admin. supported what she was doing for women in Iraq. I only
> wonder if what Gene describes as her past advocacy for things like union representation
> was something the Bush Administration would have been likely to support while she was a
> lawyer in the U.S.
>
> Of course, if you feel I've been unfair in thinking *that*, I'd be glad to know your
> reasons why.
>
Bull shit. Bait and switch.
The key phrase:
"a murky situation made by better guarded people acting with more
ambiguous intentions."
****
Your original pontification in context (to be fair, which you don't
deserve):
"That's tragic. Not the Dan Rather part. The part about your
colleague. I hope it doesn't diminish her individuality to call this a
classic tale: an honorable death for a wholly good cause in the midst
of a murky situation made by better guarded people acting with more
ambiguous intentions. That does begin to fit the title of this
thread."
****
So we ask:
Who are the "better guarded people"? Not Bremer? Not Rice? Bush? You
even said they weren't all in Iraq.
What are their "ambiguos intentions"? (I'll give you a break and
assume by using more, you didn't intend to claim that even his friend
had ambigous intentions.)
How do you know they have "ambiguous intentions"? Your bias? Your
ideology? Your infallable moral sense? Your keen insight into human
nature?
He wasn't offended, Martha. He was pointing out that you were wrong.
Get it?
Martha Bridegam
Pete Bayle wrote:
This is a repetition and partial misstatement of a willful misunderstanding that I have already
corrected elsewhere on this thread.
I've also just noticed the material at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8d9486cd.0403112236.73241eb3%40posting.google.com>, which
was excluded from my own Internet ISP, possibly automatically because of its obscenely violent
content.
In case it is not obvious, our furtively anonymous "Bayle" visitor is a liar with an extremely
disturbing imagination, and he is lying in his willfully false pretenses that anything I have
said intends or advocates treason against the United States. For the record once again I am a
loyal citizen of the United States, sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United
States and dedicated to doing so, and unequivocally opposed to terrorism. I post under my own
name because I stand by what I say and am confident that I speak as a decent loyal citizen who
has nothing to hide. For at least the second time, he has engaged in libel per se in making
wild accusations against me.
I urge anyone reading this discussion to read my actual posts for themselves and to be aware
that "Bayle" has repeatedly posted intentionally false paraphrases of comments with which he
disagrees.
/M
Kelwin Delaunay
>
Bayle still engaging in projection., accusing his interlocutors of the
tactics he is uses. Perhaps, there is another neo-con playbook we haven't
seen that goes beyond the odious Language: A Key Mechanism of Control (
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm) from the equally
odious Gingrich, who comes up more and more frequently as one of the guiding
lights behind the current ruling group.
Kelwin
selene1022
For the record, all of your posts appear on my usnet threads. You are
also no more a "visitor" than anyone else who posts here or on any
other thread on usnet. It's an internet soapbox--free speech and all
that.
JV
ballyvara
I don't know what's going to happen, except that the CPA is going to
dissolve and transfer governmental functions to a sovereign Iraqi
gov't of some type. The form of that government is still under
discussion, some sort of assembly or council with an executive, maybe
a PM. Here's your chance to put your two cents (actually two mills)
worth in: how would you suggest the assembly be chosen and executive
organized? But take my word for it: an election with full universal
suffrage is not an option in the time we have left.
The plan is to have a continued Coalition military and development
advisory presence in Iraq, too.
ballyvara
Story is correct. Killed by police. More than that I can't say.
Martha Bridegam
ballyvara wrote:
> > I don't know if you feel up to answering a serious question after the slanging match of
> > these past few days, but what *is* going to happen July 1? On a practical level, I
> > mean?
> >
> > /M
>
> I don't know what's going to happen, except that the CPA is going to
> dissolve and transfer governmental functions to a sovereign Iraqi
> gov't of some type. The form of that government is still under
> discussion, some sort of assembly or council with an executive, maybe
> a PM. Here's your chance to put your two cents (actually two mills)
> worth in: how would you suggest the assembly be chosen and executive
> organized? But take my word for it: an election with full universal
> suffrage is not an option in the time we have left.
So I gather *some* suffrage is an option, then? How much? Possibly even more important: what
about the secret ballot for those who do vote, and what about neutral poll-watching observers?
Will human rights NGO observers have free access to voting places?
I'm sorry, it just seems strange to construct a government for somebody else to use. It's a
basic rule of human nature that people love and keep the things they've chosen for themselves.
But if you are constructing such a government and you do want my advice, it's to follow Justice
Brandeis' old principle that "sunshine is the best disinfectant." Create robust governmental
documentation and disclosure laws: when any official action is taken, a record of it should be
both created and made available for genuinely free public inspection. See, for example, the
University of Missouri freedom of information resource page at
<http://www.missouri.edu/~foiwww/laws.html>, and the California Public Records Act at Govt.
Code Sec. 6250 et seq. (accessible via <http://leginfo.public.ca.gov/calaw.html>). Of course
you also are likely to need specific laws protecting against either official or unofficial
retaliation for free speech.
>
>
> The plan is to have a continued Coalition military and development
> advisory presence in Iraq, too.
So how big do you think the practical difference will be between the occupation presence and
the advisory presence? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
/M
Paolo
"Gene Zitver" <gzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040310210714...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> Alan Hogue wrote
>
> >...and what conclusion do you draw from this? Or perhaps I should ask,
> >why is the CP's use of the novel relevant to the article?
>
> Perhpaps it's not. But it's symptomatic of a sort of selective pacifism
> (one-eyed pacifism, Orwell called it) which Zinn seems to have adopted. He
> calls WWII "the great victory over fascism," which suggests he's not a
> pacifist, but he uses the language of pacificism to denounce a war he
opposes.
> Or so it seems to me.
I think that calling the decision to oppose one war but not another
"selective
pacifism" is a bit of a smear. I don't think you paid very much attention to
the
article, perhaps in your haste to dismiss it. A couple of points:
1. Zinn did support WWII when it started, but regretted his involvement in
it
afterwards. The turning point came in the last weeks of the conflict when,
with
the war virtually over, his squadron was commanded to drop a new substance
called napalm on a French town that was surrounded and offering very little
resistance. This is the event that gave the anti-war sentiment he has had
ever
since.
