Slashdot Mirror
State of the Union
travis slack writes "President Bush used his State of the Union speech to press home key domestic and international agendas. At home he promised to reform Social Security for future generations. Looking overseas, Bush vowed to spread freedoms around the world while continuing the war on terror, and he pointed to Iraq as a symbol of change."
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5211218.ht ml
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.
Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.
That's right -- the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.
As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 -- just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer -- "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destr
I've been tracking the number of times President Bush uses the words "free" and "freedom" in his last three major speeches. Here are the results:
First 2004 presidential debate: 38 times
2005 inauguration address: 34 times
2005 state of the union address: a "mere" 27 times
Two things worth pointing out:
First, he almost never defines these terms. The only time he even comes close (in the inauguration address) he (or his speechwriters) equates freedom with making money.
Second, he often uses the words in relation to Iraq - like Pavlovian dogs he (or his speechwriters) wants to link the two concepts indelibly in people's minds. To oppose this administration's policies in Iraq is to oppose freedom itself.
a world in progress...
If marriage is so sacred then why such a high divorce rate? Why such a high spousal and child abuse rate? Marriage is only sacred in books and movies anymore. It stopped being more than just a legal agreement a long time ago and now only exists as sacred in the minds of people who've never tasted it's reality. Yeah there are some that work out, but not anywhere near enough to keep calling it something sacred.
marriage didn't start to 'be an issue' (or rather, -divorce- didn't start to be an issue) until the government took over all marriage licensing in order to protect its tax revenue.
..) marriage was something pretty much for two people to share, with whatever 'registered minister' they chose, for record-keeping.
.. its got nothing to do with gay/anti-gay, that is just the media front to keep the argument unsolved .. and thus, the government perpetually ensnared in the issue.
.. its only because people are ignorant to the fact that this is *ONLY* about tax revenue, that they get all snarled up in the straw-man issues being promoted as part of an agenda of obfuscation.
.. right now, however, too many fake arguments are being proferred in order to keep the real fires burning while everyone is chasing embers ...
before the 30's (i think the marriage act was passed during the depression
but now, marriages have an impact on the governments tax revenues. this is the only -real- reason behind why the gov't is perpetually screwing with peoples relationships
if people, either way, just say "whatever, i don't give a fuck if you're gay-married or straight-married, just as long as you're not registered with your fascist dictatorship government", then the issue would go away
repeal the laws which government -any- say whatsoever over marriage, and while your'e at it, get rid of your criminal income tax laws, and the U.S. might have a chance in the 21st Century
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Are nursing homes cheaper than prisons and hospitals absorbing these people? That's an important question for the anti-Medicare and anti-Social Security people to think about.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Sanctions on Iraq alone killed 500,000 children in the 90's. Slow, drawnt-out deaths.
This has always been seriously meaningful to me. What would I do if my now-2-year-old son had stood a 20% chance of dying before he turned 5 because of the policies of a different government than my own?
I, like the president, love freedom, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms I'd be happier living a quiet life watching what I say and do than being able to do whatever I want after I pull my family's corpses out of a bombed house.
Besides, freedom to that fucker already means being able to do whatever he wants without consequence (using cocaine, driving drunk, evading military service, creative embezzlement, shall we list more?) whereas for the rest of us, freedom is nothing more than the ability to comisserate at our bar, our church, our Little League games, etc. and try to figure out how we can make the world better for our families.
No more so than for than any other type of retirement fund. They don't keep the money under a mattress and dole it out to you on retirement.
The difference is that under a public system, the public has some control over how that money is invested (depending on how democratic your country is). In principle, your money can be used to build and maintain the public infrastructure that will enable future generations to afford to support you.
In a private system the money goes wherever the greatest short-term benefit is, S&Ls, Enron, or whatever the hot new property is this year. Then your fund managers take their cut, and unless you're very wealthy you'll find at retirement age that you've got less money in your fund than you've contributed.
In Australia, we've had compulsory private superannuation since I started working in the 80's, and I've never had a year where the earnings on my superannuation has exceeded the fees paid to my fund managers.
