BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Aug 02 - 02:28 PM

Well, I think this thread has gone on quite long enough. All the possibilities of the topic have been exhausted, and it has degenerated into a battle for the last word between DougR and GUEST. This is amusing, but futile.

It's time to kill this thread, and I know of only one sure way to do it.

SHATNER. BILL SHATNER. WILLIAM THE GREAT. JAMES TIBERIUS KIRK!!!

There. See ya.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 02 - 02:22 PM

Entertainment value.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 06 Aug 02 - 01:40 PM

No, I don't think so GUEST. Anyway, you have gone to considerable effort to describe me as something other than being a "nice guy," so why did you bother?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 02 - 09:23 AM

DougR, isn't the above remark pretty damn disparaging for such a nice guy as yourself? -)

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 04 Aug 02 - 05:52 PM

I suppose you are breathing easier now, right Stewart? Good for you. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Stewart
Date: 04 Aug 02 - 04:51 PM

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/81143_helen4.shtml

It may not be '1984,' after all -- but what about due process?

Sunday, August 4, 2002

By HELEN THOMAS, HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- Thank heavens wiser leaders than President Bush have prevailed, and we are not going to become a nation of official snitches.

In an Orwellian nightmare of a big-brother society, Bush put forth his neat little public-spy plan called Operation TIPS (for Terrorism Information and Prevention System) in his State of the Union address.

It would have deputized millions of people -- including letter carriers, truck drivers, telephone and cable repair workers -- to be snoops for the anti-terrorist campaign. An office in the planned Department of Homeland Security would have overseen these busybody snoop patrols.

The U.S. Postal Service smartly nixed the idea for itself, saying that postal workers have enough to do as it is.

And then the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, headed by Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, shot down the whole onerous proposal for prying into our everyday lives. Fortunately, in this case liberals focusing on protecting civil liberties and conservatives focusing on violations of privacy converged and saved us from the horrors that George Orwell wrote about in "1984."

What could Bush and his team, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, have been thinking of? Have they no memory of the totalitarian "isms" of the 20th century -- fascism, Nazism, communism? Those ideologies were all distinguished by spying and tattling, pitting neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, brother against brother. The system demeaned the spy and the persons spied upon.

One shudders to think that we could have been emulating the East German Stasi, the secret police who kept files on millions of people, or the former Soviet Union's KGB. We would have had a replay of "Darkness at Noon," the 1941 novel that Arthur Koestler wrote in disillusionment with the German communist system of the 1930s.

If Bush's plan had prevailed, the 4th Amendment guarantee of the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" would have been meaningless. We would have become a nation of informers in which suspicion alone could have been proof of wrongdoing. Next would have come massive racial profiling and particularly the targeting of foreigners from nations that we say support terrorism.

All this, of course, would have been done in the name of security.

No one is arguing that we should not have tightened security. But average Americans are surely not prepared to evaluate the activities of their fellow citizens or to judge them.

Imagine if your views don't coincide with those of your neighbor. What then? Do you phone the Department of Homeland Security or the FBI to voice your fears?

The whole process is frightening and calls to mind the "babushkas," the prying grandmothers in the Soviet Union who were suspicious of anything unusual in their limited world and who snitched on their neighbors to the KGB.

It's ironic that many of us under Bush's plan would have been emulating the "good" Europeans in Nazi-dominated countries who were forced to play ball with their oppressors.

Even now, too many of us are remaining silent in the face of Ashcroft's dragnet, which has resulted in the arrests of hundreds of suspects including immigrants who have violated their visa stays. Once imprisoned, countless numbers have been denied access to their families or their lawyers.

Unless there is a public outcry, many Arabs and Muslims will remain in prison indefinitely without even being charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

When he tries to trample on the Constitution in stablishing unprecedented prerogatives for his dministration, Bush is going too far.

Fortunately, the checks and balances on which our government system is based are still operating.

They worked last year when the Defense Department tried to set up an office of strategic information with the stated purpose of disseminating "disinformation" to foreign correspondents.

That dumb idea, which demonstrated an appalling naivete on the part of some Pentagon aides, shocked the media. Once challenged, the officials quickly dropped the plan. In this information age, who could believe that foreign reporters would be so gullible that they could not distinguish between propaganda falsehoods dished out to them and the material given to the U.S. press corps?

