Diane
Yes, I'd read that piece earlier (and Tartarin linked it somewhere on site as well). Sobering, no?
dys
Some few do, but as a culture we don't really even notice them. They are far away, don't happen to live on top of oil, and they are the wrong color.
That is, of course, a World Trade Center filled with children every day.
Thanks, dys.
My God, how can we live in a country whose leaders don't even consider this worth mention?
Diane -- I remember that Ivanwald piece. Takes Harpers ages to put those things online, so what I really remember is typing up great wads of it for posting, I think, on A2K (possibly Abuzz). For me it was one of the most horrific examples of the tight organization of the Right, something the left is not "blessed" with and is the real reason the Right scares me. What we don't want is this totalitarian, militaristic and pseudo-spiritual stuff driving the more loosely knit, diverse Dems to copy their modi operandi. Instead, we need to figure out how to expose this huge creature to the public and then sever each of its tentacles, one by one, in full view.
Snood the interesting thing is i first heard this listening to Bill Gates last night and checked it out with WHO. Bill said the cost of meds for the malaria is 9 cents a day. but you know black kids in africa, its just not politically correct to care. and yeah i have an "attitude"
dyslexia wrote:Snood the interesting thing is i first heard this listening to Bill Gates last night and checked it out with WHO. Bill said the cost of meds for the malaria is 9 cents a day. but you know black kids in africa, its just not politically correct to care. and yeah i have an "attitude"
Well, maybe you have an attitude, but what you say is undeniable:
Black lives in Africa are considered beneath notice for the leadership of this country, and alot of their constituency.
Belief in a omnipotent God has made America, the great country it is. :wink:
About the Jeffrey Sharlet piece.......... This is the way this sub culture works. They consider their "message" takes precedence over everything. It the "work" must be done in secret, then all the better.
For instance, in school prayer groups, (yes, this is against the law, but it's done anyway) they don't hesitate to frighten children who come from families less fanatical than themselves, telling them that their parents will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus as they urge the children to do. "Just get down on your knees and ask Jesus into your heart. Admit you're a sinner and depend only on Jesus who died for your sins." When the parents finally discover their child is scared sh!tless, they complain that someone has taken it upon themselves to take religious teaching out of the hands of the parents, traumatizing their children. The deed, of course it rationalized as "necessary" because the proselytizer believes he/she will be held accountable before God if s/he do not witness to the "unsaved." This includes coercing the parents by frightening the children. They is a dangerous lot. And they'll always be with us. Our only defense is to expose them to public view.
Tartarin, yes, they must be exposed! My question is: why haven't they already been exposed? After the Sharlet piece, why didn't the major papers follow through and expose this secretive, well-connected organization that has operated in the shadows for decades? Could it be that they have so many high-level connections? We have seen the media shy away from anything controversial since before the war started and during the war they proved to be gutless wonders.
Like you, this kind of thing is the real reason the right scares me. It is a hidden government and now that we have GW as president, these organizations are moving in for the kill.
Lola, sometimes I think people like us, who have seen fundamentalism in action, are the only ones who truly understand how relentless and dangerous it is.
The Family is, in its own words, an "invisible" association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as "members," as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.
Diane -- I was reading the long profile of Karl Rove in the latest New Yorker just now and found myself putting it down before finishing it. There is something creepy about Nicholas Lemann (a terrific journalist, just doing his job, not to be blamed) simply recounting the things Rove has done to get where he is, and the things he is prepared to do. It's like watching the media report on the invasion of Iraq. It makes me thing of people who can quietly talk about torture of animals or people as though it were an everyday affair, or discuss the efficiency of Hitler's round-up of the Jews. These are all things we seem to take for granted. Insufficient moral outrage. Those who express any moral outrage just get laughed at.
The media are, of course, mediators, in the middle. We need to have a situation in which there is nothing in the middle, nothing between Americans and the reality of our actions, for truth to have any meaning or emotional impact.
Your entire question proceeds from the idea that GWB's religious faith is sincere rather than a transparent front to rubber stamp his
agenda.
I don't believe he has real religious faith or convictions.
Who knows the mind of God better than the Devil?
BP
Nice to see you. I don't agree however. It's true that in America there isn't a chance in hell one can move very far politically without the 'I believe' chant, Bush's faith isn't atypical in America, and the consistency of his behavior and words on the matter suggest this part of what he says is forthright.
I wish I could believe that blatham. How about some specific examples.
If his "faith' is so atypical than how does he enjoy the approval rating that at least the Bush owned media reports, and how did he get into the White House to begin with, all old arguments about the USSC aside.
Does this mean the National consciousness longs for a theocratic leader on some level? Please say no.
No one will become president by courting a single demographic. President Bush has not hidden the fact that he is a christian, but at the same time he dared not flaunt that fact to keep from alienating other potential voters. America has no desire for a theocratic leader, you can safely put that thought aside, but a strong leader that has a firm base of morality and a certain level of beaurocratic (sp?) finess as well as a bit of charisma is what people will vote for.
But christianity and morality are often mutually exclusive. Seriously.
The thought of Bush or any of his rightwingnut lackey's with a strong ethical or moral base makes me snicker.......
Agreed, but who would you say has a better grasp of morality, Bush or Clinton?
Morality is a religious shell game for the suckers . . .
To the extent that the Shrub puts faith in people like Rummy, the answer to this thread is: "Yes."
BP...no, I said his faith 'wasn't' atypical...born again is a great american tradition, first births being not quite up to par.
As to a longing for theocracy in America...sure, for lots of Americans that would be seen as ideal, though they'd call it something else, like 'traditional'.
McGentrix
That question you've asked is not one you want to delve into with any level of sophistication, or you're in deep trouble.