Meanwhile all this money that would have been at the public's disposal is now used in speculative investments that drive down wages, and encourage all sorts of market-driven irrationality.
The anarchist Bakunin called representational democracy "beating the people with the people's stick". Compulsory private superannuation is the people paying to beat themselves.
What about the future of all the families of the slain/wounded? You don't hear about the tens of thousands wounded/disfigured. Or how about Americans children are going to have to pay back the deficit that has been enlarged by this war. We have serious problems at home, especially monetary, so we are going to throw money and lives to help others first? I donate to charity when I can, but not before I have taken care of myself.
Except that, according to the pre-war plan, it should have already massively succeeded. So Georges Bush must have been wrong. Oh but never question the Great Maximo Leader Commander In Chief. Sorry. I guess being totally blind, impervious to reality, is the Greatest Quality of Them All, and should be praised as you do.
The Democrats, "progressives", and Bush-haters are telling us why we are going to fail. Not only that, they are telling us that everything bad that happens is our fault.
Indeed. Georges Bush went before the world, lied. It said that Iraq was an intolerable threat. He invaded a sovereign country, on pure, total and utter bullshit. About every non-American on the planet understood it was bullshit. That's 95% of the inhabitants of Earth. Pre-war were some of the greatest demonstrations all around the world ever: Buenos Aires, Sidney, Montreal, Sao Paolo, Paris, Santiago, Tel Aviv, Berlin, Athens, Budapest, Amsterdam, Jakarta, Dublin, Tokyo, Rome, Beirut, Srinagar, Skopje, Mexico City, Auckland, Managua, Oslo, Warsaw, Lisbon, Moscow, Johannesburg, Seoul, Stockholm, Damascus, Taipei, Sfax, London, Belfast, Kiev, Montevideo, ... I heard of appeasement. Appeasement?
This word was used when Germany invaded Poland, several decades ago, on pretense of'the invasion by Polish diversionist bands near Gleiwitz'
Now you know why the world stood up.
Try focusing it on the real forces of evil in this world.
The president of the richest and more military powerful country of Earth, is acting as a Tyran, on the international level.
In North Korea, any foreigner can be arbitrary, arrested, put in jail, suspended to a bar from handcuffs for interrogation, and keep in detention for life without any trial, and without having the right to access a lawyer. Ooops, I wrote "North Korea"? I made a mistake it's the United States of America. The "country of freedom"
Keep up swallowing propaganda, pal.
[WWCAD]
The killing under Saddam was less than the killing under George Bush.
Sad, but true I'm afraid. There's no opinion here. BBC and others have estimates of the many Iraqi citizens killed by Americans just in the last year or so alone. The US isn't keeping track of civilian casulties. Of course the US news media never talks about this, as the media are in on the brain-washing scheme. Add in the destruction of services- water/power operations, etc. and there ya go. That's Bush 'spreading freedom' for you. Gee- I wonder why so many of them hate the US over there..... hmmmm... that's a hard one.
Here's a interesting page detailing a leftist view of the war that doesn't start with "Bush is pure evil". While I am definitely a Conservative, despite the source, I think this is one of the best defences for the war (and from a Marxist no less).
http://www.marxist.org.uk/htm_docs/comm12.htm
It does a pretty good job both pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left as well as giving some very strong reasons why Iraq was a good idea.
Personally, I have no trouble with someone disagreeing with me on what they believe is the better solution to a problem. On the other hand when they refuse to even see a problem or refuse to look at alternatives solely because of their emotions, then I have a problem.
You may try to put the President into the latter group but can you honestly point to anyone on the left who was offering alternatives that you couldn't find in a cheap fortune cookie. Platitudes are not alternatives.
Well, time to begin the weekend and get out of here. Everyone enjoy the Superbowl. And if you don't like football, enjoy the commercials.
P.S. I haven't really looked at anything else on the above site, besides this one page, so I won't even try to defend anything else on it.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!