The American people undoubtedly are ready to accept some unprecedented restrictions on their freedom and privacy during the war on terrorism. But indiscriminate spying on individuals and deliberate distortions of the truth are never acceptable.

© 1998-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST,Lintfree
Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:22 PM

Cnn.................the propaganda arm of the U.S. shadow government. Freedom of the Press should have included into it the right to be told the truth by the Press. "Control what people hear and read you control the people." And here we just are with hat in hand. "Don't mean to be no bother......'scuse the hat."

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 02 - 05:28 PM

GUEST: Sticks and stones, etc.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Aug 02 - 01:15 PM

Happy to oblige harpgirl!

First place I would start would be the Indymedia Florida website here:

http://www.whoseflorida.com/fl_indy.htm

They do show some activity in Tallahassee. I know Tallahassee is sort of far from the major Fla cities where there is always larger concentrations of activist groups. My guess is the activist community there is fairly small and incestuous (and I don't mean negatively--I mean that the reality of organizing in smaller cities means that we wear many activist hats, ie the peace hat one day, and the anti-racism hat the next).

If you have a strong interest in the war against Iraq, I suggest you get in touch with the folks at the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice, who are listed at the National Network to End the War Against Iraq website:

http://www.endthewar.org/members/florida.htm

Even if there aren't too many activists in your area, they can likely get you connected to people who are already doing great work.

I also have a tremendous amount of respect for the work of Pax Christi, a Catholic social justice organization which is also listed on their page. Here is the national Pax Christi homepage:

http://www.paxchristiusa.org/

It appears that the Fla Coalition I mention above is also an affiliate of War Resisters League. Their website gives the following info:

AFFILIATEGlobal Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

This WRL affiliate was founded in 1992 by the joint efforts of the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice (FCPJ), Citizens for Peace in Space (in Colorado Springs) and NY-based Journalism professor Karl Grossman. This organization acts as a clearinghouse for space issues and provides workshops, speakers and an online newsletter in addition to participating in demonstrations. With the goal of creating an active and well-informed global constituency dedicated to protecting space and Earth from a space-based arms race and ecological destruction, members oppose the ballistic missile defense system being considered by the United States government. Their most visible and successful effort so far has been the 1997 Cancel Cassini Campaign. The Global Action Network International Day of Protest (October 7, 2000) is the current focus. For more information, contact : Bruce K. Gagnon, secretary/coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 90083 Gainsville, FL 32607 [phone] [e-mail] www.space4peace.org

The War Resister's League webpage is here:

http://www.warresisters.org/about_wrl.htm

Here is the Women's International League of Peace & Freedom's local branches list for Florida:

http://www.wilpf.org/branches/branches.htm#fl

I love these women! (One of their in-jokes: "I'm also a member of WILPQ--the Women's International League for Peace & Quiet!")

And their homepage is here:

http://www.wilpf.org/

Here is the local affiliates page for Fellowship of Reconciliation:

http://www.forusa.org/About/locals.html#fl

and their "About" homepage:

http://www.forusa.org/About/

Here is the homepage for American Friends Service Committee (Quakers, though many non-Quakers and non-Christians are involved in their work):

http://www.afsc.org/

and here is the website of their regional office in your area:

http://www.afsc.org/afscsehp.htm

You seem to be about half-way between the Miami & Atlanta offices, but there may be active members in your neck of the woods.

Hopefully, this is enough to get you started. You should read, read, read and educate yourself all you can. I genuinely hope you do become active in this movement. Doing social justice work is about the most meaningful and fulfilling work I've ever done (for me, it is right up there with parenting and my artistic work). It is tremendously energizing to be involved with activist communities doing this work, and it gives a depth and texture to my life that didn't exist before I became an activist. In fact, considering the folk propensity to join with like minded people, I'm often surprised nowadays at how few folkies are involved in social justice communities. If you feel a need for a greater sense of community and camaradery (sp?) in your life, social justice activists can give that to you, just like being in a folk community can.

Good luck to you harpgirl--now get on out there and stop the war! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: harpgirl
Date: 03 Aug 02 - 12:09 PM

...it's true Guest, I am not plugged into anti-war groups. I live in Tallahassee. Give me some leads!

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Aug 02 - 12:01 PM

His defense of you means nothing to me, DougR. I still say you are a right wing nut. Because someone disagrees with my opinion of you, doesn't mean I'm going to change mine to fit theirs.

