Kara Tyson
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 939
posted
There are no surprises here.
What else would anyone expect from Putin?? We should never have been involved with him. That man was the Director of the Federal Security Service (which changed its name from the KGB). He used to recruit spies!!
He has always been a pure Communist. He just says what the US wants to hear in order to get US aid. We have given Billions to Russia. Who knows where it has gone--Iran I guess.
My only question is...why does our Pres. support a known communist??
Russia even has the "Putin Youth"
-------------------- Kara Tyson Lyme Disease Support Group Of Alabama--MobileChapter Posts: 6022 | From Mobile, AL | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify, I am not responding here as a RADICAL, or putting myself in that category.
I don't believe the President is SUPPORTING Putin. With everything else Kara said, I agree totally.
For years every President has tried to get along with Russia, to no avail. They constantly and consistently backstab us.
The cold war has never been over, just disguised.
This is precisely why Conservatives/Republicans rail against Communism in any form. This article alone is reason enough for every Democrat or Liberal to take a hard look at their belief structure.
[ 16. October 2005, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: meg ]
posted
I think we all agree that Russia is no longer the threat they once were. However, if they became a communist country again and behaved like they did in the past, I think they would still be a major threat.
When you have a socialist country suddenly move to capitalism, it doesn't work well right away. It gives the communist party ammo to appeal to the people that communist ideology and socialism is better. And that threatens democracy and capitalism in Russia. Most Russians are peaceful people and just what a good life like everyone else. If they get to vote, they won't accept the past. But if the country falls apart, it could get enough older folks to sway back to the old philosophy.
So the aid we give supports the country from falling apart in this transition. Of course Russia is corrupt and full of evil bastards in office that stab us behind our backs. But we can't let Russia become what it once was, because we're spending pennies now with aid, but if they become a major threat again, we would be spending dollars, not pennies, in defense build up, etc. So it makes a lot of sense.
The best thing we can do is use our intelligence to expose Russian corruption and call them on it. We can take certain measures to deal with it. It's not a good situation, but welcome to global politics.
I think Bush does a good job showing that the two leaders are friendly, but that's just a show for the people. They both know that they can't trust each other.....the Reagen cold war phrase "Trust With Verification" still applies with the Russians.
So it appears on the surface to not make sense to aid Russia because they stab us behind our backs (actually most countries do that to each other). But since it's not that simple and the success of Russian democracy is extremely vital to our national security, some aid does make sense. How much, how long, and for what is up for debate, but aid for Russia has had strong bipartism support.
Believe it or not Russia's biggest fear is China demanding that they want the oil rich Siberian area of Asia back. The Russians have never had strong claim to it, and the Chinese might demand it back in the future. So that why Russia was so eager to jump in bed with China with their recent anti-terrorism war games. Russia feels that the more they can stay close to China, the better...because they greatly fear them. Bush could use some sort of carrot having to do with their fears with China to influence Putin away from supporting Iran.
Dealing with the lesser of two evils is common and necessary to survive in the world of global politics. Far left folks, for example, don't understand this. Many of the radicals want us to become isolationists which is insane....because we laready learned our lesson in WWII.
We were slow to act in WWII, but if we had allowed Europe to be conquered, Hitler's recently uncovered writings stated that he needed Europe's resources to conquer the US. He had already had the military designing special bombmer planes to be used against the invasion of the US. We would've had full scale war like in Europe on both coasts of the US. Isolationism is just insane.
Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, back on topic, I would like to hear from our fellow far left radicals on how they would deal with Iran. If you take away Russia, you still have a major problem. I know this is complicated and far from simplistic, so I'm not holding my breath that a radical could ever offer anything of substance.....and that's why if they got their way, we would all be in danger.
Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Kara Tyson
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 939
posted
I also would like to know when we are going to 'free' the people of Russia from this dictator (since that now seems to be our mission).
Putin was elected to be Pres. but he canceled the elections after he was elected and now is Pres. for life.
When the US gives 'aid' it never goes to the people it is meant to. It is used on weapons, bribes, and corruption. Not a dime! Not a dime! Stealing from the American people again..to support another country. We are so concerned about other people but could care less about our own.
For those that dont know, the Bush Admin. actually looked at cancelling the last election due to the 'war'. Somehow we managed in WWII to have elections.
I dont agree Russia is no longer the threat they once were. Do we really believe they dismanted all their weapons?? Yeah...right. Sure they did.
There was a WWII because we got involved in WWI in the first place.
And Iran is no surprise either. It is an Islamic country. What part of infidel dont we understand?
-------------------- Kara Tyson Lyme Disease Support Group Of Alabama--MobileChapter Posts: 6022 | From Mobile, AL | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
I've been away from the military since 75, so most of the things I know are from that time. I watch the news like everyone else, not the Internet and on the odd occasion a military publication will appear on the coffee table.
Bit has his finger on the pulse of the world and has a good feel for what's going on in the world and I agree whole hearted that financing the security and destruction of Russia's excess nukes is a prudent investment for us. You can only kill a guy so many times and we were both beating a dead horse continuing to build even more nukes!
Even as far back as 1958, military planners were predicting that there would come a time when it would be the US and Russia against China. Well, there are some pretty smart people who get paid to sit around thinking about things like this. I don't think anyone ever thought about a border-less nomad class of terrorist with nukes!
I hold high hopes for the future. I want to believe that better living conditions in China along with western tourism and internet organizations that promote marriage between American and Chinese will go along way to educate both peoples that the other guy really isn't that bad.
Media organizations do so much harm to the world with their slanted and slanderous reporting. Sensationalism sells papers and airtime but I'm not sure it's all that informative, it's more like a ``guided discussion'', so you'll think more like I think, cause I think correctly and know what I'm talking about!
On a lighter side, got up at 5 this morning to take my most powerful night flying. She has her private pilots license now and is learning to fly our plane, which is a ``T'' tail Piper lance. Sales got ahead of engineering on our plane. It's one of the prettiest planes around but it's a Bit*h to land for the novice! I'm proud to say, she's improving in leaps and bounds. I'm really proud of her!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
Kara Tyson
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 939
posted
I think plenty of people have known about nomad terrorists being a threat. Nothing new here.
In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe.
Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to as "Barbary pirates."
They weren't "pirates" at all. Their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, looted ships. They used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannon and ammunition.
They saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves "mujahiddin."
Jefferson inquired of his European hosts how they dealt with the problem. He was stunned to find out that France and England both paid tribute to the fiends -
who would, in turn, use the money to expand their own armada, buy more weaponry, hijack more commercial ships, enslave more innocent civilians and demand greater ransom.
This didn't make sense to Jefferson.
After three months researching the history of militant Islam (he owned 2 copies of the Koran), he came up with a very different policy to deal with the terrorists.
In 1792, he commissioned John Paul Jones to go to Algiers under the guise of diplomatic negotiations, but with the real intent of sizing up a future target of a naval attack.
America was struck with its first terror attack by jihadists. In the fall of 1793, the Algerians seized 11 U.S. merchant ships and enslaved more than 100 Americans.
Congress sent diplomats to reason with the Algerians. The U.S. ended up paying close to $1 million and giving the Algiers a new warship, "The Crescent," to win release of 85 surviving American hostages.
-------------------- Kara Tyson Lyme Disease Support Group Of Alabama--MobileChapter Posts: 6022 | From Mobile, AL | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kara, Putin president for life? Get a clue. He's already said he can't run again in 2008 and will step down as president then. Where do you come up with this nonsense????
Aid NEVER goes where it's intended? Please, more nonsense.
Russia HAS dismantled most of their weapons because we've had our people over there inspect the missle silo's, etc. and they've been here. Even if Russia hadn't dismantled one missle, they're massively less dangerous because countries like the Ukraine that used to be a part of the Soviet Union are no longer and are our good friend. The Ukraine had a large amount of the Soviet military might with large amount of missles concentrated there. Odessa in the Ukriane was also a major Navy hub for aircraft carriers and is where they build the navy ships. Russia is a much smaller country now, and they don't have the money they once had to keep up their defense. It's actually quite weak.
There was a WWII because we got involved in WWI? LOL, now that's just ridiculous and laughable! Where do you come up with this BS?? The Nazi philosophy that ook hold in the 30's was based on world domination for their 'master race'. They didn't care if we were involved in WWI. LOL. If we had listened to someone with your views, we would all be speaking German right now or wouldn't be here at all because of our family's murder.
So what do you want to do? Ignore Iran? LOL. The whole point of this thread is to get a solution to the Iran problem from a radical. So what's your solution?
Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Kara Tyson
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 939
posted
Bomb them.
We'll see if Putin steps down. We'll just see about that.
When we gave Tsunami aid in Indonesia Muslim only aid centers were opened up.
When we gave Tsunami aid to India the caste system was strictly enforced. Only certain castes were allowed at the aid centers.
Even now food aid that has been sent to Pakistan is not getting to the people. The clerics are running around shutting the kitchens down...why?? Because it is Ramadan and the people should be fasting.
-------------------- Kara Tyson Lyme Disease Support Group Of Alabama--MobileChapter Posts: 6022 | From Mobile, AL | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Funny, sometimes I wonder if you're really Karl Rove honing his skills on LymeNet.
If it's radical to be against Imperialism, then that's me I guess.
What we have are wide spread reports on Russia sending Iran uranium.. and then wide spread denial of that.
Since accusations of other nations have not exactly been truthful in the past several years (one we started War over).. at the very least it should be looked at with some descernment and hopefully some intelligence..this time around.. (both individual intelligence and US intelligence agencies.)
There is a much greater concern as to how this thing could go toward much greater catastrophe in the Middle East than we have imagined.. you have to also consider Iran/Iraq relations and Israel.
Broader scope is needed.
This is a major conflict waiting to happen, and IMO the US and Israel need to BACK OFF.
The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If this happens, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons/and some quotes:
The U.S. State Departmnt reported in August 05 that "Iran is in violation of its Chemical Weapons obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW (chemical weapons) infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities."
from the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents - and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them - which it previously had manufactured."
Also they noted missiles as a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region.
Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made accuses Iran of plotting to attack Israeli targets.
According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006.
Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in the early eighties just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout).
President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program.
..the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons.
..according to Israel, and the U.S. administration, and most of the House, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran.
How will it all get started??
No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is not likely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to.
Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in the past, there is no return.
Iran will respond .. how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the US - Israel "special relationship," there is no way the US will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them.
Once the U.S. enters the conflict, all of our (*150,000) U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning (you can view the pdf on this) nuclear weapons will be used, they write:
"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."
"Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations..."
".. adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies"
"For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms..."
"To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations..."
That makes six (count 'em) independent reasons for nuking Iran.
The first one will be akin to 'SHOCK and AWE' in true Bullying style.. they'll give it a catchy name, too, that speaks: "don't mess with us, for "democracy" on the rise in the Middle East", and for the Congress who will go along with the program. As with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will be told it saved lives, ours and theirs. You know the script.
In light of all this, as this admins greatest and most deadly downfall has been LACK of FORSIGHT and INTELLIGENT planning and horrific foreign relation/actions (!!):
the U.S. government should be doing all it can to restrain Israel, yet it is doing exactly the opposite. It should be trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, but it refuses to even talk to Iran. The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action..not well intended or well handled, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used??
And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizens to learn?
The U.S. public preoccupied with the deception and disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes.
Do the majority of American citizens really want to be drawn by Israel into a nuclear conflict? Is this really in the United States' best interest?
The sane world needs to tell the U.S. and Israeli governments to back off.
And the United States needs to tell Israel, in no uncertain terms, that it will not allow (American-supplied) Israeli bombers carrying (American supplied) bunker-busting bombs over Iraqi airspace, and that it will not aid, abet, or condone such an attack. By not demanding this of the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is complicit in what is about to happen and is betraying the trust of the people it represents.
There is a rational way to avoid this disaster.
Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA do their job!
The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces.
If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act.
Otherwise? Welcome to the new world order, where the U.S. can nuke any non-nuclear country at will. Refrain from having a nuclear deterrent at your own risk. All nations that can will become nuclear, others on their way will be nuked, and all-out nuclear war will become an absolute certainty. Bye-bye, world.
American policy under Bush is teaching all nations they better have nukes or they will run the risk of being demolished and 'rebuilt'.
Putin is a puny part of all this, you really need to open your minds when the media starts one of these blitz's.
