Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00106)

Bart Lidofsky wrote:

> Every recount that used the standards under Florida law had Bush
> winning. Even the liberal Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court
> said that what the Florida Supreme Court was trying to do was illegal.
> The controversial ruling was whether there was enough time for more
> recounts (as the legal deadline for appointing electors was going to be
> the next day). If THAT vote had gone the other way, the Florida State
> legislature, which had a strong Republican majority, would have chosen
> the electors. Now, how does that add up to Gore being elected?

Here you ask a "what if" question by inserting a hypothetical situation at the end,
which only serves to cloud the issue. Elements that strongly indicate that the
Florida electoral results were a scam are to be found all over the internet with a
Google search, so I need not repeating these here.

> OK. Let's see if we can find a MORE radical government. Under FDR,
> there were massive social programs enacted, including an attempt to
> override the Supreme Court by packing it with justices. Under Lincoln's
> administration, we fought a war to keep states from dissociating
> themselves from the United States, turning this from a group of
> cooperative independent countries into a single country. Under Kennedy,
> civil rights violations by federal agencies were routinely greater than
> even the Patriot Act would allow now. Both Nixon and Clinton routinely
> used federal agencies for strictly personal purposes. Truman used
> nuclear weapons, and got the United States involved in an undeclared
> war. I think all of these can be counted as more radical.

Here you keep important elements out of your equation. Lincoln's war had to do with
more issues than the breaking away of the rich south, one of them the war against
slavery. By blaming Kennedy for any increase in misdeeds by federal agencies, one
sidesteps the roguelike nature of those agencies, and that kennedy had a struggle
in keeping those elements in line. Kennedy in the end, was assassinated, and I bet
you think it's Oswald. Truman's use of nuclear weapons halted the use of a 'dirty'
bomb by Japan on the USA. Since Nixon the times have changed. Just think, Bart,
Nixon was brought on his knees by what? By an old fashioned burglary. Now we live
in the 21st century and state radicalism has evolved beyond crude tactics. What you
perceive as state radicalism is in effect based upon hindsight, looking back upon
what was. Now we have advanced technologies which make state radicalism all but
invisible.

>
> He called the 7 members of the Supreme Court who decided that the
> recounts called for by the SCOFLA was illegal to be "right wing", in
> spite of the fact that even the liberal New York Times and Washington
> Post call three of them "moderates" and one of them "liberal". This puts
> his opinion somewhere to the left of the New York Times and Washington
> Post. And he clearly shows he does not believe in the electoral college,
> because he does not stand by their decision.

Ifr one believes that the two US newspapers you cite are still organs of democracy,
which they are not. Even American listened to the European news when the US invaded
Iraq. The news channels and newspapers are instruments of the new state radicalism.
A study in who owns what in medialand can be most revealing. Hence, relying on
statements in certain respected newspapers, is by all standards, unwise.

>
> OK, show me the Bible study groups in Congress. And, there has ALWAYS
> been an opening prayer to open sessions of Congress. One lie, one
> half-truth. Show me the Bible study groups at the Supreme Court. Show me
> the prayer groups with the Supreme Court. Theo can't because there
> aren't any. Another lie. Yes, there are some Bible study groups and
> prayer meetings in the White House; it's called freedom of religion.
> That includes religions the author DOESN'T like, last time I looked at
> the Constitution.

Here you forget to insert little known aspects of the US presidents; I do recall
that Reagan had an astrologer, for instance. It is a well know fact that the
ultra-millennarian Christian current with its apocalyptic world views is strong
around Bush, just do a Google and do some digging. The new state radicalism has
evolved beyond the bible thumping lunatic fringe. These inhabitants are mere window
dressing.

>
> He gives the fact that Bush used "Jesus Christ" as a criticism.
> Therefore, he shows that he does not like the fact that Bush is a
> practicing Christian. The fact that he is using it in an attack shows
> that he believes that Bush's religious ideas are wrong in a President.
> Therefore, he clearly supports religious tests for the office of
> President, to make sure that they don't belong to brands of Christianity
> that he does not agree with. Note that he also criticizes the attorney
> general specifically because of the church he attends. I think my
> conclusion is valid.

Would it that it was that simple. The author demonstrates that two of the most
powerful men on earth of the most powerful contry of earth are prone to irrational
and illuminst belief systems. Being prone to an irrational belief system might
influence ones judgment in that sense.

> Well, I guess one can paint the actions of the U.S. during WWII as
> being wrong if one ignores the attack on Pearl Harbor and the
> declarations of war against the United States by Germany and Italy.

Ít is a well know fact that certain factions in the US government had the
foreknowledge of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. America was drawn into the
war because of a specific plan or design; that the US reached the moon with German
Nazi technology or filled the ranks of the CIA with SS men and the scientific
communes with Nazi scientists (opertaion paperclip) was one of the spoils of the
war. At not a single minute was Peral Harbor the cause of the US entering the war;
it was the pretext of achieving the design.

> And notice how Theo changes my interpretation that "paramilitary
> attacks against the United States don't count to "paramilitary attacks
> against the United States are OK", and even puts quotes around it. Hell,
> I can tear Theo apart by misquoting him, too, except that two wrongs do
> NOT make a right. Of course, to the far left, only Communist and Third
> World countries have the right of self-defense.