Now tell us DougR, have you been a good right wing nut, and attended your latest Promise Keepers convention? I understand the theme this year is "Storm the Gates". I'm sure you'd fit right in with them. Since you are a bit of a fish out of water on the folk scene, you might try them for comradeship, since you ain't gettin' much around here with those views of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 03 Aug 02 - 11:50 AM

Hey, L.H., thanks for the defense! I guess I'll have to ease up on poking you (but not for long :>))

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 02 - 11:26 AM

Here is another report by Norman Solomon concerning the inaccuracyof reportage on the Iran weapons inspection spying issue, of interest.

The article on Nightline's staistical proclivities can be found here

Information on the UK's Anit-war Movement can be found here.

Links to anti-war groups in Japan, England, Minnesota, and Ireland can be found on this page.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Aug 02 - 10:07 AM

harpgirl, the anti-war movement is alive and well, and has been working diligently ever since 9/11.

You don't seem to be aware of the fact that a long-established peace and justice movement already existed prior to the so-called "war on terrorism".

There has long been a loose coalition of organizations like War Resisters League, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, etc. But you don't ever hear about them in the mainstream media. Why? Well, here is a link to an old FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) article that demonstrates the dynamic by using one specific case: an analysis of the guests who were on Nightline during the Reagan/Bush administration. You can find the article here:

http://www.fair.org/reports/nightline-guest.html

If you are genuinely interested in doing anti-war work, post here to let me know what city you live in, and I can give you suggestions on how to get plugged in.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: harpgirl
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 11:58 PM

...well, evidently the march is scheduled!
,
http://www.internationalanswer.org

I hope it's not too late!

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: harpgirl
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 11:52 PM

...I'm quite serious about this, BTW, kat! I'm surprised it hasn't begun in earnest, however; I believe that a serious anti-war movement would be ruthlessly stifled by the current administration...We need some new anti-war songs to protest the annihilation of the Iraqi people by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 11:43 PM

I'm with you, harpgirl!!! Sanest thing I've heard in quite a while!

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: harpgirl
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 11:37 PM

Why don't we to start another ANTI-WAR movement?! I propose another March on Washington!

NO NO NO MORE! WE DON"T WANT IRAQI WAR!

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 11:12 PM

Hey, GUESTS, Doug R is not a "right wing nut", he's just a conservative, okay? I almost always disagree with him on politics, but I like him as a human being...that's life. Let's not get carried away with the name calling here...

LEJ - When I said that the USA is an "outlaw nation", I was thinking of many, many past aggressions against Native Americans, British North America, Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Lybia, and oh, about 20 other countries maybe... I will add that by that definition Russia also fits the label of outlaw nation, as do Great Britain, China, France, Japan, Germany, Argentina, North Korea, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Egypt, Syria, and so on, and so on...

It's really not that unusual.

I was just pointing out that the USA has also violated international law and committed aggression on various occasions (with all kinds of marvelous excuses and justifications, of course)...and it has also defied/ignored rulings by the World Court regarding attacks on Nicarauga.

Therefore, the USA is in no moral position to decide that others are "outlaw nations". It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The USA has been engaged in CIA-sponsored assassinations and covert actions in many parts of the world, and continues to do so. Those are illegal, criminal actions, from the point of anyone on the receiving end.

I agree that Iraq has behaved as an outlaw, no problem...but so has the USA, repeatedly.

There exists no effective international means of doing anything about it, at least in the case of the USA, and that is an even bigger problem than Saddam Hussein, since it has more far-ranging effects on the world than he does.

I realize that you never implied the USA would nuke Iraq...it was other people who got on that subject, I responded to their comments, and it caused some thread drift about the various nuclear weapons issues.

Whether Saddam was involved in 911...we'll probably never know for sure. It's too hard separating facts from disinformation and propaganda.

If I were dealing with Saddam, I would make sure that his neighbours are adequately protected (which I believe they are at this point). I would deny him weapons and technical assistance, but I would not deny his population food, medicine, and the normal benefits of peaceful trade. I would talk with him, rather than threatening him, and see if it led somewhere useful. It well might, because Saddam has far more to gain by talking than by fighting. He can only lose if he fights.

