« Sssshhh! (Polly Sigh) | Main | Another Reminder of Priorities »
Papal Authoritarianism and American Democracy
[Editors Note: Part of our ongoing Sunday series examining the intersection of religion and politics and its relationship to our present state of democracy, written exclusively for the DCP, by Matthew Carnicelli]
In one of the seminal moments of the 1960 Presidential campaign, John F. Kennedy sought to assure the American people that he would not take orders from a Pope. In a famous address to Southern Baptist leaders, Kennedy affirmed:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
John Kennedy would be greatly distressed by recent events. The 2004 Presidential Election was one in which not only American Fundamentalist and Evangelical ministers sought to portray President Bush as God’s candidate, but also one in which at least four Catholic bishops sought to influence the outcome of the political process by announcing that they would refuse Communion to John Kerry. I suspect that this latter development would also have greatly alarmed the Founders and Framers.
As Adam Nagourney describes in an April 4, 2005 story for The New York Times, New Pope Could Influence Political Life in America, the Catholic Church has a history of becoming involved in American politics. This history goes back as far as the 1930s, and the church’s support of anti-poverty measures like Social Security. Hence, Catholic involvement in American politics is not a recent innovation.
When its hierarchy reflects a cross-section of American opinion, and its activism is restricted to gently advocating for programs and policies that enjoy broad support, perhaps an attempt to influence parishioners would not represent undue interference in the political life of a free people. However, this was not the case during John Paul II’s papacy.
As Hans Küng, a Catholic Priest, Vatican II participant, and eminent Swiss theologian, described in a March 26 critique of the Pope’s tenure for Der Speigel, entitled The Pope’s Contradictions, the Vatican hierarchy that John Paul II erected hardly represented a cross-section of Catholic thought:
The criteria for the appointment of a bishop is not the spirit of the gospel or pastoral open-mindedness, but rather to be absolutely loyal to the party line in Rome. Before their appointment, their fundamental conformity is tested based on a curial catalog of questions and they are sacrally sealed through a personal and unlimited pledge of obedience to the Pope that is tantamount to an oath to the "Fuehrer."
It is worth noting that although still a Catholic Priest, Küng was barred in 1979 from describing himself as a “Catholic” theologian by this Pope. Kung drew the ire of church authorities when he chose to challenge the peculiar Vatican claim of Papal infallibility in matters of faith. So, Küng clearly must be seen as both a man with an ax to grind but also quite representative of the kind of progressive theologian that John Paul II deliberately purged from the hierarchy of his church.
Küng has much more to say in this article about the late Pope’s willingness to impose his theological views on the political life of nations.
In the papal campaign of evangelization, which centers on a sexual morality that is out of step with the times, women, in particular, who do not share the Vatican's position on controversial issues like birth control, abortion, divorce and artificial insemination are disparaged as promoters of a "culture of death". As a result of its interventions – in Germany, for example, where it sought to influence politicians and the episcopacy in the dispute surrounding the issue of abortion counseling – the Roman Curia creates the impression that it has little respect for the legal separation of church and state. Indeed, the Vatican (using the European People's Party as its mouthpiece) is also trying to exert pressure on the European Parliament by calling for the appointment of experts, in issues relating to abortion legislation, for example, who are especially loyal to Rome. Instead of entering the social mainstream everywhere by supporting reasonable solutions, the Roman Curia, through its proclamations and secret agitation (through nuntiatures, bishops' conferences and "friends"), is in fact fueling the polarization between the pro-life and pro-choice movements, between moralists and libertines.
I would also point that this same intensely political Pope issued an edict requiring that Father Robert F. Drinan, a five time United States Congressman and liberal Democrat, not run for re-election – claiming that service in the clergy was inconsistent with politics. In light of John Paul’s constant agitation on behalf of political issues that interested him, I believe that reasonable men and women not blinded by notions of Papal infallibility would find this edict hypocritical in the extreme.
The America that John Kennedy advocated for in his race for the White House represented an ideological ideal. The speech was a bold stroke, and might have swayed enough wary voters to help him capture the Presidency. But American ministers and priests have been involved in the political process since the beginning of the republic.