Of course paramilitary attacks against any democratic nation are not okay. But if
one transcends one's obsession with left and right, what new picture emerges? As a
sidenote, sofar both the alleged perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein
have not been caught. The right to selfdefence also implies seeking out the
perpetrators as part of the procedure. Why then this apparent - and some would
argue - convenient inability to engage the perpetrators and bring them to justice?

> The Jews in Germany were citizens, and there was no alliance of Jew
> making paramilitary attacks against Germany and German citizens. There
> IS an alliance of Islamic people, largely Arab, who have declared war on
> the United States and have participated in paramilitary attacks. True,
> no Arab government has declared war on the United States. They just give
> funding and give shelter to those who did. Kind of like someone who pays
> a hit man to kill somebody, and tries to declare after the murder, "Hey,
> I didn't kill anybody!"

This is an interesting piece of reasoning. Obviously, the Nazis and quite a number
of Germans might have disagreed with your statement that there was no jewish attack
on the German state. We know now - and only because we won the war - that this was
an idefixe borne out of National Socialism. Now you say that any muslim is suspect
since there is a shadowy alliance - almost like the elders of Zion from the
infamous protocols - of muslims bent on the destruction of the USA. And since we do
not know who its members are, where they are, or where there leaders are, they have
no country but reside in many countries - by nature giving it almost mythical
properties - all muslims must be suspect and all muslim countries must hate the
USA. A disturbing and somewhat paranoid belief.

> I ask Theo: Are you trying to say that the United States should let
> anybody walk in and have every right that citizens have? Can you name a
> single country in the world that does that? And, specifically, the
> people detained by the U.S. government WERE given the option of legal
> counsel; you cannot blame the United States if they chose not to take
> that option. Now, what issues did I not name? I realize that it's a lot
> easier to argue with things you would had have preferred I said rather
> than my actual statements, but, in spite of your fondest wishes, the
> people reading this are NOT idiots.

My answer is twofold: rights as American citizens or the universal rights of man?
I'd opt for the latter and even then, the system falls short. As legal counsel
represents the very system, it is only natural that legal counsel is a shortcoming
too and one better avoided, as countles innocent citizens who are in US jails can
testify. Besides, at this moment America has more people in jails than any other
counrty including China, and its citizens are the most heavily armed citizens in
the world, a poll this week showed.

> OK, Theo, please give me evidence that there is a 13 year old at
> Guantanemo Bay. I tried to find a valid source, but I only found it from
> politically-oriented groups and rumor-mongering tabloids (nothing even
> in the liberal-leaning Washington Post, New York Times, or in the more
> centrist London Times, for example). And, in war, sometimes people are
> put to death. But that does not mean that all, or even most, or even a
> few, or, for that matter, ANY of the illegal combatants in Guantanemo
> Bay will be executed. But, according to the Geneva Convention, there are
> circumstances under which they CAN be.

Your confusion as to finding a valid source demonstrates the new state radicalism
and its manipulation of the media. I am ware of the same sources you label, however
has it occurred to you that the information might be valid after all, if only
published in sources you hold in ill repute as they do not share your viewpoints?
As to putting people to death and those who are held prisoner on Guantanamo Bay -
that concentration camp is nothing more than a sadistic excercise of certain
military factions of a post traumatic nation. Those people have no legal counsel as
we know it; no court will preside over their life - or death - as we know it; there
are absolutely no controlling mechanisms whatsoever, all we will have when all is
done, dossiers and assurances of certain military men, and experience teaches us
that the essence is over and over again a mother weeping at a grave of her son - if
she can find his remains at all.

> True. I am NOT fond of what Bush is doing. In fact, I dislike Bush
> quite a lot. However, the author was favorably comparing Clinton to
> Bush. I am showing him wrong in that sense. The Clinton administration
> contributed heavily to the economic collapse, by doing to the American
> people what his pals at Enron were doing to their stockholders.

I dislike Bush a lot less than you'd probably suspect me of. I must say though that
what I see of him on TV, he seems like a man who is constantly angry, and can act
out only one role - that of the stern, angry paternalist figure - he is a president
for a nation at war, not a nation at peace.

> OK. A group of nations figured out that they could outfit, train, and
> support an army, but, if they officially disavow that army, they can use
> it to attack with impunity. After 9/11, the United States has finally
> said, "Bullshit", and finally has recognized the various attacks against
> the United States as acts of war rather than criminal acts, and is
> finally taking steps to defend itself against them.

Finally? I recall discussions we had previously on this list in which it was
obvious that the USA has a very long tradition of "taking steps" whenever it sees a
danger anywhere. Thus the US military reaction on 9/11 offers nothing new, it is
always "defending", but defending wha"? Defending the interests of certain factions
of the US, not those of the people. Show me Osama Bin Laden. At least we have
evidence that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. Tell me this: how come that two
countries since then have been overrun by US miltary forces, but the mastermind of
the 9/11 atrocity is still at large?

>

Man, these e-mail exchanges get so long, I might finish the second half another
day.

Best regards,

Theo