2. Zinn is well aware of the communist turn around after the breaking of the
Nazi-Soviet treaty. From page 398 of _A people's History of the United
States:
"Two years later, Germany invaded Soviet Russia, and the American communist
party, which had repeatedly described the war . . . as an imperialist war,
now
called it a 'people's war' against fascism."
paul.
Paolo
"Rachel" <red...@warren-wilson.edu> wrote in message
news:bf45f6ab.04031...@posting.google.com...
Orwell stayed mostly empirical.
> > He had serious blind spots, but his basic rule was perception first,
analysis afterward.
> >
> > /M
>
> Really? I'm inclined to give Zinn a little more credit, but that may
> be contextual: I discovered his writing via his autobiography (You
> Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train), and I tend to be forgiving in
> direct proportion to my frame of reference regarding the writer in
> question.
I think that Martha has a point. Not about the fixed
theory idea, but that you do usually know what he is going to
say. Zinn is one of my favourite writers, but his output nowadays
is fairly predictable. In fairness, the man is even older than John
Rennie.
paul.
Paolo
There's also some good chapters on "growing up class-conscious"
and quite poor in Brooklyn during the depression, as well as his time
working in , and trying to organize, the New York shipyards during the war.
Not to mention the time in the air force.
If you like Zinn, I should recommend this:
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/catalogue/g7008.html
He's a very engaging speaker.
paul.
Paolo
> Sixty-some years later, Howard Zinn's condemnation of the war
> propaganda machine and "the ultimate betrayal of our young by our
> government" (at http://www.progressive.org/april04/zinn0404.html )
> appear uncannily similar to Orwell's responses to the Spanish Civil
> War and its aftermath. It's all a little disheartening--the willful
> blindness that Zinn and Orwell describe seems the greatest impediment
> to peace. As long as the folks in power can remain blissfully ignorant
> of the human price of war, they'll continue to blithely waltz into
> unnecessary conflicts--
It's not that the folks in power don't know the human price of war,
it's just they don't care.
paul.
Pete Bayle
> For at least the second time, he has engaged in libel per se in making
> wild accusations against me.
So silly.
You are self-refuting.
The post was Camus Laughs. And he's still laughing by the way.
You accused me once before and then retracted the accusation because
you claimed you misread the post.
Having a little inner battle between our free-speech self and our
lawyer-control-freak self, are we?
Paolo
This is obvious. His posts are getting more and more surreal to the point
of the bizarre. Perhaps the following could be instructive in this
situation
In this frigid urban centre, nestled low on the north shores of the
great lakes, we have multitudes of cultures from every corner of the
globe, merging and colliding, and coagulating into pockets of
distinction, creating neighbourhoods of comfort and familiarity.
The result, as every child in this country learns in school, is what is
known as a 'cultural mosaic,' in contrast to the American 'melting pot.'
A mosaic which derives, they tell us, from a lower emphasis on
assimilation, from less value placed on national identity.
What we also have, at night, is a very large population of
raccoons. They are a culture of their own, small and outnumbered,
somewhere between Norwegian and Turkish, shall we say,
statistically speaking, but they are always notable for they are at
constant odds with the population at large. As any resident of Pape or
Bathurst or Lansdowne or Dundas or any of the other of the
cold and dynamic streets of this blessed city knows, there are two
rules of behaviour with these northern vermin: firstly, keep don't just
leave
your trash lying around, for that is their sustenance. But secondly, and
more importantly, if you encounter one of these glorified rats - tearing
through your garbage, leaving it strewn all over the sidewalk, creating
a ghastly odour and an unsightly mess, knocking things over and fighting
and screeching, making a horrible racket, sleeping on your roof or
under your shed, and generally making life miserable - if you encounter
this,
let it be. Do not, despite the great temptation, engage the beast,
or attempt to prevent it from its pursuit of a crust of bread or
a half-eaten chicken wing. Do not try to attack it with a hockey stick
or send your dog after it. For the raccoon is intelligent, and more to
the point, it is desperate, and will fight back with great tenacity
and ferocity. It will maim your dog and it will leave you with gashes and
bruises and, worst of all, probably rabies, making you as sick as it is.
Instead, let the animal be, let it root through your trash in piece. It will
quickly find that there is nothing worth lingering over and move on to
another garbage can, leaving yours relatively clean, and letting you carry
on
in a healthy frame of mind and body. It's a paradox: ignore the raccoon
and it will go away, engage it and it will stay in a vile and messy attempt
to claim the territory as it's own.
and he is lying in his willfully false pretenses that anything I have
> said intends or advocates treason against the United States. For the
record once again I am a
> loyal citizen of the United States, sworn to uphold the laws and
Constitution of the United
> States and dedicated to doing so, and unequivocally opposed to terrorism.
I post under my own
> name because I stand by what I say and am confident that I speak as a
decent loyal citizen who
> has nothing to hide. For at least the second time, he has engaged in libel
per se in making
> wild accusations against me.
I believe you, and I would stand as a character witness if only your
government would let me cross your border.
paul.
Martha Bridegam
thread.
In Spain they've reacted to terrorism the right way: with a massive silent
display of opposition to terror that also demonstrates a refusal to be
polarized into extreme reactions. Accompanied, of course, by a quiet, effective
criminal investigation. As far as I've seen they did not informally scapegoat
or formally round up foreigners, they did not immediately restrict their own
liberties, and they did not look for safety in the party of authority. They
didn't posture or bluster. They mourned. Massively.
The Spanish socialists won today. Now maybe Garcia Lorca will get a proper
burial.
/M
Pete Bayle
Wrong again Martha.
Al Qaeda won. Thanks to misguided appeasers like you Martha, Al Qaeda
won its first elction in a western democracy.
And who lost?
Britain surely lost. Because if it worked in Spain you know they are
going to hit Britain. And Italy. And Greece. The conservatives took
over there, they just asked for Nato to protect them during the
Olympics.
And Iraq lost of course. Your Socialist friends have given the
murderers in Iraq their only hope for success.
And your own country, assuming you have a country, the United States?
Al Qaeda won one election, maybe they will try to win another.
It was a sad day for civilization and democracy in Spain. Terrorists
got the vote.
But a great victory for socialism.
And that's all you really care about anyway, isn't it?
What a disgrace.
Alan Hogue
I wonder what impact the history of conflict with the Basque separatist
movement has had on the whole affair.
Alan H.
Martha Bridegam
Pete Bayle wrote:
> Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40552A69...@pacbell.net>...