As much as I vehemently disagree with Pat Robertson’s or Jerry Falwell’s theological and political views, I can see no fundamental problem with their involvement in American politics. For every ten Robertsons and Falwells, I wish we had but one Martin Luther King. And all three of these men rose to influential positions in their respective communities through an organically American process. But is this also true of the American Bishops and Cardinals of John Paul II’s Catholic Church? I think not, and there lies the problem.
According to Küng and other progressive Catholic thinkers, by emphasizing ideological parameters above all others in the selection of bishops, cardinals, and other high Church officials, John Paul II was able to pack the Catholic executive in much the same way that George W. Bush would like to pack the Supreme Court. No diversity of opinion, or freedom of conscience, is permitted – even for former Vatican II participants who well remember Pope John XXIII, and the reforms and spirit that he sought to bring to his church. Based on the history of his Papacy, one could argue that while Karol Wojtyla physically left Soviet-dominated Poland, its authoritarian mindset accompanied him to Rome.
I’m forced to conclude that John Paul II’s appointees here in America – and especially those Bishops who tried to influence a Presidential Election – must be regarded as ideological agents of a foreign national who deliberately sought to impose his parochial views on the citizens of a nation born in revolution, and nurtured by freedom of conscience and intellectual liberty.
John Paul's colossal disconnect with American sensibilities and ideals may also help explain, to respond to a question that Bill O’Reilly was asking his audience about the other day, why only approximately twenty-five percent of Catholics in the country even bother to attend Mass. Americans love celebrities as much as any people, and John Paul II was a rock star among religious leaders. But the proof of his real impact as a theologian, or lack of an impact, may lie in the empty pews - both here and in Western Europe.
As someone who left the Catholic Church during John Paul II’s tenure for reasons of conscience, I no longer expect a say in official Church business. But as an American, I retain my right to object to the meddling of any foreign national – be it the head of the U.N., the WTO, or the next Pope – in this nation’s political process. I pray that progressive American Catholics share my concern, and are prepared to loudly insist that the Vatican and its ideological appointees either keep to the center or get out of the way.
Great article Matthew.
I am not a Catholic but as a former homeschooler, I am sensitive to the fact that Catholics have felt persecuted unfairly by other religions.
However, I am an American and in America, we do not have a religiously controlled government. Our government represents all people of all parties, but they should never be interfered with by any country or religion.
This piece is so clear, so direct, so IMPORTANT. I hope it turns up on other blogs...and beyond.
Enjoyed that very much, Matt!
I hope that Cardinal Ratzinger is not the next Pope - he muddies the waters as he is anti abortion, anti euthenasia but thinks the death penalty and wars can be ok. A Pope should be consistent as a Buddhist, I think, or what's the point?! Life is life is life. The Protestant fundies definitely are not consistent - Onward Christian Soldiers - they take that literally.
As a television (esp "news") denouncer, I still take pleasure in promoting this tv show. Watch it before it is eliminated.
FRONTLINE
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/
- This Week: "Karl Rove -- The Architect" (60 min.), Tuesday, Apr. 12 at 9pm on PBS (check local listings) President Bush called Karl Rove "the architect" -- a way of thanking him for his role in the president's 2004 reelection. And we couldn't think of a better title for this week's FRONTLINE.
However, Karl Rove is much more than a political guru who guided Bush and Republicans to victory. With his appointment as deputy chief of staff in charge of coordinating domestic policy, economic policy, national security and homeland security, he is the single most powerful and ambitious policy adviser in the White House.
For this report, producer Michael Kirk set out to look for answers to these questions: Who is Karl Rove? How does he operate? How does he work with President Bush? And what does Rove's new position mean for America? You might say that Kirk found out that 'past is prologue.'
Rove, who has been called a genius in the nuts and bolts of organizing political campaigns, has developed a tough methodology for winning elections. And it may prove useful in the bigger battle over the president's ambition to change the political landscape of the country. Rove will be found at the center of the campaigns to change social security, the tort system and taxes. He will also be delivering on the cultural hot button issues that are so important to the conservative religious base of the Republican Party, a base Rove courted in order to win.