If he is indeed mentally unstable, then that throws a wild card in the mix. I don't know if he is, and I'm in no position to know. I guess if I were the President (God forbid...) then I would possibly have some more info about it...or maybe not. Who knows? We all try and figure out what's going on as best we can, but it ain't easy.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 08:29 PM

LH:

Like individuals, nations have their vectors of rationality, dramatization, psychosis, and thir stock of cultural attitudes for and against optimum future well being. The content of these things -- the names of gods or the characters in the myths -- do not weigh much in the scheme of things; what does weigh much is the impact of beliefs on actions and decisions in selecting futures for individuals, coimmunities, nations, species and the world as a whole.

We have pretty well settled on the notion that criminal conduct by an individual sharply impacts their rights as a member of the community -- felons cannot buy guns and rapists are generally shunned by their neighbors.

Nations are not exempt fromt he constraints of fundamental human sanity, which below a certain threshold is not just a cultural idiosyncracy bit a core global value. Those who have demonstrated abuse suffer consequences imposed by the community of nations; Japan has no Army. Iraq has sharp constraints on its economy. This is not just the USA forcing people to see things their way -- it is a natural pattern of development in groups of people. Churches excommunicate, nations imprison or banish, and counties move their offenders across the county line.

Saddam Hussein, by this line of reasoning, does not have the same right to develop weapons of mass destruction as any other nation. He has demonstrated the ability to take unilateral destructive action against other nations on a large scale without provocation.

While I grant you the US has done some really awful and stupid things over the last century or so, including the Indian, Mexican, Spanish, and Vietnam wars and countless smaller-scale manipulations, this doesn't change the merits of the argument as regards Iraq. It makes it less tenable emotionally, sure; but the merits of the case are still pretty plain.

I share your abhorrence at the contemplation of invasion of foreign soil if the truth is that it is unilateral. But there seems to be a strong argument that Hussein actually is not a non-aggressor; that he is raising the capability of mass destruction in his labs (possibly) and that he participated in the aggressions of 9-11-01 -- this generation's 'day of infamy' -- with financial and logistic aid,.

I don't know the facts about these accusations. They are consistent with his history as a maker of war, against Iran, Kuwait, and the U.S.. But that doesn't make them facts.
If they are facts, hwoever, it seems pretty clear the nations of the world have a psychotic renegade on their hands, not just someone exercising their national prerogatives. If this is the case it would be extremely unwise not to deal with it as it is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 08:09 PM

DougR, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but no one in the news business considers Fox News credible or legitimate.

Or liberal, despite your protests to the contrary. The thought of who and what you have in mind as representing a liberal voice/slant to news on Fox is a bit mind boggling, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 07:21 PM

Sure, DougeR, exercise your right to tell them...I'll just see yours and raise ya at least one by all the others I will get to register their opinions!*g*

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 06:40 PM

Yep, Amos, his name is John Shaddeg. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST,spectator/citizen/societal member
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 03:22 PM

War is the failure of human reason; my country is in the position of being able to truly put mankind on the road to ending war because of its overwhelming power is all aspects of human culture; instead it promotes it as a legitimate use of power. A truly outstanding act would be for my country to state that war as a human institution will not leave the planet; if war we must, then keep it on earth and no weapons of anykind will be placed outside the atmosphere, including instruments that coordinate and manage weapons on the ground; surveillance and communication for war purposes cannot be stopped, but no weapons outside the atmospher -- period. This act alone would be bold enough to begin the path to real world peace, if not the end of isolated criminal acts by individuals/groups/states.

IMHO. Back to the Arts you practice and perform so well. Love you all.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 02:15 PM

DougR, are you sure you still have a congressman? LOL!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 02:10 PM

You REALLY want me to do that, kat? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 01:56 PM

Just stepping in for a moment to urge all of you who have so much to say to PLEASE TELL IT TO YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE, TOO!!! None of this matters if we don't carry it forward and tell them how we feel.

Thank you,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 01:39 PM

L.H. I assure you The Fox News Network is a legitimate news source and does not rely on sensationalism to report the news. You should consider the source of those comments and the political leanings of the person who uttered them ...just as you do mine. Lefties probably don't like the network because it DOES present both the liberal and the conservative point of view. They see no legitimate reason for the conservative view to be reported at all. Yet they take great pride in wallowing in their liberalism, and purport to support free speech.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 01:21 PM

Anyone who sees the same degree of nuclear responsibility on Saddam's part that they see on the part of the US is not much of a pragmatist himself.