> > I may as well write an actual post about Spain on this poor twisted discussion
> > thread.
> >
> > In Spain they've reacted to terrorism the right way: with a massive silent
> > display of opposition to terror that also demonstrates a refusal to be
> > polarized into extreme reactions. Accompanied, of course, by a quiet, effective
> > criminal investigation. As far as I've seen they did not informally scapegoat
> > or formally round up foreigners, they did not immediately restrict their own
> > liberties, and they did not look for safety in the party of authority. They
> > didn't posture or bluster. They mourned. Massively.
> >
> > The Spanish socialists won today. Now maybe Garcia Lorca will get a proper
> > burial.
> >
> > /M
>
> Wrong again Martha.
>
> Al Qaeda won....
<snipping ad hominems>
Well, that is the Bush line. But parts of your line do coincide with editorials from several
thoughtful commentators today saying that the attacks may have led some Spanish voters to oppose
close cooperation with the U.S. out of fear. I admit that's a depressing aspect of the Spanish
election that I was reluctant to consider last night, and if true it's a bad thing. Terrorists
shouldn't succeed in intimidation.
But the commentators are making two strong additional points: that Spanish voters were disgusted
with the way Aznar's party manipulated a national disaster for partisan political purposes. And
also that voters may have felt the Socialists would do a better job of protecting them from
terrorism, since the Aznar government had obviously failed to do so.
A further point: terrorists (like trolls) want to provoke an extreme immoderate reaction so they
can portray themselves as victims and their opponents as tyrants. They do not simply want to
discourage people from disagreeing with them. They try intentionally to provoke an authoritarian
response -- because their real attack is always against the atmosphere of trust and tolerance that
makes a politically moderate civil society possible. They like hysteria. They like polarization.
They like anger and fear. They want to disrupt the ordinary civilized public conversation. So if
they can't recruit hysterical support for their own side, the next best thing for them is to
provoke hysteria against themselves. For this reason it seems likely that the terrorists in Spain
would have preferred to have Aznar's party, the party of heavy-handed authority, as their
opponent. An opponent who behaves sensibly and calmly but firmly -- as let's hope the Spanish
Socialists will -- can do a lot more against terrorism, and for human freedom, than an opponent
who screams denunciations and orders roundups of usual suspects. That's why the silent calm
mourning marches (yes, organized by the Aznar government, I think -- to its credit) were exactly
the right response to this. Those were marches against terrorism, not against Aznar, not against
the U.S.. They demonstrated a massive refusal to be either intimidated or provoked by terrorists.
Really, I do not think the Spanish people are cowards.
And now, besides all that, perhaps Garcia Lorca and the many thousands of other victims in
unmarked graves in Spain will get a proper burial. After all, the unmarked graves of victims of
dictatorship do matter in other places than Iraq.
And you did want the Republic to win, didn't you?
/M
Henry
Aznar's government's instant-reaction placing of blame for these attacks
on the Basques reminded me of how Middle-Eastern-looking-individuals
were immediately "known" to have caused the Oklahoma City bombing.
(Not that I think that the whole story of that episode has yet been
revealed, or that Lee Harvey McVeigh was more than a patsy.)
cheers,
Henry
Pete Bayle
> Pete Bayle wrote:
>
> > Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40552A69...@pacbell.net>...
> > > I may as well write an actual post about Spain on this poor twisted discussion
> > > thread.
> > >
> > > In Spain they've reacted to terrorism the right way: with a massive silent
> > > display of opposition to terror that also demonstrates a refusal to be
> > > polarized into extreme reactions. Accompanied, of course, by a quiet, effective
> > > criminal investigation. As far as I've seen they did not informally scapegoat
> > > or formally round up foreigners, they did not immediately restrict their own
> > > liberties, and they did not look for safety in the party of authority. They
> > > didn't posture or bluster. They mourned. Massively.
> > >
> > > The Spanish socialists won today. Now maybe Garcia Lorca will get a proper
> > > burial.
> > >
> > > /M
> >
> > Wrong again Martha.
> >
> > Al Qaeda won....
>
> <snipping ad hominems>
>
> Well, that is the Bush line. But parts of your line do coincide with editorials from several
> thoughtful commentators today
My line. Bush's line. This is your problem Martha. It's about reality,
not whose line it is.
> saying that the attacks may have led some Spanish voters to oppose
> close cooperation with the U.S. out of fear. I admit that's a depressing aspect of the Spanish
> election that I was reluctant to consider last night,
I'm sure you were. If you'd like to engage in a little
self-interrogation you might ask yourself why you were reluctant to
consider the obvious.
> and if true it's a bad thing. Terrorists
> shouldn't succeed in intimidation.
>
We agree. Finally. How many roads must ...
> But the commentators are making two strong additional points: that Spanish voters were disgusted
> with the way Aznar's party manipulated a national disaster for partisan political purposes.
I agree this was a likely factor. Stupid as well.
> And
> also that voters may have felt the Socialists would do a better job of protecting them from
> terrorism, since the Aznar government had obviously failed to do so.
First, the only way any government can absolutely protect its people
is by totally capitulating to the terrorists.
Second, since Spain has shown it can be intimidated what do they do if
ETA hits them with everything they have.
Third, since Spain is a Crusader state, who's to say that Al Qaeda
won't hit them again.
Remember this when Spain gets hit again under a Socialist government
(only 43% by the way), if they don't do everything some terrorist
wants.
> A further point: terrorists (like trolls)
Martha, once again you make a fool of yourself. Comparing a troll
(assuming I am a troll and not Orwell's ghost come back to expose you
to reality) to terrorists who have killed hundreds of people ought to
be beyond even you.
Unfortunately that's not the case. It's your main problem and one
reason why you will never be taken seriously.
You get involved in a hard hitting politcal argument and you behave
like a hysterical little girl. A disgrace to feminists everywhere.
Grow up and stop whining.
> want to provoke an extreme immoderate reaction so they
> can portray themselves as victims and their opponents as tyrants. They do not simply want to
> discourage people from disagreeing with them. They try intentionally to provoke an authoritarian
> response -- because their real attack is always against the atmosphere of trust and tolerance that
> makes a politically moderate civil society possible. They like hysteria. They like polarization.
> They like anger and fear. They want to disrupt the ordinary civilized public conversation. So if
> they can't recruit hysterical support for their own side, the next best thing for them is to
> provoke hysteria against themselves.