Producer Kirk follows the history of the way Rove has positioned his candidates before on controversial issues. And as you'll see in this
report, which is a co-production with The Washington Post, for over three decades Rove has honed his skills at hardball politics, using
wedge issues, surrogates and attack ads. But Rove's methods are only a part of the story. His tactics have been in service of a long-standing belief in the need to reshape the American political landscape. And in George Bush, Karl Rove has found the perfect candidate -- one with his own ambitions to leave a large legacy.
Visit our web site where you will find more background on Rove's life and career, interviews with top Republican strategists and Washington
Post reporters, and the opportunity to express your opinion about the program, at http://www.pbs.org/frontline/shows/architect
Matthew,
I look forward to your Sunday posts and am never disappointed. Excellent Article. Are you going to submit it as an op-ed piece?
I heard part of Bush's radio address and noticed that he managed to link The Pope, Life, Freedom and AntiCommunism with a bit of simple language reflecting convoluted logic.
Since the Pope was Polish, he'd known the evils of Communism, and so was for Freedom. He believed in Life and since the Author of Life believed in Freedom too, Communism was bad, Freedom was good and Life was Freedom - or something like that. I since we Spread Freedom, that's Life, therefore not Communism. If he could only work Oil in there somehow - call it Holy Oil or something.
~Excellent, Matthew!
I am a "lapsed" Catholic. I found much wisdom in your thoughtful writing on this subject. I sent the link to quite a few family members and friends who should read it as well.
~DiAnne: Thnx for the info on PBS Frontline this Tues. / I am also sending this to every Republican I know. They will tune in, believing it to be a flattering portrayal of their guru Rove. I hope some of the techniques are shown on how Rove=Bushco manipulates sheeple. I know many "moderate Republicans" who continue to insist that there is no such thing as a "vast right wing agenda". Perhaps this program will open a few eyes. I can hope, anyway.
~hammering DeLay: it looks like things are about to get hotter for the bugman from Sugarland:
from Newsweek:
With Friends Like These...
A lunchtime chat with a lobbyist close to Tom DeLay suggests he may be headed for hotter water.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7446492/site/newsweek/
note:
9:30 AM EST tomorrow (Monday) on CSPAN
LIVE coverage of the Bolton/UN nomination hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Looking for some intense grilling of Bolton from committee DEMs: Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Bill Nelson, Obama)
And why its so important to defeat this nomination:
The Worst of the Bad Nominees
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040805M.shtml
This scares me.
The Hidden Passages in Bush's Inaugural Address
Bush’s Inaugural Address contained many explicit references to God, but there were even more hidden allusions to the Bible that may have been lost to many in his audience, as they were to me, before I did some research. The subtle subtext of his speech carries with it a profoundly disturbing message about the separation of church and state in this country.
When Bush thanked the American people for granting him patience in “good measure,” he was echoing Luke 6:38, “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure. . . .”
When Bush talked of the “ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever,” he was echoing Hebrews 13:8, which says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
When Bush talked about the “untamed fire of freedom” in a passage that included the phrase “hope kindles hope,” he was echoing passages from Jeremiah. For instance, Jeremiah 17:27 says: “I will kindle an unquenchable fire in the gates of Jerusalem.” And Jeremiah 50:32 says: “I will kindle a fire in her towns that will consume all who are around her.”
When Bush talked about the day when “the captives are set free,” he was echoing Ephesians 4:7-9, which says: “He led the captives free.”
When Bush talked about the day “the unjust encounter justice,” he was echoing Job 27, which states, “May my enemies be like the wicked, my adversaries like the unjust.” (This section of Job says that the unjust and the wicked and the ruthless will meet a grisly fate: “However many his children, their fate is the sword; his offspring will never have enough to eat.”)
When Bush talked about the need to “surround the lost with love,” he was echoing the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15.
When Bush said, “History also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty,” he was being none too subtle. But he was also alluding to Acts 3:15 (“You killed the author of life”) and Hebrews 12:2 (“Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith”).
Toward the end, when Bush said, “Freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul,” he was echoing Psalm 107: “For He satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness. Such as sit in darkness. . . .”
In these passages, Bush may have been intent on reassuring his evangelical base that he is one of them.