There's a 'radical' view.. funny, the ones bating are the ones who never address anything (major, especially on Iraq) much at all..
and I suspect this post won't get much more than an 'LOL'...
Mo
[ 17. October 2005, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
thank you, mo. i'm still studying all this, every moment i'm able, and i learn so much from your words & wisdom.
signed, a humbly grateful, and barely 25-yr-old Heather.
Yes Miss Mo, You caught me, I AM Karl Rove sitting here in my dress on the farm....
I actually enjoyed your post somewhat, because of the lack of Bush Bashing as compared to other posts....you were actually conjecturing a bit as to the possibilities and ramifications of this problem.
Mo: Putin is a puny part of all this, you really need to open your minds when the media starts one of these blitz's. **************** So what oar in the water do you think the media is rowing in this?
I know one of the reasons is to make waves for the Administration. By and large Liberal media would do such....no?
So how much truth can we ascribe to the situation?
Yes, this would cause world wide problems, no doubt about it. This could make WWII look like nothing.
[ 18. February 2006, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: meg ]
posted
Ooops, Meg -- I wasn't talking about you being a roving Rove.. I was talking about the one who called all radicals to answer on Iran. He must be busy checking the Drudge report for any tidbits for rebuttal
We agree on the potential disaster. This is a festering catastrophe, and if the US doesn't get smart and look into this comprehensively, there is going to be Hell to pay.
Putin isn't 'puny' .. I know .. I meant that the bigger picture includes so much more than that...longstanding wants and axes to grind, current turmoil.. ect.
I don't agree that media is 'liberal'.. I think that's the cry of the Right whenever certain stories actually make it to light..
media is 95% coorperate owned now, that's all outlets.. TV, radio, newspapers..
The age of independant journalism is dead, except for publicly funded networks .. (WorldLink TV)
Things have changed a great deal. All the old time news icons have written on how restricted things are.
How can we be a true Democracy if the obligation to tell all sides of the story is gone?
Heather, I enjoy your posts! It gets lonely over here being a Liberrrrrrrrral ..
Mo
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
US media? liberal?!! hardly. as mo said, the media is over 90 percent owned & controlled by multibillion dollar corporations, with billions invested in oil and other sundry political interests. these days, the government and said corporations are feeding each other and are barely distinguishable; i like to call the whole big mess a "corporatocracy."
as for the threat of iran, i don't know much about it, i'm the first to admit; hence, i thanked mo for taking the time to share her knowledge with the rest of us. i did some quick online searching and came up with the following tidbit by Noam Chomsky, one of my favorite "radical" (ohh, there's that bigbadword again!) intellectuals and a highly respected professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Chomsky kept a political "blog" through zmag, which unfortunately he hasn't updated in about a year; nonetheless, this little blurb seemed appropriate:
The sharp increase in focus on Iran's alleged threat (nuclear weapons, connections to terror, etc.) is very clear. ...
The same has been true with regard to Syria (including last December's "Syria Accountability Act" passed almost unanimously in Congress, and Bush's implementation of parts of it in May).
Not reported but quite important is the dispatch to Israel of 100 F16-I's, advanced jet bombers, with the very specific announcement that they can reach Iran and return, are updated versions of the F-16s that Israel used to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (thereby setting off Iraq's nuclear weapons program, though that part of the story, though pretty well confirmed, is avoided), and are equipped with "special weapons" (according to the Israeli Hebrew press).
All of this is presumably intended for the ears of Iranian intelligence, who have to make worst case analyses. Perhaps the purpose of all of these initiatives is to evoke some action by Iran or Syria that can be interpreted by Washington-media as justification for military action, or perhaps just to rattle the leadership to contribute to internal repression, disaffection, disruption.
If the Iraq invasion hadn't been such a remarkable failure, by now the US would probably have gone forward with plans to subordinate the region more fully to its interests, which would mean actions against the more independent states, Iran and Syria. This is not entirely unrelated to the "war on terror": it increases the terrorist threat, just as the invasion of Iraq did. In the case of Syria, that's been very well analyzed by Stephen Zunes. **
also, thank you so much for the insult, but i'm not a CLONE. i very proudly hold my own thoughts and convictions; i'm simply able to admit when i'm less educated about particular issues, and am humbly grateful to folks with more experience who voice knowledge and opinions i feel i can look up to and respect.
you conservatives will despise her, but the following is a poem written by one of my living heroes on this planet, alix olson. she's loud, proud, radical, in your face, feminist, unashamed, a dyke, and i love her & am forever indebted to the incredible, life-affirming work that she does. **
Womyn Before
i was still sucking my thumb the first time i sang "we shall overcome" it was a numb december night, it was a small town fable my first corporate villain and my mother was the hero
and i was clutching the back of my mother's kneecap i squinted up at her fist, i asked her, why are we so mad? and she parked her head down in the freezing rain and she saw me, so serious and small with my big mac truck union sign she smiled to herself, pondered the politics of fingers curled this is solidarity, she whispered to her baby girl
and she smelled, right then, like the coalmines of the Industrial Age she was perfumed in truth and she reeked of risks taken "because the time to strike is when the iron is hot", martin said "all truth crushed to earth will rise again"
like June Jordan or Barbara Smith Sonia Sanchez and Adrienne Rich like Flannery O'Conner, like Ruth Ellis Angela Davis and Mary Daly bell hooks and Flo Kennedy gertrude stein, dorothy allison, my mother, my grandmother all the other womyn before me
they sniffed the boundaries carefully it's no mistake they chose the fringes and they rode the horses proudly who careened off the edges of the carousel because our words are wild animals, sometimes just barely surviving in woods purchased by some industry hunters are four lane highways and we are the road kill cancer in our warrior breasts asbestos in our tampons, still
the womyn before think me through these dark clouds of injustice so i propel myself past all the clowns on t.v. and there i find myself stratospherically frozen in-between how things are and how they should be
it's easy to slip in these icy extremes but the words of the womyn before shelter me like an igloo i shiver in their dimension but at least i know from my herstory that the courage of chattering teeth demands attention
sometimes, i see my pleasing self all cheerfully flippant and full of quips, but then i feel my queer spirit jetting out from my hips.
because the womyn before, they have passed me graceful rage and i'm out to save the world, when i'm not scrambling to save face and i'm searching for an exit, sometimes i wanna scream "fire, everybody run!" 'cause we are packed too tight into this world full of trouble, and the kid next to me's packing a gun.
my mother raised me to tangle with the big boys to pull out my thumb and make friends with my voice that's my weapon of choice
so in this Hallmark Hub of a Century with its sugar cookie cutter white boy fame i will not be afraid of being called the same names as the womyn before me: june jordan and barbara smith sonia sanchez and adrienne rich flannery o'connor, ruth ellis angela davis and mary daly bell hooks and flo kennedy, gertrude stein, and dorothy allison, my mother, my grandmother the other womyn before me, the womyn before me i take this legacy seriously. **
posted
Heather~ You are aware that feminism is dead, aren't you? They killed themselves years ago when they chose to NOT stand up for everywoman, instead of the chosen favorites.