Unlike Martha and her snipping friends, I leave the above for the
piblic's edification.
> For this reason it seems likely that the terrorists in Spain
> would have preferred to have Aznar's party, the party of heavy-handed authority, as their
> opponent.
Sure. Good joke. Al Qaeda wants to have opponents who will hunt them
down and kill them rather than hide in a corner and pray they won't
come after them again.
They like to fight strength.
Will your rationalizations never stop.
> An opponent who behaves sensibly and calmly but firmly -- as let's hope the Spanish
> Socialists will -- can do a lot more against terrorism,
We shall see.
Sensible, calmly and firmly - as if you know anything about being
sensible and calm and firm.
> and for human freedom, than an opponent
> who screams denunciations and orders roundups of usual suspects. That's why the silent calm
> mourning marches (yes, organized by the Aznar government, I think -- to its credit) were exactly
> the right response to this. Those were marches against terrorism, not against Aznar, not against
> the U.S.. They demonstrated a massive refusal to be either intimidated or provoked by terrorists.
Sure they did. Face it Martha. You think a march is the height of
political action. You are the Folk Song Army.
> Really, I do not think the Spanish people are cowards.
>
We shall see. But we know that 37% of them aren't.
> And now, besides all that, perhaps Garcia Lorca and the many thousands of other victims in
> unmarked graves in Spain will get a proper burial. After all, the unmarked graves of victims of
> dictatorship do matter in other places than Iraq.
>
Frankly my dear Martha, I don't give a fuck about Garcia Lorca. It's
not about symbolism .
And in case you haven't been watching, Spain has been run by
Socialists for a long time before Aznar. Plenty of time for them to do
whatever it is that get you panties in a knot.
And to compare Saddam Hussein in power, working towards WMD, to
something that happened half a century ago once again reflects poorly
on your judgment.
You must have been the worst lawyer in the history of the world.
> And you did want the Republic to win, didn't you?
>
> /M
Of course you silly wabbit.
Now what about you?
Just take a deep breath and repeat after me: "I did want someone to
win a war once, against the fascists in Spain."
That wasn't so hard was it. Next thing you know you'll find yourself
rooting for the Amercians in the Revolution and the North in the Civil
War.
Of course Kelwin will probably come after you but we will help you.
Promise.
Martha Bridegam
weblog colleague Harry:
<http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2004/03/16/cowards.php>
/M
Tom Mason
Wasn't the fact that the Spanish government initially attempted to
obscure the facts and blame eta in an unbelievably cynical attempt to
cling to power also a factor in their being ousted?
And please stop ending posts with "what a disgrace". The thought of
you sitting in front of a pc, face red, head shaking and hands a blur
typing angry rebuttals to Martha's every point makes me feel tired all
over.
Paolo
"It hardly needs to be pointed out how offensive and patronizing such views
are, coming just
days after 10 million Spaniards took to the streets in those moving silent
protests against
terrorist attacks which killed 200 of their compatriots."
Well said. A number of salient points in that article, but certainly
nothing more than I would expect out of a friend of Gene's. He
has high standards.
It is interesting to watch the Soviet-like flip that has taken place, where
Spain
went, seemingly overnight, from being brave, laudable members of 'New
Europe'
to being labelled a nation of cowards.
paul.
Martha Bridegam
Paolo wrote:
...and there's now a lot of other commentary debunking the "cowardice" meme.
This is one starting point for weblog commentary on the subject today:
<http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_03_14_atrios_archive.html#107945356092956592>.
Two links away from this one, Juan Cole is eloquently losing his temper.
/M
Kelwin Delaunay
>
> Of course Kelwin will probably come after you but we will help you.
> Promise.
Sssshhhhh. I'm busy hunting trolls or maybe it was racoons...
BTW, I think Martha, said it very well when she said:
"...their real attack is always against the atmosphere of trust and
tolerance that
makes a politically moderate civil society possible."
Kelwin
Pete Bayle
Wrong as usual Paul.
Who has labled Spain as cowards? Not me. It was Martha's word and she
said that she didn't think they were.
On the other hand it is clear that the Spanish Socialists are
appeasers. And it is true that appeasers are often cowards. They make
up 43% of the Spainsh electorate. Roughly the same percentage as the
appeasers in the US.
Too bad appeasment will not work.
France is now on high alert.
****
You gotta love the way Mister Nista and Madame Mab have decided to
make Bolshevik and Soviet thier highest form of insult. Who says
there's no such thing as progress.
Martha Bridegam
Paolo wrote:
>
>
> It is interesting to watch the Soviet-like flip that has taken place, where
> Spain
> went, seemingly overnight, from being brave, laudable members of 'New
> Europe'
> to being labelled a nation of cowards.
....
Pete Bayle wrote:
> ....
>
> France is now on high alert.
....
So now France has always been our close ally and friend. Spain has always been a country
of dastardly "appeasers."
No more Freedom Fries I guess.
Now we'll come down with the Freedom Flu, eat Freedom Rice, and get Internet spam
advertising Freedom Fly?
/M
Kelwin Delaunay
While much of the rest of the world including the Spanish commiserated with
Americans after the 9/11 attack, many of our loud-mouthed, rightwing,
opportunists, saw not the devastation, expressed no felt compassion, but
simply saw and took another chance to advance their cause. Revolting... As
is the attack on the Spanish people for exercising their democratic right to
vote for whoever they care to...
Kelwin
Pete Bayle
I agree.
But it seems they protest too much. I was very careful not to assume
anything even though I thought Islamic terrotists. I would have
thought everyone would have learned by now to wait and see.
The idea that the UN, who takes forever to do anything, is angry
because it went off half cocked is ridiculous. As if no one has ever
used the UN for polticial purposes.
As is the idea that any time people don't know or are mistaken are
liars.
The left are like children. We know what we want and we want it now.
Too bad life doesn't work that way.
Complaints that Madrid misled allies
http://www.iht.com/articles/510503.html
At the United Nations on Monday, Spain submitted a letter to the
15-member Security Council reiterating the point. The letter
concluded: "It is not possible at the moment to arrive at definitive
conclusions. The government of Spain will inform the Council of the
results of the investigation."
It was not clear that the letter would satisfy Council members, many
of whom had expressed misgivings on Thursday.