But in the process, he was also doing something dangerous to our democracy.
Our First Amendment says that there shall be “no establishment of religion.” In his speech, Bush was clearly establishing religion. He was denying a place in the United States for those without faith. And while he waved at those of other faiths, his repeated allusions were mostly to the Christian Bible.
If you follow his metaphors and allusions to their logical ends, you realize that Bush was cloaking our secular values of freedom and liberty and justice in distinctly Christian garb.
“The Author of Liberty” is “The Author of Life,” and that author is Jesus.
The “ideals of justice and conduct” equate with Jesus, since both are “the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”
Both freedom and Jesus satisfy the hunger and the longing of the soul.
For Bush, they are one and the same.
In his America, there is no distinction between our public, secular values and his private, religious faith.
For those who don’t share his faith—and for those who do but who also appreciate the need to separate church from state—America is becoming an increasingly inhospitable place.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0123-05.htm
What I find so outrageous is Bush's efforts to link himself to the Pope. If Bush believes fully in his own denomination and it's teachings, and he says he does, then Bush must also believe that the Pope is going straight to hell. So the hypocrisy continues . He is now out there telling Southern Baptists and other fundamentalists what a close man the Pope was to God, and that he is like the Pope. As a lifetime Southern Baptist who no longer attends church, I can tell you that Baptist doctrine (as well as Methodist) teaches that anyone who approaches the almighty through Mary, the Pope, or any other mediator other than Christ himself is not making contact, and therefore cannot BE close to God. Bush either believes in his religion fully, or he does not. The man is such a liar, it's really difficult to tell sometimes. I personally believe that he's just a user of religion- that he really has no personal spirituality at all. But, that's just my opinion.
When Bush talked about the “untamed fire of freedom” in a passage that included the phrase “hope kindles hope,” he was echoing passages from Jeremiah. For instance, Jeremiah 17:27 says: “I will kindle an unquenchable fire in the gates of Jerusalem.” And Jeremiah 50:32 says: “I will kindle a fire in her towns that will consume all who are around her.”
Posted by: DiAnne at April 10, 2005 03:30 PM
I actually thought he was ripping off John Kennedy's inaugural address: "The energy, the faith, and the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from this fire can truly light the world."
He's certainly no John Kennedy. =/
Matthew your Sunday posts are always so inspiring! Thank you.
Last night Teresa Heinz Kerry gifted $4 million to the Andy Warhol Museum. The Republicans have skewed the "culture of life" to be nothing more than a morality issue. However, the "culture of life" is so much more!
(snip)
Teresa Heinz Kerry is in the news once again as she continues her work as a philanthropist and environmentalist. Sandy recently posted a piece about Teresa addressing 250 doctors and scientists on the impact of environmental problems on human health, at a conference at the Herberman Conference Center in Pittsburgh.
Teresa is one of our country's leading environmentalists. In September 2003, she was presented with the Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal for Humanitarianism for her work protecting the environment, promoting health care and education and uplifting women and children throughout the world.
Last night, Teresa announced a gift of $4 million to the endowment that helps fortify Pittsburgh's lively, provocative hub of contemporary art and popular culture at the Spike-a-Delic Gala, dinner and dance party held at the South Side Works, a new development created by Warhol board member Damian Soffer.
She said that the museum's founders had hoped it to "add to Pittsburgh's stature as a center for the arts" and it has succeeded in accomplishing that goal.
(snip)
Thanks to Teresa and others dedicated to the arts, museums like the Andy Warhol Museum can still thrive in today's bleak economy that is more focused on corporate profit than education and culture. We hear a lot these days about the "culture of life", however that buzz phrase seems to be somewhat skewed, for surely the arts are one the great gifts of the true culture of life.
We need to talk about this "culture of life" in the terms of what is missing and what is being left behind, in this effort to bill it as simply a morality issue.
A true "culture of life" embraces our society in all its diversity. It honors the many paths to enlightenment celebrated in by our nation's separation of church and state. It enhances education and enrichment, and encourages the advancement of the arts and sciences for the betterment of all and the improvement our society, which is the life's blood of our very existence and the soul of our purpose on this planet.
More - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=691
Kerry Says Citizens Need to Pressure Lawmakers for Voting Reforms
10 April 2005
Speaking today at a Faneuil Hall event sponsored by the Massachusetts League of Women Voters, John Kerry "told a crowd of about 100 in Boston on Sunday that all citizens must demand their right to vote and refuse to be intimidated."
Kerry, who is using crutches as he recovers from knee surgery, said too many voters who tried to cast ballots in last November's presidential election were rebuffed. He said people must push for changes to make sure all voters are treated equally.
"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," Kerry said. "There is no magic wand. No one person is going to stand up and suddenly say it's going to change tomorrow. You have to do that."
MORE:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=692
I personally believe that he's just a user of religion- that he really has no personal spirituality at all. But, that's just my opinion.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at April 10, 2005 03:49 PM
Linda:
Trust your instincts. They are correct and nailed it on the head. The process that he uses to do so is called PANDERING. In this case to the "Observing constituency". He's shoring up the stronger foundation of his base, which is showing signs of cracking. As a former Catholic, it makes me hurl.
Now is it MY imagination or is it coincidence that the President has had to use two major events of spiritual crisis in public life as a means to deflect the downward spiral of his approval ratings: the public disapproval of the Fed's probing into people's privacy and individual rights, the growing disenchantment of those who voted for him over the privatization of Social Security, the ever rising price of gas? The list goes on...
For every misstep, this Administration makes three deflector steps. Remember that. Its a political algorithm.
http://www.delocator.net Website that shows local independent options for coffeeshops near you - OTHER than Starbucks.
Billionaires For Bush Efforts to Auction Off Social Security Foiled by eBay
After 25,000 hits in 24 hours, Online Auction Site Protects America's Most Revered Institution from Scheming Robber Barons
Washington D.C. March 24, 2005 -- eBay, the famous online auction site, has struck a blow against plutocracy by barring Billionaires For Bush (B4B), advocates for the corporate elite, from auctioning off Social Security to Wall Street. To the shock and dismay of the Billionaires, eBay was unwilling to make an exception to its long-standing practice of requiring auctioneers to actually own the items they wish to sell.
"This is an outrage!" insisted Monet Oliver de Place, National Co-Chair. "Our understanding with President Bush was that we'd be able to loot trillions of dollars from the taxpayers. What better way to start the process than auctioning off the retirement of non-Billionaire Americans? The fact that the money belongs to them, not us, is merely a technicality."
In clear violation of the auction's spirit of corporate cronyism, everyday American citizens, including Pennsylvania Rep. Marc B. Cohen, registered , and openly bid on the item, claiming to represent the best interests of the American people.
Representative Cohen (D) of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives bid $24 billion dollars for the program on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to be paid in installments of $1,000,000 a year for 24,000 years. "I think that's the kind of advance planning and elegant mathematics that President Bush loves," Rep. Cohen wrote. "Let's see if anyone dares come up with a better offer than this." (To see the screen shot of the final bid, read the ensuing Q & A as well as Rep. Cohen's full statement go to: ;).
It has been a trying month for the Billionaires. While disappointed that President Bush's carefully staged "conversations" with hand-picked audiences failed to convince the American public that privatizing Social Security is a good thing for Main Street, the Billionaires expected Wall Street firms to openly tout President Bush's brokerization scheme as just reward for their $36 million in campaign donations in support of the president's reelection last year. However, to the dismay of the B4B, Wall Street decided to lobby quietly behind the scenes.
Unaccustomed to such political stumbling blocks, the Billionaires decided to cut out the middleman (a.k.a. George W. Bush). Inspired by their visions of trucks delivering taxpayer money directly to Wall Street, B4B offered Social Security to the first privately held brokerage firm that could meet their reserve. Anticipating logistical issues, the Billionaires were intentionally clear in their language: "Employees of the government, their families, any American who actually needs Social Security (or will one day in the future) are not eligible to bid -- but those Americans will remain eligible to pay for the services of the many brokerage houses that will manage their private accounts."