The only GOOD things feminism has accomplished is the vote for women and the right to own property....can you name anything else they have accomplished? ****************************
No Bias~???? HUH~? Perhaps you all see no bias because you don't....or cannot relate it to your belief system or it serves your purpose and you agree with it.
Heavens, as you see by the quotes in the links below--from the NEWS MEDIA DARLINGS themselves, they ADMIT they are liberal~! Are you calling them liars???
******Mo: media is 95% coorperate owned now, that's all outlets.. TV, radio, newspapers.. ******Heather: US media? liberal?!! hardly. as mo said, the media is over 90 percent owned & controlled by multibillion dollar corporations, with billions invested in oil and other sundry political interests.
Quote from link below: And for those who think that, because the major media are owned by big corporations those media must be conservative, there is this item from syndicated columnist Mona Charen: "In 1997 [the latest year for which statistics were available at the time she wrote this], corporations gave almost five times as much to left-leaning charities and public-policy advocates than to right-leaning ones."21 Corporate America appears not to be the bastion of conservatism liberals want you to believe it is.
posted
Meg, I'm surprised.. I wouldn't have thunk you anti-feminist.
Should we all sit next to our hubby's knitting like Barbara... smiling contentedly as we look on to the Katrina victims and proclaim:
"George, let them eat cake!"
OK, here's us what Feminist movement has accomplished:
Feminist movement (without the "The"..) has been responsible for progressive legislation including bettered women's programs, sexual assault programs, displaced homemaker programs, childhealth care, anti stalking legislation, among others.
..it leads the progressive forces at party conventions and provides campaign support for feminist candidates.
Hundreds of progressive women and men have become politically active and effective as a result of training and outreach programs.
The majority of legislators in the Senate are pro choice.
It is also aimed ending patriarchy, sexism, and male domination. It is not really anti-male, most men are uncomfortable with violence against women and are uneasy in the role of patriarch, but they are afraid of feminism because they are fear giving up power and don't see how it could be advantageous for them.
Accomplishments have been made in in body image, sexual liberation, reproductive rights, and opposition to violence...tho the media still takes this back a good deal.
Visionary feminism is grounded in the concrete conditions of poor and working class women. The movement has done allot in the form of Civil Rights for women, especially the poor.
There have been many acomplishments that have advnced our society, including and well beyond the right to vote!.. but like anything else, some don't look beyong the 'wrap' it's given.
On the media --
The media control by coorperations (they are ALL owned by SIX, and those six are largely conservative.)
Coorperations may donate to liberals, but they aren't the ones running the media show.
But not only that, in 93, regulations requiring both sodes of a stiry be portrayed were lifted. That is a huge piece as well. That gives the coorperations who moved in on media the opportunity to totally control what we the opublic are exposed to. All you have to do is research almost any given current event topic, and you will see this clear as day.
Meanwhile, we get Scott Peterson, and the girl in Aruba taking up inordinate amounts of airtime and no coverage to speak of in Iraq.
Things have never been worse in this regard, news is nothing like it used to be, and this admin wants it that way.
Here is some more, I am copuing a recent post of mine over, noone appeared to have read it, anyway.. regarding the state of the media in the US, we all should care because we cannot possibly be a functioning Democratic Republic if the public is not informed:
We have a huge issue with mainstream media being over 90% coorperate owned.
We had protections against that for most of the century..where news was for the people and media outlets required to present both 'sides' of an issue..
that is all turned upside down starting in 1996 to present.
Now we get soundbytes from the Right, and soundbtres from the left.. and never get to the truth which lies somewhere in the middle.. and virtually no investigative reporting, except on independant TV not coorperate owned.
The News on those channels is a whold different ball of wax.
They also air international news.
I find it interesting that AlJazeera is considered liberal..you say we are there to help the region yet will not listen to they themselves?
but no matter, there are many more nations to consider..
The danger is tunnel vision into one channel, such as Fox..which leaves out so many big isues. How can we have a functioning Democracy when the public gets little to no real information?
The reason so much corruption and an incredible amount of damaging behind the scenes legislative changes are able to occur is because we don't hear about it...till it's too big to be contained.
All the degredation is unreal..the first rule of debate 101 is to focus on and address topic, not bash individuals.
Remember the News when we were growing up? Today it is mostly sensationalism.
Here is a bit on the media situation oif you haven't read about it, it is clear when you se what has happened:
Transcript - Your New$ and the Bottom Line
Broadcast live May 7, 2003 on WorldLink TV
PETER COYOTE- I'd like to give a little more background on tonight's program: your news and the bottom line.
The 1996 telecommunications act dramatically altered the laws governing our communication industry. It removed the requirement for radio and television broadcasters to present any public interest programming in return for the free exclusive use of the public's airways. It did away with controls on corporate media ownership, which had prevented one corporation's owning the newspaper, television, and radio in a given area. Since 1996, six major media conglomerates AOL Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, General Electric, Vivendi Universal and ATT Comcast have moved quickly to control 90% of the broadcast outlets. Republican Senator John McCain has called this group `the most powerful lobby I've encountered in Washington'. In the next few weeks,
Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell and current chair of republican dominated FCC, is expected to further deregulate the media: To allow a single corporation to own all media outlets in a given community. Critics charge that this new market driven FCC regards citizens as consumers and communities as market places.
And this apparently innocent change of terms fundamentally alters the relationship of the people and their media to a relationship between consumers and producers of products, services and ideas.
Meanwhile our government is preparing to give away new public frequencies without requiring any public service or accountability. An issue for the American citizen is to what extent the news and information which informs our world view and our choices at the election poles, will be determined solely by the bottom line of accountability to the shareholders of six media conglomerates.