I dunno about how pragmatic such a view might be, LEJ, but it certainly wouldn't qualify as realistic -- he already demonstrated that with his tanks in Kuwait. To extend what you said to LH, the invasion of Kuwait was unlawful, regardless of justifications offered on moral or historic grounds. The fact that Iraq considers Kuwait "really part of Iraq" is not a legal position.

Imagine that "Americans consider, for example, that Mexico and Canada should become annexed to the United States, adding their multiple states to our fifty. It makes sense, and was always inherent in our Manfest Destiny doctrine which is time-honored. We should never have stopped at California. Any laws that don't take this into account are of course ill-conceived and can be safely ignored".

Doesn't quite add up, does it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 12:46 PM

Ok, Little Hawk. Let me address several points you make.

Sadam is a pragmatist. He might be. His use of extremist rhetoric and financing of Jihad causes may be to merely strengthen his position. But his desperation to hang on is his prime motive, and I think he'd do anything to maintain his grasp. He certainly isn't a realist, for a realist would have understood that the Coalition wasn't going to back down after the bombing began. A realist would have withdrawn his ground forces to avoid their unecessary destruction. A realist who was determined to go down fighting might have also shorn up his western flank to avoid the greatest mass flanking movement since Patton. He may be pragmatic, but his pragmatism is overruled by stubborness, stupidity, and meanness.

The US is an outlaw nation. My understanding of your point is that you are condemning America because you resent our values, culture, government, and society. You think this country is immoral and unethical. You have a perfect right to express those opinions, but your opinion doesn't add up to an indictment as a criminal or outlaw nation. Outlaw means to exist in violation of existing international laws. I have sited in a previous post the reasons Iraq is an outlaw nation. It isn't based on my opinion, but on fact. Your statement reminds me of the man who compares an armed robber to a wealthy landlord : How can we condemn the robber while letting the landlord, who gouges his tenants for the rent, go free? Well, we can condemn the robber because he has in fact violated a law. The landlord, whether or not we dislike his motives, hasn't.

We will nuke Iraq in order to prevent them building nukes. I never said or implied this, and its a clear attempt to carry my argument to a ridiculous extreme. What I said is the development of nuclear weapons in third world countries should be controlled by an international body under ordained agreed upon controls, such as the one governing atmospheric nuclear tests.

All nations have an equal right to build their own nuclear weapons. This is quite similar to Right to Bear Arms arguments made in this country. Anyone should have the right to bear nukes? Even in my NRA-infested country, their is a realization that the insane and the convicted criminal element should be prohibited from possessing rocket-launchers.

meriken says that "the Bushes" are criminals in some parts of the World? Other than Iraq and other countries operating already outside of International Law, where? I'm know Bush fan, but I have a problem with arguments based solely on emotion.

Finally, what is the basis for the US taking a holier-than-thou position on nuclear proliferation? This country has held nuclear weapons for 57 years without using them,including several years when no other country on Earth held them, and when direct confrontation with the USSR and others could have prompted their use. This country is not under the control of Bush or any other one term anomaly : It is controlled by a democratically elected government of checks and balances which maintain the national course regardless of its executive at any given time. Anyone who sees the same degree of nuclear responsibility on Saddam's part that they see on the part of the US is not much of a pragmatist himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST,meriken
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 10:07 AM

LEJ:

Saddam is certainly a criminal, but so are the Bushes, in some parts of the world.

Iraq spent approx. 2 billion dollars on their military last year. We spent close to 400 billion. Where's the threat (Russia was second with 60 billion dollars)?

GWB and his friends will lie to you at every turn, just as Clinton and his friends did. Buy no crap coming out of DC, especially now.

"If the king loves music, there is little wrong in the land."

-MENCIUS

This king doesn't love music.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 09:20 AM

OK DougR, I'm a gutless chicken shit too. But you have the ability to exonerate yourself here and now in the presence of your member friends with names, who also have come to know you for blowing hot air and making outrageous claims with absolutely no substance to them. Just like Fox News does.

We already know you are the Mudcat resident right wing nut DougR. I was just offering you a chance to redeem yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 08:27 AM

Gosh, Peg, Fox sounds exactly like the Toronto Sun...the dumbest newspaper in Canada. Its editors, I assume, wake up and cry every morning because Canada has not yet become the 51st state of the USA...