The Billionaires' uncharacteristic string of bad luck has continued. Against all expectations, eBay saved Social Security by pointing out it has not been wrested from the hands of the American people. "Not yet, you mean!" exclaimed Cassius King, the Billionaires for Bush Minister of Theoretical Finance. "With the president's help, we still intend to move Social Security accounts directly into the hands of Wall Street brokers. This will guarantee commissions to stockbrokers no matter how much money the taxpayers lose -- fattening our wallets for future generations. We shall, somehow, overcome."
"What a lousy week," lamented Lucinda Regulations, B4B's Director of Public Relations. "I'm just glad we were able to convince President Bush that he should slash loans for small businesses. I can hardly believe he was giving all that money to people who aren't Billionaires. That's a mistake he'll never make again. Huzzah!"
About Billionaires for Bush
Billionaires for Bush is a do-it-yourself street theater and media campaign using humor to show how the Bush administration has favored the corporate elite at the expense of everyday Americans. B4B is an independent 527 committee, with headquarters in NYC and over 50 chapters nationwide. For more information, please visit:
www.BillionairesforBush.com.
For fun: Dance like no one's watching]
http://www.glumbert.com/media/dancewhiteboy.html
Matt,
Really great piece. As with all of your writing, it was a pleasure to read. I hope it turns up on other blogs.
Pandering to Evangelicals, pandering to Catholics.
I have never seen a politician be so willing to present so many facades while being driven by big business.
They saw a photo op and took it. It's all about image, they say.
What a chance to campaign to Catholics, especially the millions of Hispanics that increasingly dot our landscape.
Character?........What's that??.......
It is what is beneath the facade.
I honestly don't know how they sleep at night.
The Hidden Passages in Bush's Inaugural Address:
Posted by: DiAnne at April 10, 2005 03:30 PM
How is this for a "hidden passage".
I saw Bush on a newsclip three weeks ago. When speaking, again, on how he plans on the U.S. "spreading democracy and freedom around the world", he said: "Oh, we're not against everybody. Just those who are evil."
Hey All I just had to link this
DISPATCH FROM DOWN UNDER
Murderous Thugs
Transcript of remarks made by Cindy Sheehan, a member of Gold Star Families For Peace. -
April 4, 2005
Cindy Sheehan04/10/05 "ICH"
- - I've been asked to speak to you for 5 minutes or so. Please forgive me, but I'm going to take a little more than 8 minutes.
The additional time that I'm going to steal from you is dedicated to my son, Casey, whose entire future was stolen from him
.My son was killed in Iraq on this day one year ago, the same day of April on which Martin Luther King Jr. was killed. From a jail in Birmingham, on April 16 1963 Dr. King wrote these words: "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence.......of the good people." ...end of quote.
" And the Apostle Paul said this:"
...those who desire to be rich fall into temptation...
into a snare that plunges men into ruin and destruction.
For the love of money is the root of all evil."
Thirty years ago, 1975, Gerald Ford was President of the United Sates. His Chief of Staff was Dick Cheney. His Secretary of Defense was Donald Rumsfeld. Paul Wolfowitz was heading-up the international arms-control end of things. All of these positions related directly to national security. While these men were looking after the nation's safety, they and President Ford concluded that Iran needed to supplement its energy system by adding nuclear power. The nuclear energy project that these men approved would have netted certain US corporations billions of dollars. Had the Shah of Iran...a blood-bought servant of US corporate interests...not soon been overthrown by his own countrymen, the big-wigs at Westinghouse or General Electric...or perhaps both...would have amassed personal fortunes from this one project, alone. Some of the stockholders would have also made bundles on the deal.
In 1975 my son had not yet been born. Today he is in his grave. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, is now Vice President of the United States, and he is materially wealthy beyond what any of us would ever pray to be. This is the same Dick Cheney who during the months leading-up to the invasion of Iraq said that Saddam Hussein not only has stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction...more than a hundred metric tons of the deadly stuff...but he also said that Saddam Hussein was well-advanced in developing nuclear weapons and that therefore the US must invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam Hussein. Clean, quick, and simple according to Dick Cheney. Yet for some time now he has changed his tune. He now says...as if he had said it all along...that the US occupation of Iraq will require years of difficult and sometimes bloody conflict before it will be stable enough to bring our loved ones home. And too, rather than speak of Weapons of Mass Destruction, he now uses the word "democracy" a lot.