Tonight's program ``Your News and The Bottom Line'' will investigate to what degree deregulation of American media might reduce the news to entertainment, and eliminate the historic role of media as watch dog of the public interest. Let's begin by looking at a recent discussion on these issues I had last week with veteran CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite.
PETER: Once upon a time there was a clear problem there where 3 corporations and 3 networks that controlled 90% of the news. And so deregulation occurred and now there are 5 corporations and 500 channels but these 5 corporations control 90% of the news. Is this diversity as the FCC says it is?
WALTER: No of course not, it's the reverse of that... it's a monopoly...in our case being a few of them rather than one, but that's what we are living with in our news assimilation.
PETER: Who owns the airways?
WALTER: Well allegedly we do, the people. It was decided early on in the 1920s, when radio was first becoming an important factor in our communications picture that we had to control the airways... There were only a certain number of frequencies available at that time, as there are now a certain number of channels available. But with a very few number of frequencies available somebody had to say who got those frequencies. So it was decided, congress organized the Federal Communications Commission to assign those frequencies to `those individuals who could promise the greatest service to the community'. The licenses were given to those who would serve the interest of the people in the community. And, indeed the licenses were given so that they could be withdrawn. If enough of the citizens of the community filed a complaint against their conduct and said we want better service in our community they were entitled to get it under the law, after an examination by the Federal Communications Commission. What happened at that time was that in forming the FCC, the owners of the networks sat at the feet of the congress of the FCC and learned of their responsibility from those who were designing what the responsibility should be. And those gentlemen were all entrepreneurs, two of them... primarily Paley and Sarnoff ... Paley at CBS, Sarnoff at NBC, and they ... they absorbed this lesson of responsibility. It's only been in the more recent years, when that old ownership passed away, and we came with the new generation, and indeed it was with the ... in the Reagan administration that the FCC changed its thrust entirely to the marketplace.
PETER: Is the public better informed today than it was 30 years ago?
WALTER: No I don't think it is, it has a lot more quote news unquote thrown at it, with all of the cable facilities, but as for getting the information adequate to understanding the issues of the day, I don't think there's any improvement there whatsoever. We're not covering international news nearly like we should we don't have the bureaus we used to have in the major capitals of the world. The management of the networks has asked the information to be more interesting, which they mean entertaining a word they wouldn't dare use in the news rooms. But by being interesting they do your health and mine, your pocket book and mine, this doesn't belong in the 19 minutes they have left in a half hour evening news program. They're trying to cover a very complicated nation and a very complex world. Nineteen minutes is not nearly adequate just to get the headlines of the day, let alone to get some background information.
Now they've got these magazine programs and what do they do with `em? Sex, crime almost anything except the serious items of the moment, that people need some instruction about, some information.
PETER: I'm sure some of your confreres would argue and say, `Walter we're just giving the people what they want. What's wrong with that?'
WALTER: What's wrong with that is that's not the rule of editorial judgment. You don't give people what they want you give people what they need. And this is how you become an editor; this is why you become an editor, that's why we have editors, that's why we have publishers. You give people what you know they need, in the light of keeping them informed as to the actions of their governments.
This is important to all of us. But, I suspect in short order someone will come and bash Cronkite and Cayote..(with a few choice jabs for me) ignoring all the real changes in the acts and ownersip issues that have taken our rights to information away.
[ 19. October 2005, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be prepared for some slings and arrows toward those who post in dissent, Heather.. but that's all it is..sticks and stones.
Forgot to say that's a very inspirational poem!! and thanks for posting the Chompsky articles as ever 'radically' on the money. (highlighting it):
[/b]Not reported but quite important is the dispatch to Israel of 100 F16-I's, advanced jet bombers, with the very specific announcement that they can reach Iran and return, are updated versions of the F-16s that Israel used to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (thereby setting off Iraq's nuclear weapons program, though that part of the story, though pretty well confirmed, is avoided), and are equipped with "special weapons" (according to the Israeli Hebrew press).
All of this is presumably intended for the ears of Iranian intelligence, who have to make worst case analyses. Perhaps the purpose of all of these initiatives is to evoke some action by Iran or Syria that can be interpreted by Washington-media as justification for military action, or perhaps just to rattle the leadership to contribute to internal repression, disaffection, disruption.
If the Iraq invasion hadn't been such a remarkable failure, by now the US would probably have gone forward with plans to subordinate the region more fully to its interests, which would mean actions against the more independent states, Iran and Syria. This is not entirely unrelated to the "war on terror": it increases the terrorist threat, just as the invasion of Iraq did. In the case of Syria, that's been very well analyzed by Stephen Zunes.[/b]
Mo
-------------------- life shrinks and expands in proportion to one's courage -- anais nin Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
feminism is dead??! so you think you should be locked at home in the kitchen, cooking and cleaning and slaving away for your husband, submitting to him sexually in any way he pleases, barefoot and pregnant and popping out as many babies as humanly possible until you hit menopause or drop dead?
do you believe men and women are owed equal rights? are you wearing comfortable clothes? do you ever wear pants? are you educated? do you want your daughters to be educated? your granddaughters? can you read and write? do you use a credit card? have you ever held a job outside the home? would you expect custody of your children if your husband left you or died? do you think you or any woman should be able to get a divorce? should you be allowed to leave your husband if he beats you? do you think domestic violence shelters should continue to exist? do you walk out on the street without a male escort and not worry about constantly being called a whore? do you expect to earn at least marginally fair wages for your work? have you heard of birth control? do you expect to have reproductive control over your own body? did you never have to worry about being married off to a man you didn't know or like? do you expect to not have parts of your body grabbed at work or get whistled at by male coworkers? do you have the option to file for sexual harrassment if your boss threatens to fire you for refusing to sleep with him? do you have legal recourse if you're raped, even if the assailant is an acquaintance or a supposed intimate friend/lover? do you have the right to voice your opinions as you see fit? do you believe you/your daughters/granddaughters should be able to pursue any career you/they desire, whether it be housewife, writer, doctor, lawyer, scientist?
the list goes on and on, but if you can answer 'yes' to any or all of the above then you are benefitting from feminism, whether you like it or not.