They certainly give that impression anyway. America would have to start burning millions of white virgins in concentration camps before they would get the notion to offer any criticism of US policy.

Curiously enough, the Toronto Sun is the chosen paper of the most poorly educated, the unemployed, the welfare cases, those at the bottom of the heap...check out any donut shop and see what 99% of such people are reading. What is truly odd about that is: the Sun constantly dumps on those very people, specially welfare cases...they just HATE welfare cases...yet those are the very people who READ the Sun.

Ironical, isn't it? Of course, the Sun dumps on intellectuals too, and they DON'T read it, except in utter contempt.

The front page normally is emblazoned with an almost naked woman...or a hideous murder incident...or something else violent or sensational.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 03:09 AM

Welcome back, Peg, I've missed your sarcasim!

GUEST: I will be happy to continue dialogue with you when you decide to stop hiding behind the "Guest" handle. You have the audicity to talk about "gutless chicken shits?" How about one who doesn't have the conviction of his/her own beliefs enough to identify oneself? Hmm?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Peg
Date: 02 Aug 02 - 12:03 AM

amongst my pals, we refer to Fox News as "Faux News." The Boston affiliate begins every broadcast (and continues through the first half hour or so) with the most sordid, violent, perverse headlines they can find (murders, kidnappings, rapes, assaults, terrible accidents, kids left in hot cars, you name it) and if you're lucky they might toss in an international news story for five seconds; then on to the next horrific white-trash scandal.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 11:07 PM

You know what DougR? Only a gutless chicken shit hides behind this lame ass "anyone who disagrees with me has a biased point of view" you are always using as your facade to hide behind when you start talking out your ass in these threads..

How about having the guts to stand behind your words for a change, and tell us where you are getting information to contradict all the major news services on this issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 06:48 PM

GUEST: FOX News doesn't qualify according to YOUR definition. I have a feeling any news service that offered a balanced reporting of the news, or any news that did not coincide with your POV wouldn't qualify as far as you are concerned.

If you accept as "proof" something you read in any newspaper, that says a lot about your standards. You have presented no "proof" to us that the top brass does not support the administration's policies. You have produced gossip.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 06:36 PM

Well DougR, I'll stand corrected as soon as you prove the reports in the Washington Post wrong with YOUR information.

And no, DougR, Fox News DOESN'T count as a legitimate news source, so you'll have to do better than "I heard it on Fox".

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 04:26 PM

LEJ - Saddam has to deal with the after effects of such a conflict too, and that's why HE is very unlikely to do anything of the sort. As I said before, he's a pragmatist, not a religious fanatic. I agree that religious fanatics are deeply worrisome, because they're not rational. Pragmatists are worrisome also, when they have that "window of opportunity" I mentioned earlier, because they ARE rational. Saddam has no such window, and he knows it.

How do we deal with outlaw nations? Tough question. LEJ, the USA itself is an outlaw nation. It has been throughout most of its history. Ask anyone in Latin America or elsewhere where the big Red, White & Blue hammer has come down economically and militarily. How do we deal with that? You've got me...no one has found a way to deal with it, because this world is ruled by force, not reason, and no one has force to match the USA.

As I said, there is no existing world authority with the legal clout, the military clout, and/or the moral authority to do anything whatsoever about the USA...or any other really big military power.

Then there are the smaller outlaw nations...and they are numerous. Some of them are "enemies" of the USA...some are allies of the USA. The world can't do much about that either, since the world is at the mercy of the USA. One can occasionally patch together a coalition to go after a small outlaw nation...when the USA so desires, and ONLY then. That's power politics in action, not justice.

The USA is not the world, and it does not have the world's interests at heart, but strictly its own interests. Yet it acts as if it were the center of the world...and the rest of the planet just an opportunity for development or a nuisance to be stamped out of existence.

I find it ironical that the biggest outlaw tars others with the term "outlaw nations", but it's typical of the self-serving rhetoric of politicians when they are after something.

Regarding weapons of mass destruction...it seems to me that every nation has the "right" to build them, if it can...but NOT to use them on someone. That's the same way I feel about guns, machetes, etc... It is clear that one sovereign nation has the same right as any other sovereign nation to build whatever it is capable of building...as long as it does not use it harmfully against someone else. This is so obvious that it should hardly need to be said. If you were a small country, and a bigger country told you: we can build item X, Y, or Z, but you cannot, because we are more important than you, more moral than you, and more valuable than you...what would you do? You'd get royally pissed off, that's what, and you'd build it anyway...secretly, if necessary.