"We are very, very angry," one Council ambassador said Monday,
speaking on a condition that he not be named. "We were utilized for
political maneuvering, and at best it was irresponsible to pressure
us."
> And please stop ending posts with "what a disgrace". The thought of
> you sitting in front of a pc, face red, head shaking and hands a blur
> typing angry rebuttals to Martha's every point makes me feel tired all
> over.
Sorry. When I think it's a disgrace I'll say it's a disgrace. And
Martha's pretensions to sit in moral judgement make me equally tired.
Guess there's nothing to be done.
Kelwin Delaunay
"Henry" <henr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:1gaq86j.xkhe1t1raee96N%henr...@eircom.net...
>
>
> Aznar's government's instant-reaction placing of blame for these attacks
> on the Basques reminded me of how Middle-Eastern-looking-individuals
> were immediately "known" to have caused the Oklahoma City bombing.
>
> (Not that I think that the whole story of that episode has yet been
> revealed, or that Lee Harvey McVeigh was more than a patsy.)
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry
A jury was seated recently to try Terry Nichols. Here's a link to the
NYTimes article today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/national/16NICH.html
Alan Hogue
This is the most disturbing thing of all. How quickly people are willing
to throw such a fundamental democratic idea right out the window when
someone mentions the T-word. Rather the equivalent of calling the
Spanish socialists "objectively pro-al Qaida", isn't it?
I suppose it's also objectively-pro to give a damn about the government
lying to its people. They're dishonest, but at least they aren't
cowards. They'll lock up people with no due process, for as long as they
like, but at least they'll protect us. Seems I've heard this sort of
thing before....
Alan H.
Martha Bridegam
Pete Bayle wrote:
> ...
>
> You must have been the worst lawyer in the history of the world.
....
A client's settlement check arrived this morning. Maybe I'll ask if he agrees.
/M
Paolo
"Alan Hogue" <aho...@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:c37lpr$t21$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
I think that is very much what is being said.
There is also the idea that the socialist victory means that
'the terrorists have won.' That somehow by not electing
a rightist, Bush-lite government the Spanish have allowed
the terrorists to win the day, and have encouraged their
pursuit of more victories.
The irony is that this is sneeringly pronounced by commentators
from a country, the US, where the terrorists are currently enjoying
a 2 1/2 year long run of victory. Every day that there is a 'heightened
state of alert,' coded orange or yellow or whatever, under which
the population cowers in fear, is a day of victory for the terrorists. Each
day that the mess in Iraq, and the inevitable cost, grows deeper, the
terrorists win. Each time that the gov't rolls back a civil liberty under
the cover of fear is a victory for the terrorists.
Forget the spanish, Al-Qaeda does not have a more co-operative ally
anywhere than they do in George Bush.
paul.
paul.
Pete Bayle
> Paolo wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It is interesting to watch the Soviet-like flip that has taken place, where
> > Spain
> > went, seemingly overnight, from being brave, laudable members of 'New
> > Europe'
> > to being labelled a nation of cowards.
>
> ....
>
> Pete Bayle wrote:
>
> > ....
> >
> > France is now on high alert.
>
> ....
>
> So now France has always been our close ally and friend. Spain has always been a country
> of dastardly "appeasers."
>
Who used the c word about the Spanish Martha? You dear Martha.
Are you happy that France is on alert? Do they deserve to be attacked
because they don't like head scarves?
I guess those terrorists just aren't senisible and calm people.
Surprise surprise, you can't win by appeasing terrorists.
What are you going to say when they kill 200 people in London?
Thinking they can change the leadership of the Labor party?
How many people do the terrorists have to kill before you wake up.
"[Camus's] main fear was that "by pointing out the long series of
French mistakes, I may, without running any risk myself, provide an
alibi for the insane criminal who may throw his bomb into an innocent
crowd that includes my family." After saying this Camus recalled his
"my mother before justice" remark and then, either in a slip or
deliberately, he separated himself from his critics by ending with a
word that referred back to the controversy over Man in Revolt and to
the first pages of The Fall. "But those who, knowing it, still think
heroically that one's brother must die rather than one's principles, I
shall go no farther than to admire them from afar. I am not of their
race.""
You and your friends are still providing alibis for murderers.
Disgraceful.
*****
"I have always condemned terror. I must also condemn a terrorism which
is carried out blindly, in the streets of Algiers for example, and
which one day might strike my mother or my family. I believe in
justice, but I will defend my mother before justice."
Albert Camus (still laughing)
Martha Bridegam
Pete Bayle wrote:
It looks like "Bayle" is trying to argue here that the existence of a vocal democratic opposition
is bad for democracy.
/M
Pete Bayle
No, actually I'm arguing that those who know better should keep their
mouths shut instead of providing excuses for terrorists, in the guise
of moral perfection. This is a point Camus makes very clearly.
But I am also arguing something else.
About the hypocrisy of the Socialists in Spain of all places.
This new prime minister had relatives fighting and killed in the Civil
War.
Now I ask you:
1. Was it right for foreginers to intervene in Spain in a civil war
that resulted in the untold numbers of deaths and 50 years of
recriminations?
2. Was it right to even accept the support of a monster like Stalin?
3. Does Mr. Socialist agree with his forefathers who begged the
international community for help, while they stood silent or complicit
in the crimes against Spain and humanity? If so why does he deny the
same help to the people of Iraq?
4. Was Franco worse than Saddam Hussein?
5. Is there a difference between the Nazis who went to Spain and the
Islamo-Fascists now killing in Iraq?
6. Does Guernica mean anything except help me and screw everyone else?
You might want to read the new Time/ABC report on the current
situation in Iraq. Things are very positive. Not that they can't be
detroyed or go bad.
But the Iraqis are very optimistic about their future. We have given
them a real chance. And they seem to know it. And so now, do the
reporters, if their appearance on Charlie Rose is a reliable guide.
At the same time there are those, either explicitly or implicitly, who
are participating in an attempt to sabotage this hope.
Why?
Why does a socialist, whose family suffered in the triumph of fascism,
deny aid to another people attempting to defeat the same enemy?
Especailly now? The war is over. We are now trying to win the peace.
What interest could this socialist have in seeing the US fail in Iraq?
And success according to a leading Shiite cleric in Karbala is giving
them a constitution and security and then leaving. Why wouldn't a
socialist want to help in that task? Isn't that a goal for all
humanity? Would he like to watch the Iraqis experience a civil war?