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
Because a Woman's Work is Never Done Manifesto
Because a woman's work is never done and is underpaid, or unpaid, or boring, or repetitious, and we're the first to get fired, and what we look like is more important than what we do. And if we get raped it's our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we're nagging *****es and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we love women it's because we can't get a real man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we're neurotic or pushy and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for our rights we're aggressive and un-feminine and if we don't we're typical weak females and if we want to get married we're out to trap a man and if we don't we're unnatural and because we still can't get an adequate, safe contraceptive, but men can walk on the moon and if we can't cope or don't want a pregnancy we're made to feel guilty about abortion and for lots and lots of other reasons... we are part of the Women's Liberation Movement. * - Joyce Stevens, written for Women's Liberation Broadsheet, International Woman's Day, 1975.*
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Heather You are indeed a marvelous work and a wonder! You preach the joy of dyke-dom and in the next breath you talk of being downtrodden You probably had to walk to school,...five miles,....in the snow,... up hill,...both ways! Your idols are mostly communist hate mongers, you know, you don't sound like a very happy person!
I read somewhere that the age of reason for a normal child is considered to be seven years old. There are exception, least I can reason where there would be exceptions. If, for example, a child's parents were ``howling at the moon crazy'', this would be ``normal'' to that child! There would be nothing wrong with howling at the moon, till he was hauled in a few times and it was explained to the now young adult that this was not normal and to look around to see if anyone else was howling at the moon.
Being queer isn't being a member of a certain race and it isn't a sickness, it's a perversion, (which may be a sickness). Nobody minds a little perversion now and again, so long as it doesn't involve nose-picking! A line has to be drawn somewhere. Makes no difference to me, you might want to look around.
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that's amusing.....that you would characterize my life by feminism. You don't know me from Adam. Unless I embrace feminism (the great cure all) I must be subject to a man's whims? Or I believe in such?
Feminism has demonized men in every way....they are afraid to be anyone, much less a man. The belief is that if you don't embrace feminism, you are a slavering idiot.....what have they done to the young women of this country???
You are responsible for yourself....AND when you get married (considering you will) you will learn it is a give and take. It's all about personal responsibility, knowing who you marry ahead of time.
Mo: As the loving mother of beautiful children, I would think you would run from any association with a group that devalues motherhood and does not value motherhood as a job in itself. **************************** But a recent poll by Gallup contradicts this message -- feminism is, in fact, DEAD. While NOW continues to rail about the "anti-feminist" administration of George W. Bush, only 25 percent of women in the Gallup poll said that they are feminists. This applied equally to older and younger women, with only 26 percent of younger women identifying themselves as feminists compared with 24 percent for women over 50.'' [http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2001/000089.html]
Why the backlash of feminism? Because radical feminists have become some of the most intolerant people on the planet. If you don't toe the line, espouse the feminist rhetoric and worship Gloria Steinem, you are a traitor, a non feminist. Feminism seeks to set itself up as a superior ideology, women should be in control of everything because we are just so much gentler, kinder and intelligent. Men are nothing but neanderthals and they need to know their place. I resent such derogatory depictions of men, being a mother of a son. I will not have these women devalue my son because of his gender. I will not have him painted as an oppressor of women, a person whose only emotion is that of violence. I will not have my brothers portrayed this way, my nephews portrayed this way. Feminism is not about joining with men to lift each other up but creating division between the two sexes. It is about propaganda and lies to benefit women.
*******************************
Mo: I believe I incontrovertedly proved that the Media IS by and large liberal....did you not read? Since this came from their own mouths, how can you dispute this?
[ 20. October 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: meg ]
posted
Forgive me, I only have a few moments between scrubbing the floor and making babies to post here...so I'll get right to it. *************************** Pew Report: Liberal Media --U.S. News
Pew reports that just 7 percent of journalists and news executives call themselves conservative, compared with 33 percent of the general public. The self-identified liberals (34 percent) are five times as common as conservatives in the news business. As you might imagine, this got very little play in the mainstream media. Howard Kurtz did a good job with it at the Washington Post. But that was about it. Those who did report or comment on the survey tended to play up the large number of news people (54 percent) who call themselves moderate. Why is it such a big deal to have a newsroom that's only a third liberal? asked Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media?
I would say that the big deal is that media workers are becoming more liberal at a fairly rapid pace--up from 22 percent nine years ago to 34 percent now, according to Pew. It would be a bigger deal if the hiring of liberals reached the point (as it has in the academic world) where conservatives don't bother to apply for jobs.
Immoderate. In addition, there is debate over what "moderate" means in the survey. My experience is that liberal journalists tend to think of themselves as representing the mainstream, so in these self-identification polls, "moderate" usually translates to "liberal." On the few social questions asked in the survey, most of the moderates sounded fairly liberal. Asked whether homosexuality should be approved of by society, 88 percent of journalists agreed, compared with only 51 percent of Americans.
Some 82 percent of the journalists were able to list a news organization that was "especially conservative" (most named Fox News), but an amazing 62 percent could not name any news organization that struck them as "especially liberal." Good grief. Even 60 percent of the Homer Simpson family could probably figure out that the New York Times or National Public Radio qualify as liberal.
In response to the survey, some argue that personal social and political views make no difference if a reporter plays the story straight. Well, yes. But nearly half of those polled told Pew that journalists too often let their ideological views color their work. This is a devastating admission, something like an umpire's union reporting that half its membership likes to favor the home team. Even apart from loaded reporting, the selection and framing of news stories have a way of reflecting the opinions of editors. That's why the steady march toward a more liberal newsroom is so puzzling. The news media have to cope with a declining readership and viewership and intense scrutiny of their wayward practices by right-wing outlets and relentlessly critical bloggers. Yet the mainstream media have only those few in-house conservatives who might warn their bosses when news reports are skewing left.