You can't go attacking people pre-emptively for doing the very same thing you have already done (building weapons of mass destruction). If so, India should have nuked Pakistan before the Pakistanis completed their first bomb, right? The world should also have nuked Isreal before they got theirs ready, etc...etc...etc...

How can one country have the arrogance to say: "These are the rules. The rules apply only to those whom we say they apply to, and certainly NEVER to us. We are exempt, because we MAKE the rules."

That is precisely what the USA keeps on doing. You have to be born outside the USA to appreciate just how extraordinary such an attitude is.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 04:15 PM

What about Sean Hennety? Fred Barnes? Bill Crystal? Let's even the playing field, LEJ!

GUEST: Uh, think you better check your facts on the top Brass at the Pentagon. Don't believe everything you read in the NY Times and the Washington Post. I doubt either newspaper carries "Drabble" in their comics either.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 03:16 PM

OK, Doug. Limbaugh can go, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 03:02 PM

Righteeoo there DougR. We know it's "full speed ahead to Baghdad" for you. And about three other right wing nuts. Not even the top military brass supports the plan, but let's not let that stand in the way of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 02:37 PM

I certainly agree that you chose the "right" people and publications to tour Iraq's war making capabilities. Good old left-leaning liberals all, LEJ. How about a "fair and balanced report" from Fox News Network, hmmm?

GUEST: If anyone on the Mudcat is not aware that the U.S. dropped the first atomic bombs in history, they shouldn't be out of their cages. Yes, a lot of people were killed. People are killed in wars. A lot of lives in the Allied forces and the Japanese population in particular were SAVED as a result of that action. I know you will never be convinced of it, but what the hey!

I haven't heard or read of anyone in the U. S. government that is proposing that we "Nuke" Iraq anyway. Bunch of nonsense.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 12:47 PM

Of course, Sadam could defuse the entire situation by making a big show of actually complying with the agreement he signed after losing the war. Invite in CNN, Time Magazine, and Dan Rather to tour the suspect facilities, thus showing the World he's not producing doomsday weapons.

And Hawk, sure Israel could toast Iraq in a nuke-out. And maybe every other mid-east power who are hiding nukes under the carpet could jump in to the fray. That's THEIR problem, right? We only have to deal with the little aftereffects like a toxic atmosphere, radiation poisoning on a world-wide scale, nuclear winter, a vast poisoned desert from Italy to Southeast Asia.

How to deal with outlaw nations who threaten the stability of the world with nuclear weapons? Do you appeal to their better nature, hoping that reason will convince them to pull the plug on their new toys? Maybe you could bribe them not to use them?

It is past time when an international forum should have been created to deal with nuclear proliferation among third world countries consumed by religious blood-feuds with their neighbors, or simply led by monomaniacs who would rather push the button than be deposed. I think the United States has a moral obligation to its people and to the rest of the world to lead the way in creating such an organization.

Now...go ahead and take some pot shots at me. Then show me a better way.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 11:58 AM

I'm not concerned with who won the A bomb race. I know who the parties were in WWII who were working on the technology, and who the parties are now working on the technology.

But none of that changes the most chilling fact of all:

We won the race, and used the bombs the minute we had the ability to do so. We will also be the first to the finish line to develop "theatre nuclear weapons" purportedly to be used only on the battlefield.

The so-called "war against Iraq" will be the test phase of the use of those weapons, just as Nagasaki and Hiroshima were.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 11:22 AM

Today's Times discusses the debate on the Hill as to whether the Executive Branch does or does not already have the right to launch this pre-meditated violent excursion into Iraq without further permission from the Congress of the United States.

This man looks more and more outlaw the longer he stays in office.

Unless there is credible evidence of "mass destruction" weaponry in Iraq, or some other concrete aggression against the US, we are doping something we haven't done since the Indian Wars -- openly discussing intentional encroachment against another country with whom we are not at war.

The only decent thing to do, if this folly is going to go ahead, is to have a declaration of war issued by Congress against the person of Saddam and the nation he leads. No, I take it back, that would not be decent. But at least it would be more honest than this shell-game, in which the stakes are so high for so many.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 10:49 AM

A lot of interesting points there, GUEST. I wouldn't say, though, that Saddam "defeated" George Bush the elder, rather that he took a nasty defeat himself (inevitably)...but avoided being destroyed in the process. Saddam is one of the world's great survivors.