Would he like to see more death and killing, so that he could argue
the US was wrong to act without UN approval?
Or is he just saying, don't hurt us? We will do whatever you want? We
don't like nasty George Bush any more than you do? He and the United
States are the real danger. Please, please leave us alone?
A craven attempt to ward off danger, to make someone else pay the full
price for freedom. To give up the solidarity of human rights and
Western Civilization in an attempt to bribe monsters.
Was this the lesson of Spain? Was this what Orwell fought for?
I don't think so.
selene1022
Like I said, what *do* these people stand for? Certainly not human
rights for the Iraqi people. And if they think Al Qaeda can be
appeased...
JV
Martha Bridegam
selene1022 wrote:
> ....
>
> Like I said, what *do* these people stand for? Certainly not human
> rights for the Iraqi people. And if they think Al Qaeda can be
> appeased...
>
> JV
"Appeasement" is precisely the wrong word for a victory by Spanish Socialists over the Franco Lite party.
And when it comes to fighting against a terrorist movement that's driven by theocratic fascism, democratic
socialists are the perfect people to fight it. They know what fascism smells like and they are unequivocally
against it.
And what precisely does occupying Iraq have to do with stopping Al Qaeda anyway?
And despite many good people's hard work and best intentions, is Iraq truly getting the promised democracy out
of the current occupation? Don't the best and most durable democratic institutions come from democracy
movements inside a country? (Y'know, nobody ever did answer my question about whether the Declaration of
Independence was being translated into Arabic for Iraqi eyes. Here, read it again:
<http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/declaration_transcript.html>.)
And don't human rights in Afghanistan matter any more, or do human rights only matter in Iraq?
What about human rights in Pakistan?
What about human rights in Uzbekistan?
China? Burma? Zimbabwe? North Korea?
Sooner or later you have to pick your causes, and if the people of Spain decide that the U.S. occupation of
Iraq is not their particular cause, you have no ground to call them names or pretend that they lack their own
ways of fighting for democracy. It's a big world.
You haven't said anything lately about human rights in Uzbekistan. Would it be fair for me to ask you why you
don't care about human rights for the Uzbek people?
/M
Kelwin Delaunay
"selene1022" <selen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfdb308.04031...@posting.google.com...
For one, we stand for your right to rant viciously, insanely, and
dishonestly, although we most assuredly wish you would seek professional
help before you harm yourself or others.
None of us that post here regularly have ever suggested appeasing or
supporting Al Qaeda, but you and Bayle have frequently supported the actions
of the Bush Administration which fit the defintion of terrorism.
Kelwin
Rachel
> "Rachel" <red...@warren-wilson.edu> wrote in message
> news:bf45f6ab.04031...@posting.google.com...> news:<40500403...@pacbell.net>...
> > > Rachel wrote:
> > >
> > > > gzi...@aol.com (Gene Zitver) wrote in message
> news:<20040310163723...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
> > > > > Rachel wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > >Sixty-some years later, Howard Zinn's condemnation of the war
> > > > > >propaganda machine and "the ultimate betrayal of our young by our
> > > > > >government" (at http://www.progressive.org/april04/zinn0404.html )
> > > > > >appear uncannily similar to Orwell's responses to the Spanish Civil
> > > > > >War and its aftermath. It's all a little disheartening--the willful
> > > > > >blindness that Zinn and Orwell describe seems the greatest
> impediment
> > > > > >to peace. As long as the folks in power can remain blissfully
> ignorant
> > > > > >of the human price of war, they'll continue to blithely waltz into
> > > > > >unnecessary conflicts--after all, they won't see anything that
> hasn't
> > > > > >been carefully sterilized with euphemism.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is of course no way of knowing what Orwell would have thought
> about the
> > > > > Iraq war. But I think Orwell, unlike Zinn, would have been
> hard-headed enough
> > > > > to notice and point out the propagandistic use of Trumbo's novel by
> the
> > > > > Communist party to encourage antiwar sentiment after the signing of
> the
> > > > > Hitler-Stalin pact.
> > > > >
> > > > > The novel was serialized in The Daily Worker in 1940. But the CP
> dropped its
> > > > > antiwar line with the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 and
> Trumbo
> > > > > wrote the screenplay for the war movie _Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo_.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gene
> > > >
> > > > ...which omission might have occurred because Zinn is not as
> > > > "hard-headed" as Orwell, or which might just be a result of the fact
> > > > that they wrote, however ideologically similarly, in different times
> > > > and different contexts.
> > > > /r
> > >
> > > Well, I don't know about Trumbo one way or the other, but I'm inclined
> to agree with Gene that Zinn
> > > isn't really in the same writerly category as Orwell. I've enjoyed
> reading a lot of Zinn's stuff, but
> > > always with the mental footnote that his work is palpably promoting a
> "line." Not the "line" of any
> > > particular organization precisely, but his own strain of generic Left
> conventional wisdom about how the
> > > world works and what has mattered in history.
> > >
> > > I mean, you get the feeling that he first did a lot of reading, then
> arrived at a fixed theory about the
> > > kind of behavior to watch out for from large businesses, the U.S. govt,
> etc., then moved on to the task
> > > of finding examples in the world to suit his fixed theory. It is a sad
> commentary on our world that he
> > > does often happen to be right, and far more often than a stuck clock.
> But you do always more or less
> > > know what kind of thing he's going to say.
> > >
> > > If Mr. Lucas is still reading he may disagree at this point, but I think
> Orwell stayed mostly empirical.
> > > He had serious blind spots, but his basic rule was perception first,
> analysis afterward.
> > >
> > > /M
> >
> > Really? I'm inclined to give Zinn a little more credit, but that may
> > be contextual: I discovered his writing via his autobiography (You
> > Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train), and I tend to be forgiving in
> > direct proportion to my frame of reference regarding the writer in
> > question.
>
> I think that Martha has a point. Not about the fixed
> theory idea, but that you do usually know what he is going to
> say. Zinn is one of my favourite writers, but his output nowadays
> is fairly predictable. In fairness, the man is even older than John
> Rennie.
>
> paul.
touche
/r
Kelwin Delaunay
"Kelwin Delaunay" <kelwind...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:105htei...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> For one, we stand for your right to rant viciously, insanely, and
> dishonestly, although we most assuredly wish you would seek professional
> help before you harm yourself or others.