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
all i'm trying to say, meg, is that the rights and privileges you enjoy now (self-determination being a major one) are a direct result of the feminist movement (both current and past), whether you realize it or not.
true feminism doesn't demean motherhood. in fact, i know MANY wonderful, loving, incredible mothers who are also (*gasp*) radical feminists. feminism is about the liberation of women and girls (and boys too, but that goes deeper than i have the time or energy to expound upon right now). it's about our strengths, potentials, hopes and dreams. there's a popular saying that goes "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." really, we're not all big hairy scary ugly dyke manhating ogre creatures. that's what mainstream culture wants you to think, to scare you away from feminism and what it really stands for, all that it's achieved historically.
feminism doesn't hate men or seek to alienate them. in fact, feminism EMBRACES men, because if we hope to continue to chip away at the INSTITUTION of patriarchy, we need all the help we can get. i have many male friends who proudly identify as feminists. this doesn't make them somehow "less masculine;" it simply means they recognize the importance of women's rights. it means they have compassion.
i don't hate men. i'm admittedly a bit wary of some upon first meeting (particularly "stereotypically" macho hetero men), because of bad experiences i or close friends have had (sexual assaults, abusive fathers, the list goes on). i have very close friends who are male whom i love dearly and couldn't imagine my life without. even some of my political & intellectual heroes are/were (gasp) men -- straight, white men w/families at that!: noam chomsky, howard zinn, dennis kucinich, paul wellstone. the professor from whom i learned the most in college, who was incredible and brilliant and incisive and amazing, who CARED SO MUCH about his students that he visited me every day when i was in the hospital and brought me food; took me out to lunch on several occasions; was always the first to advocate for his students; was a straight man, deeply and fervently committed to feminism, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, grassroots/urban education, and all struggles for social justice, both locally and globally. he remains one of my biggest influences and heroes to this day.
no, i don't hate men. i hate PATRIARCHY. patriarchy is the system which upholds sexism against women and deems it okay. it also eschews sensitivity in men and boys (a wonderful human trait that we ALL have, regardless of sex), demands that they be unflinchingly "strong," "macho," etc, regardless of who they truly are inside and the varying ways in which every human being needs to express him/herself. the INSTITUTION of patriarchy has very little to do with men as individuals - fathers, friends, husbands, lovers, brothers, sons, etc, people whom we all (i would venture) genuinely love.
if you believe women and men are equal, should have equal rights, then you are a feminist. it's really that simple. it's not a bigbadscary word; it's not a manhating movement that seeks to do away with all men via valerie solanis-like methodology or praxis. that's just hype. lies meant to scare you away. look beyond the hype, into the heart of it all - look at the history of feminism and all the amazing things it has accomplished for you and other women (and yes, even for your husband/sons/brothers/etc). and look forward to all that we STILL have to accomplish. feminism isn't dead. as long as women are paid only 75 cents for a man's dollar; as long as women are raped, beaten, accosted, assaulted; as long as women feel unsafe walking alone at night; as long as the beauty/diet industries continue to leech billions and billions of dollars every year from women seeking "perfection;" as long as little boys and men are bullied out of being "sensitive" for fear they might turn (*gasp*) gay or somehow "lose their masculinity;" as long as this list continues to grow; we NEED feminism. all of us.
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
labrat-
i don't intend to be "normal." i don't intend to be anybody but myself, thank you very much.
i'd much rather be myself and happy and proud than live a lie the rest of my life. which option is the real "sin"?
countless people have committed suicide because they were gay and felt trapped in the closet (society, friends, family, etc. didn't approve, called them "sick," or threatened violence or dereliction). many of these people were teenagers, some as young as 13 or 14. matthew shepherd was murdered for being gay. hate crimes against gay people happen ALL THE TIME - continuously - is this okay?
thank you for calling me "perverted" and "unhappy." i am myself, and i am quite happy being so. acknowledging the fact that oppression exists on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, class, ability, etc, is not the same thing as being constantly DEPRESSED because of it. i rejoice in who i am, because every day it's a battlefield and every day someone or something is trying to cut me down, tell me i'm not "right," not okay, that i'm perverted, sick, wrong; and each day that i survive with love intact in my heart, i remain victorious. i know i am a loving, wonderful, hopeful, giving, caring, compassionate, deeply committed individual who would give almost anything to stop or prevent the suffering of others. and THAT makes me proud.
i am who i am. i could give a crap what you (or anyone else out to hurt, demean, or invalidate) think about it. **
"To be nobody-but-yourself -- in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else -- means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight, and never stop fighting." --e.e. cummings
posted
OMG, you look away for a minute and they suddenly think they have an answer. LOL.
Sorry Mo, You get an F-. Your solution is insane. So we back off Iran and let them do whatever they want. So we're in the 30's and we back off Nazi Germany and let them do whatever they want. See, a radical is incapable of learning anything from history. That's why their ideas are dangerous. They fail to understand that there's no such thing as pure peace as long as there's evil in the world. You have to nip evil in the butt before it gets too big and destroys you.
But like I said, you wouldn't ever let a radical give you advice on cancer treatment because you'd end up dead.......and you certainly wouldn't want a radical to give you advice on foreign policy because we'd all end up dead.
Oh mighty Mo, teach me more your greatness. Just remember, the longer a post is doesn't mean that your going to be more logical or convince someone more. It's actually the opposite. Like an insecure Senator on the floor of the Senate hogging the time in front of the mic, he/she just puts people to sleep and they don't listen, yet they think EVERYONE is listenning. LOL. Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
danq
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 2126
posted
Hee hee...
Go get 'em Mo! and Heather!
as for liberal newspeople and analysts (and college professors, Ratty ;-)...
Of course they're liberals!
have you ever considered that there may be a good reason why the majority of people who are paid to think, research, and analyze are "liberals"???
uh, maybe because it's their job to think things through, collect and digest multiple data sources, and clearly form reasoned conclusions... while maintaining something of a link with objective facts.
They're paid for it - that's the Republican's best friend, the Free Market at work - survival of the fittest for the profession - the thinkers who think best get paid by people who need that work done and know how to spend their money, and it turns out those hired brains are more liberals than not.
(think about it, darlin')
Posts: 2420 | From Davis, California | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The, ah, ....'radicals' answer is probably something along the lines of "This is a very thorny affair-- above all, let's not do anything that will precipitate a catastrophe. And let's get as close as we can to doing what will promote peace, since everybody loses in a war; thus, war should truly be a last resort. Thoughtless brash actions that give rise to hatred are about as low as you can get , as far as relative wisdom goes. That is, they have the best chance of precipitating catastrophe. Such actions could well give rise to terrorism, or to secrecy and hidden resentment which builds until an irreversible breaking point is passed. We need diplomats, envoys, etc, not more terrorists on both sides... DaveS
quote:Originally posted by 24bit: [QB] This is going to be good (...'good'.... ?)