Is there yet an American who can not clearly see that Dick Cheney...whether it be 1975 or 2005...will say whatever he thinks is required to ultimately cause wealth and power to move to himself and to his friends? ...need I defile this holy place with words like "Haliburton" and "Kellog, Brown & Root" and "torture" and "US weapons industry"? Indeed, the Apostle Paul is correct in saying that, ultimately, the love of money leads to ruin and destruction
.Donald Rumsfeld is again Secretary of Defense. Only yesterday, it seems, he told the whole world that Saddam Hussein has stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. He even announced to world that he and his generals know where Saddam's feared weapons are hidden. He announced this only days before our loved ones risked their lives searching those very areas where he so confidently said the weapons were hidden. Tell me, isn't it entirely reasonable for us to assume that those very places were being surveiled every second of every day and night until the very moment when our loved ones reached those areas and began their search? Donald Rumsfeld told us that the search would net more than a hundred metric tons. Are we to believe that Saddam quickly assembled a caravan of 18 wheelers and loaded all this stuff up and hauled it away to some new hiding place...and that US surveillance...the best in the world....didn't notice any of this happening? Are we to believe that this administration was, once again, asleep at the wheel...just as they would also have us to believe that they were innocently caught off-guard on the morning of September 11, 2001?
I implore you to read some of Scott Ritter...write the name down if you need to: Scott Ritter. R..I..T..T..E..R. I'm certain that many of you have already read his work. His work can be found in book stores, or go to Amazon.com. Read him and you will finally begin to understand that the horrid price we and the people of Iraq have paid to discover that Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction had already been destroyed is not due to any failure at the U.S. intelligence agencies, it is in fact a validation of U.S. intelligence agencies. Ritter will explain to you exactly how is was that Rumsfeld was well-informed, by knowledgeable people within the Intelligence community, that Saddam had been striped clean of such weapons, that Saddam's ability to reconstitute such weapons' programs had also been destroyed, and that any moves Saddam might have made in that direction would have been observed and stopped, forthwith.
Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Runsfeld is a liar...that he, as with Hitler and Stalin....will say anything so long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking? Is there even one, sane adult among us who cannot see that Donald Rumsfeld is a threat to our nation's security and to peace on our beloved earth?
Paul Wolfowitz, after months of not finding any Weapons of Mass Destruction....and after hundreds of US soldiers were killed....my son amongst them....and after tens of thousands of innocent Iraq citizens were killed....this same Paul Wolfowitz casually explained....with his kindly charade and his ever so soft voice...that a decision was made to put forth "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as the need for the invasion. Essentially, Paul Wolfowitz admitted that he and his fellow conspirators had decided amongst themselves "...let's just go with the bit about Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's the one thing that will scare the American people enough so as to cause them to get behind this invasion."
As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country who's skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our nation's security...and to peace on our beloved earth?"
30 years ago these 3 men gave the green light to Iran so that Iran could hire US companies to go there and build a 6.4 billion dollar nuclear power facility. ...no doubt the final bill would have been at least three times that much. Yet Dick Cheney recently said this of Iran's current intentions to add nuclear power to their energy system: Quote...."They are already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear to generate energy"....end of quote. Did these men not notice, 30 years ago, while they and their cohorts were being wined and dined by the Shah, that his opulent surroundings were bought and paid for with oil and gas that was being taken from the ground beneath their feet? Yet these men agreed, clear back then, that Iran needed to add nuclear power to their energy system. It is now 30 years and God only knows how many tens of millions of barrels of oil, later. Why should we believe these men....who we know are liars....when they now say that Iran's primary motive for wanting nuclear power is so that they can make nuclear weapons with which to destroy us and our allies? Even now, the International Atomic Energy Agency reports that there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The Bush administrations response? They are trying to oust the agency's lead inspector, Mohammed al-Baradei. But who can forget that it was Mr. al-Baradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency who, during the months prior to the invasion of Iraq, reported that Saddam no longer had a nuclear weapons programs.