>
> None of us that post here regularly have ever suggested appeasing or
> supporting Al Qaeda, but you and Bayle have frequently supported the
actions
> of the Bush Administration which fit the defintion of terrorism.
>
> Kelwin
>
My apologies to anyone who is/was offended by my use of "we." Of course, I
had no right to speak for anyone other than myself.
Kelwin
Paolo
I have often wondered why she hates the Uzbeks so much. OTOH,
I've also noticed your glaring silence on the recent anti-democratic
machinations of the Ukrainian government. What did they ever do to you?
paul.
Pete Bayle
> "Appeasement" is precisely the wrong word for a victory by Spanish Socialists over the Franco Lite party.
>
"Franco Lite" ... lol.
God Martha. I gotta give it too you ... I'm still laughing.
Who would've thought you could come up with something this funny.
Who said you didn't have a sense of humor?
Pete Bayle
> selene1022 wrote:
>
> > ....
> >
> > Like I said, what *do* these people stand for? Certainly not human
> > rights for the Iraqi people. And if they think Al Qaeda can be
> > appeased...
> >
> > JV
>
> "Appeasement" is precisely the wrong word for a victory by Spanish Socialists over the Franco Lite party.
>
> And when it comes to fighting against a terrorist movement that's driven by theocratic fascism, democratic
> socialists are the perfect people to fight it.
Really? When have they ever successfully done it?
> They know what fascism smells like and they are unequivocally
> against it.
Why do you always use analogies like smells, and clean, sirty ...
And being unequivocally against something ... wow. Look at the word
one voice. Like voices are going to deter Al Qaeda?
>
> And what precisely does occupying Iraq have to do with stopping Al Qaeda anyway?
>
Because they seem to think that stopping the US there is important.
And anywhere they are, we should fight them.
> And despite many good people's hard work and best intentions, is Iraq truly getting the promised democracy out
> of the current occupation?
We shall see won't we? Why don't you support the cause and then
complain if it doesn't work out? Be plenty of time later. Meanwhile
you are just contributing to making it harder. Al Qaeda knows where
the weakness is in the west and those splits are crucial to its
success.
> Don't the best and most durable democratic institutions come from democracy
> movements inside a country?
We shall see. Japan may be a counter example.
> (Y'know, nobody ever did answer my question about whether the Declaration of
> Independence was being translated into Arabic for Iraqi eyes. Here, read it again:
> <http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/declaration_transcript.html>.)
>
This is symbolic bs. There is a real world out there you know.
> And don't human rights in Afghanistan matter any more, or do human rights only matter in Iraq?
>
Of course. You want everything and you want it know.
> What about human rights in Pakistan?
>
Ibid.
> What about human rights in Uzbekistan?
>
Aren't we building bases there ;-)
> China? Burma? Zimbabwe? North Korea?
>
China will do what China will do. Burma ... enjoy yourself.
Zimbabwe has been screwed up by Mbeke kissing black african ass. Even
Tutu last night on Charlie Rose admited it. When Australia dn Britain
tried to do something about it. Can't crticize the thrid world you
know.
Norht Korea ... can we count on your support in the next war.
> Sooner or later you have to pick your causes, and if the people of Spain decide that the U.S. occupation of
> Iraq is not their particular cause, you have no ground to call them names or pretend that they lack their own
> ways of fighting for democracy.
Sure we do. Spain occupoies a special place in the 20th century.
Perhaps fascism could have been stopped there if France and Britain
had a backbone.
The socialists, of all people, should know that.
And the Abraham Lincoln Brigade didn't go to Uzbekistan.
> It's a big world.
>
> You haven't said anything lately about human rights in Uzbekistan. Would it be fair for me to ask you why you
> don't care about human rights for the Uzbek people?
>
> /M
Again the All or Nothing game. Your favorite.
I'm not helping the homeless in San Francisco cause there are poor
people in New York. Right? Or India for that matter?
I like that better? Hell the homeless in SF have it better than most
of the people in Africa. So why should we do anything for them. Screw
em.
Martha Bridegam
Pete Bayle wrote:
A word of advice: "write drunk, edit sober."
/M
Alan Hogue
Martha Bridegam <brid...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Wow. This is incredibly funny and kind of sad at the same time.
Thanks, Martha.
Alan H.
selene1022
U.S. GIVES UZBEKISTAN FAILING GRADE ON RIGHTS
By: Peter Slevin
Uploaded/Updated: 01/10/2004 21:41:34
The Bush administration signaled its frustration with Uzbekistan's
human rights record by declaring that the authoritarian government of
President Islam Karimov has failed to make progress toward
international standards, State Department officials said Friday.
A human rights evaluation is required as part of the U.S.-funded
Nunn-Lugar project to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, material
and technology in the former Soviet Union. Despite a history of poor
performances, no former Soviet republic had ever formally failed the
test, the officials said.
In Uzbekistan's case, money will continue to flow to ensure the
security of weapons materials. President Bush waived the human rights
certification requirement on the grounds that the U.S. national
interest would be best served by continuing to work with Uzbekistan,
the primary provider of uranium to the Soviet government.
While the move is symbolic, Human Rights Watch advocate Tom Malinowski
said the decision made clear to a Central Asian ally for the first
time "that its relationship with the United States may tangibly suffer
because of political repression."
"The Uzbek government has sold itself to the United States as a
partner against terror," Malinowski said. "I hope this decision
reflects a growing recognition in the administration that real
partners in that fight give people peaceful avenues for expressing
themselves, rather than shutting them down."
Later this year, the State Department must review Uzbekistan's
performance again to release U.S. foreign aid to Uzbekistan, primarily
help to the military and law enforcement authorities. Unlike the
Nunn-Lugar money, there is no provision for a presidential waiver,
Malinowski said.
Uzbek authorities have been warned repeatedly about their human rights
record, said a senior State Department official, who noted that the
department's top human rights executive, Lorne Craner, had visited
Uzbekistan more often than any other country during his tenure.
"We were looking for continued progress on a number of fronts, and we
just weren't seeing it," the official said. Although the Uzbeks tried
to refute the U.S. conclusions, he said, the response "didn't look
like it amounted to progress."
Another official described a "mixed" human rights record in
Uzbekistan, saying that "it's not a question of their backsliding.
They haven't done anything to show that they're moving in the right
direction."