Posts: 4567 | From ithaca, NY, usa | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having been in school for a long time getting a B.S. in Business/Marketing and a B.S. in Civil/Structural Engineering at different point in my life, I've seen a lot of the university 'intellectual' types. These teachers and researchers are usually good at one thing, and that's their niche. But when it comes to balance and perspective on many issues in life, they just don't have it. Being brilliantly smart in accounting, plant biology, or cell immunology doesn't really do much for ones smarts in US foreign policy and US history. LOL.
In addition to that, a lot of prof.'s are flat out secular, and that's another reason for their hard left leanings. No, they don't just lean left, they fall down with the far left. LOL.
Posts: 600 | From Las Vegas, NV | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Well OK Heather, live it up! Your ok, I'm ok, you live your life and I'll live mine!
Uh Quackard, that Churchill guy, the Indian (semi) professor, the one that hates America and dodged the draft, he's a smart *** far left leaning liberal too isn't he? Where would he be able to get a job other than a university? (With all his brains, sweet heart!)
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
i think you're talking about ward churchill, though i've yet to read his work so i don't know much about him. however, "indians" (as you so nicely put it) have every right to hate america and dodge the draft. dear god. the very land you're standing on is stolen from them. the mass genocide of a culture and a people.
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
To quote Ward Churchill, ``give me a break''! The term, ``murdering thieving redskins'', came from somewhere and there was a reason for it! They were about as civilizes as paid demonstrators! Today I own a farm, when I die, someone else will own it but the land will still be there and put to use by someone else!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
that is the most egregious, racist thing i've ever heard. i can't even begin to respond. may god have mercy on your soul.
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
Oh, you're sooo sensitive! An atheist praying for my sole, hummm, can they do that? I guess if no one sees....
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
3greatkids
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3838
posted
Today I own a farm, when I die, someone else will own it but the land will still be there and put to use by someone else! LAB RAT>>>>>>>>>>>
PLEASE,oh,PLEASE,don't let the developer boys get it? They are flippin all over our parts now,buildin those sweet little cul de sac lands out of those old farms.
The folks movin into them as fast as they can tear down everything and anal it up.Then they complain about the odors and such coming from next door. And who was there first?
Most of the places are loaded w/ ticks,wonder why??? Posts: 1076 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ol' LabRat's feelings about native Americans are not much diferent than his feelings about Muslims.
You wouldn't be shocked if you 'read' him a while..and he can get awfully crotchety, too.. isn't that right sunshine?
Then there's Mr. Bit, also not surprising that you find intellectuals and professors incapable of understanding anything outside their own 'niche'.. because they by and large would not agree with you, therefore can't know anything. Not surprising, but I do marval at how adept you are at swift and certain degredation..
Heather's right about feminism, Meg..I'm sure you can pull out sevral extremist examples of this and that but if you look at the movement as a whole it has been (and is) extremely beneficial and necessary for all women.
On our admin -- there's a load of stuff coming out in the news now, seems it's seeping into the mainstream media boundaries as well of late...
..looks like black and white stripes will be in this holiday season.
Mo
[ 24. October 2005, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Mo ]
Posts: 8337 | From the other shore | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
so um, owning a farm and passing/selling the land to someone else is a LITTLE different than the MASS GENOCIDE OF AN ENTIRE PEOPLE AND THE RUTHLESS STEALING OF THEIR LAND. read some history books, jeezus.
and when did i say i'm an athiest? don't assume things, please.
posted
in my estimation, depite his very 'fractional genetics,' ward churchhill is a fake indian. in several ways he lost credibility with american indians.
he should be sentenced to stand in front of tee-pees, and tobacco stores smoking a cigar, and have passersby shoot paintballs, and throw rotten veggies and fruit at him to see who can knock the cigar from his hand.
that wooden indian standing in front of your local cigar store deserves the break.
if labrat donated his ranch to have churchhill "give it back" to the indians, churchill would sell it to the highest bidder-developer, and abscond in retirement.
heiwalove
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6467
posted
okay, i've researched the controversy a bit. i see what you are getting at. however, it is still quite arrogant of you to claim he is a "fake indian," because frankly, neither you nor i have any clue.
and the rest of your comment is downright racist and offensive.
even though i've never read a thing churchill wrote, i'm deeply-enough versed in american indian history, including more so the medico- anthropologic aspects(e.g.,actually doing only one sweat lodge), to know enough of the same things as churchill, that i 'qualify' to mock his 'immature', un-spiritually-evolved conduct for someone his age, and scholarship.
Posts: 2708 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
as to churchill being a 'fake' indian, see critiques of him in american indian journals, newletters, and other, serious periodicals, or writers you respect.
Posts: 2708 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
i don't know if churchill has anything to do with gambling, or is a "high roller type".
i think the man needs some sweat lodge 'psychotherapeutic transformational evolution of self.'
Posts: 2708 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
LabRat
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 78
posted
3Great It's almost if not impossible to control much of anything from the grave! The more complicated you make it, the more trouble you have.
We had a baby owl come to live with us for ten years and this knocked my wife into what appeared to be ``a false pregnancy''. She became the mother of all birders! Donating very valuable land, several hundred acres of oak Motts over grown with vines and briers for her critters! Once you let it go, you lose control, in one case someone went into a hundred-acre oak Motts with some sort of dozer and put in trails for three wheelers to tear through. No one knows who but they had no interest in wildlife but did want a place near home for their kids to ride their wheels. The land was there and nobody was using it so.....
Our farm is 18 miles from Eagle Pass, Texas on us 277. From the city limits past our farm they are selling ten acre ranchett on both sides of the road. Our farm was platted by the previous owner into ten acre plots on both sides of a live creek with large trees.
Someday it too will be high dollar ranchetts, (not by me), it is too valuable! You could give it to the conservancy but they would just sell or trade it to help some project somewhere else! It bugs me a bit as I work hard on the weekends and sometimes I think someone else will enjoy these oak and cypress trees I've planted.
No, when we're gone, we're gone and we have to leave our sweat and blood in the hands of idiots!
Posts: 1887 | From Corpus Christi, Texas | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
![[loco]](graemlins/loco.gif)
![[dizzy]](graemlins/dizzy.gif)
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)
![[tsk]](graemlins/tsk.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[hi]](graemlins/hi.gif)
Mo,yes a cocktail would be in order.
Printer-friendly view of this topic