I particularly like your point about America's "enemies" merely being "dictators who aren't under our control". Exactly. Dictators who ARE under America's control are called "friends and allies".

The USA was the only country in World War II capable of completing a successful A-bomb project. The Germans made a pretty feeble attempt in that direction...notably discouraged by Hitler, who wasn't even interested in the concept! Incredible, considering he was developing very effective V-2 rockets which would have been perfect for delivering the bomb to the target without any possibility of interception.

The British would have liked to develop A-bombs, but they didn't have the monetary or material resources to do it during the war.

It hadn't even occurred to Stalin, and would probably not have occurred to him later, had not the Americans done it first, obliging him to catch up fast! This was why some of the key nuclear physicists begged Truman NOT to openly test or use the bomb...in other words, not to open Pandora's box, and create a new and terrible arms race.

One wonders what would have happened if they had kept it under wraps? Unfortunately, given the general climate in central Europe, I fear that a 3rd World War would have arisen between the Russians and the West, fought on a conventional basis...and that would have caused many millions of casualties, even without the bomb.

The A-bomb, in a peculiar way, prevented that by simply raising the stakes too high for anyone to contemplate.

The domestic health of the Soviet Union was set back tremendously by the huge effort they put into achieving nuclear parity, and that was a tragedy for the Russian people. It would have been set back similarly by a conventional war between Russian and the West.

Looks like a no-win situation, whatever way you add it up.

The only win-win situation would have been: mutual friendship and respect between nations despite their differing philosophies, trade, good relations, and disarmament on both sides...

Naw...WAY too sensible, right? They kill people who are that sensible.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 09:09 AM

We are coming up on the anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th & 9th respectively. If there is ANY anniversary which begs us NOT to repeat our own follies of war, it is this one.

I repeat: the United States of America is the ONLY nation to use nuclear weapons against another country.

WE DID THIS (WARNING-THESE PICTURES ARE VERY DISTURBING):

http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burns1.html

AND THIS:

http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/RETAIN/burns3.html

Here is a photographic essay, now published on the web, of Yosuke Yamahata's photographs taken the day after the bombing of Nagasaki:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/mainn.html

Also, the Avalon Law Project at Yale provides chilling reading about our "courageous act which saved thousands of American lives" here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm

And finally, here is a link to Howard Zinn's article in the Progressive magazine, from the August 2000 issue, titled "The Bombs of August":

http://www.progressive.org/zinn0800.htm

WE are responsible for the nuclear madness we have unleashed on this planet, not Sadam Hussein. To suggest that we now begin "pre-emptive" attacks against our enemies who may one day have nuclear capabilities, while we prepare a new generation of nuclear weapons technology to use against the rest of the world, goes beyond all sense of human decency, even in the "good war" philosophy.

What possible good could come from the United States unilaterally attacking it's "enemies" (which are just dictators who aren't under our control)? Answer: no good. Such a provocative, heinous attack against another sovereign nation, simply because it's despot defeated the father of our despot, is something no democratic nation can defend. Yet that is exactly what the war mongerers are doing.

Fight for peace, not for war.

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: DougR
Date: 01 Aug 02 - 02:23 AM

Far out, Bruce! Yep, I think that makes a lot of sense. Bush goads Saddam into taking out New York City so that the U. S. can invade Iraq. I seem not the only one to be dipping into the cactus buds.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Orwellian Newspeak in Amerika - 2002
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Jul 02 - 10:18 PM

Question: What is the likelyhood that the U.S. will actually launch an unprovoked preemptive strike against Iraq?

Answer: Zero!

The fact is that Dubya et al are fully aware that most of the world and even most U.S. citizens would be totally outraged if they were to launch such an attack without provocation. So, what they need is some provocation. They have to goad Saddam Hussein into "taking the first punch". That is precisely what is happening with the current spate of "newsleaks" about "invasion plans" etc. They are trying to convince Saddam that they're really going to do it, in hopes that he will feel threatened enough to take the first shot. And, it will probably work because Hussein is far too much of a hot-head to realize that he is only being baited. He'll do something rash and stupid in "self-defense" and give Dubya all the justification he needs to go ahead with the plan that hasn't been leaked to the press.

Bruce