The most recent State Department report, released in March, told of
"serious abuses" and Karimov's "nearly complete control" over all
branches of the government. Covering 2002, the report said the police
and officers of the former KGB tortured and beat opponents and engaged
in arbitrary arrests, particularly of Muslims suspected of extremist
activities.
An estimated 6,500 people were behind bars for political or religious
reasons, the report said, and "an atmosphere of repression stifled
public criticism of the government." Opposition political parties were
denied registration, the report said, and members of domestic human
rights groups were harassed.
This article was taken from washingtonpost.com
Paolo
When does the invasion start?
paul.
Martha Bridegam
selene1022 wrote:
> ....
> >
> > You haven't said anything lately about human rights in Uzbekistan. Would it be fair for me to ask you why you
> > don't care about human rights for the Uzbek people?
> >
> > /M
>
> U.S. GIVES UZBEKISTAN FAILING GRADE ON RIGHTS
> By: Peter Slevin
> Uploaded/Updated: 01/10/2004 21:41:34
>
> The Bush administration signaled its frustration with Uzbekistan's
> human rights record by declaring that the authoritarian government of
> President Islam Karimov has failed to make progress toward
> international standards, State Department officials said Friday.
>
> .....
>
> While the move is symbolic, Human Rights Watch advocate Tom Malinowski
> said the decision made clear to a Central Asian ally for the first
> time "that its relationship with the United States may tangibly suffer
> because of political repression."
>
> "The Uzbek government has sold itself to the United States as a
> partner against terror," Malinowski said. "I hope this decision
> reflects a growing recognition in the administration that real
> partners in that fight give people peaceful avenues for expressing
> themselves, rather than shutting them down."....
.....
Thanks for posting that. That's real progress. Late in coming, but a good thing. I hope it gets some of their
political prisoners released.
/M
Pete Bayle
Serious question.
You make a rhetorical point about Uzbekistan, which I admit I know
almost nothing about, with the aim of atttacking Bush and US foreigh
policy. But I assumed that things weren't so great there.
And then Selene finds you a post, that shows that they have been doing
something. Which you consider "real progress". Even though you make
your usual qualification (which I admit drives me crazy) whenever Bush
does something right, "late".
So my question. Why did Selene have to post the facts? If it was so
important why couldn't you be bothered to find out what was going on?
Before making your point, instead of leaving the ignorant like me to
assume you had a valid one. You seem to be able to do it for your own
side of the argument.
It goes to intellectual integrety. Selene and I can both be partisans,
but we can also make posts that go against our own side, attempting to
deal with complicated issues.
I did it just the other day. I am agnostic on whether Duranty was a
Soviet agent, even though I've seen it all over the web. And I F Stone
too though that would be sweet I admit.
Martha Bridegam
Pete Bayle wrote:
All anyone has to do to answer this guy is to look back over the thread and see what the person he's attacking has
actually said. It's nearly always different from what he pretends was said.
/M
Pete Bayle
I assume you're talking about my comments on Stone and Duranty.
Although once again you are so disingenuous that it isn't clear.
You have no intellectual integrity. Not surprising since you think
with your nose.
Stone was mentioned in the Venona intercepts. I saw none that said he
ever did anything, though it was clear the KGB though he was ripe for
recruitment.
On Duranty I found things claiming he was an agent, but none from a
source I trusted. Though it was clear he was a scumbag, as everyone
but you has pointed out. (Maybe you did actually, but you were so busy
attacking Jones I might have missed it.)
If on the other hand, I could find that someone like Radosh in the
Yale series, or Conquest, thought he was an agent, then I would no
longer be agonostic.
What about that position don't you understand?
Martha Bridegam
Pete Bayle wrote:
Still wrong. Go back and read the thread./M
Paolo
I think it's fairly well-established that "Bayle" (I like that he's added a
first name, although "Pete" seems so uninspired. He could have aimed
higher: something like Addington or Danforth.) is quite adept at
posting replies to things that were never said. He is, I think it's fair to
say,
educated in the science of the argument: witness his use of the term
"dialectic" in addition to his past references to different styles of
arguing.
I'm kind of enjoying his return. He's really streamlined his style and
added some punch to his rhetoric, although he has had some trouble
keeping it under control (example: calling Martha a "whore" and "fuckwit."
This is generally frowned upon.). In addition to the big "what a disgrace"
closing lines and the "you and your pals" references that I've mentioned in
previous
posts, I've noticed that he's also using another effective device: spacing.
He's using a lot of single lines.
Divided by a single space.
Sometimes short.
And sometimes a little longer. With a second sentence thrown in.
This probably has a name, like "breaking it down."
Or something equally urbane.
And it always ends big, with a one to three word phrase, such as:
"What a disgrace."
"What a joke."
"Disgusting."
"Shameful."
It's quite an art.
paul.
>
Kelwin Delaunay
Absent the profanity, the voice reminds me a good deal of Harry Wormwood
from Roald Dahl's *Matilda*.
Kelwin
Martha Bridegam
Kelwin Delaunay wrote:
Or this "extraordinary, artificial, repetitive style, quite different from
anything else existing in English literature," as excerpted from the *Gem*, c/o
"Boys' Weeklies":
"...'Oh cwumbs!'
'Oh gum!'
'Oooogh!'
'Urrggh!'
Arthur Augustus sat up dizzily. He grabbed at his handkerchief and pressed it
to his damaged nose. Tom Merry sat up, gasping for breath. They looked at one
another.
'Bai Jove! This is a go, deah boy!' gurgled Arthur Augustus. 'I have been
thwown into quite a fluttah! Oogh! The wottahs! The wuffians! The feahful
outsidahs! Wow!' etc. etc. etc...."
c/o M
Martha Bridegam
> ...
> > > I think it's fairly well-established that "Bayle" (I like that he's added
> > a
> > > first name, although "Pete" seems so uninspired. He could have aimed
> > > higher: something like Addington or Danforth.)...
I'm curious about the one non-abgo result that comes up on Google for that name:
oddly, it's a eulogy for a Filipino civil engineer. See
<http://www.up.edu.ph/oar/conline/archives/conline-news-102903.htm>.
/M
Pete Bayle
>
> Still wrong. Go back and read the thread./M
Nope. If you can't write clearly enough so that I know what your complaint is.
T
h
a
t
is
y
o
u
r
Prob
lem.
e
e
cummings