Our country has been overtaken by murderous thugs....gangsters who lust after fortunes and power; never caring that their addictions are at the expense of our loved ones, and the blood of innocent people near and far. We've watched these thugs parade themselves before the whole world as if they are courageous advocates for Christian moral values....and for the spread of democracy. Yet we all know that they are now putting in place, all across this country, a system of voting that provides no way to validate the accuracy of the counting of the votes. Our loved ones have been buried in early graves even as these arrogant thugs parade themselves before the entire world, insisting that democracy is worth dying for, killing for, and destroying entire cities for, all the while they are busy here at home overseeing the emplacement of an electronic voting system that invites fraud at every turn, an electronic vote-counting system that provides no way to validate the votes cast, and that, by it's very design, prohibits recounting the votes.
For these men to not see to it that our own system of voting and vote-counting is accurate, understandable and verifiable...all the while sending our loved ones to kill and to die so as to establish a democracy in some far away place......this is just one more staggering piece of evidence that the US government is now ruled by murderous hypocrites...criminals who should be arrested, charged appropriately, confined behind bars, and then tried in a court of law...not only here in our own country, but also in all the other countries which have suffered their incomprehensible greed. In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the dwindling multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants.
Cindy Sheehan, is a founding member of Gold Star Families For Peace [email - Scindy121@aol.com]Copyright: Cindy Sheehan. All rights reserved.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8502.htm
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000155.php#more
http://crisispictures.org/news/
See Also: Eyewitness Report: The Toppling Of Saddam Statue: Video & Text The photographs tell the story...
Is This Media manipulation on a grand scale?
Updated: 04/15/03
New pictures of " crowd" in the square: Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3 Picture 4 Yes, the occupation has begun.
See Also: A tale of two photos
04/10/03
April 6th: Iraqi National Congress founder, Ahmed Chalabi is flown into the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah by the Pentagon. Chalabi, along with 700 fighters of his "Free Iraqi Forces" are airlifted aboard four massive C17 military transport planes. Chalabi and the INC are Washington favorites to head the new Iraqi government. A photograph is taken of Chalabi and members of his Free Iraqi Forces militia as they arrive in Nasiriyah.
April 9th: One of the "most memorable images of the war" is created when U.S. troops pull down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Fardus Square. Oddly enough... a photograph is taken of a man who bears an uncanny resemblance to one of Chalabi's militia members... he is near Fardus Square to greet the Marines. How many members of the pro-American Free Iraqi Forces were in and around Fardus Square as the statue of Saddam came tumbling down?
The up close action video of the statue being destroyed is broadcast around the world as proof of a massive uprising. Still photos grabbed off of Reuters show a long-shot view of Fardus Square... it's empty save for the U.S. Marines, the International Press, and a small handful of Iraqis. There are no more than 200 people in the square at best. The Marines have the square sealed off and guarded by tanks. A U.S. mechanized vehicle is used to pull the statue of Saddam from it's base. The entire event is being hailed as an equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling... but even a quick glance of the long-shot photo shows something more akin to a carefully constructed media event tailored for the television cameras.
April 6th: Iraqi National Congress founder, Ahmed Chalabi is flown into the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah by the Pentagon. Chalabi, along with 700 fighters of his "Free Iraqi Forces" are airlifted aboard four massive C17 military transport planes. Chalabi and the INC are Washington favorites to head the new Iraqi government. A photograph is taken of Chalabi and members of his Free Iraqi Forces militia as they arrive in Nasiriyah.April 9th: One of the "most memorable images of the war" is created when U.S. troops pull down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Fardus Square. Oddly enough... a photograph is taken of a man who bears an uncanny resemblance to one of Chalabi's militia members... he is near Fardus Square to greet the Marines. How many members of the pro-American Free Iraqi Forces were in and around Fardus Square as the statue of Saddam came tumbling down?The up close action video of the statue being destroyed is broadcast around the world as proof of a massive uprising. Still photos grabbed off of Reuters show a long-shot view of Fardus Square... it's empty save for the U.S. Marines, the International Press, and a small handful of Iraqis. There are no more than 200 people in the square at best. The Marines have the square sealed off and guarded by tanks. A U.S. mechanized vehicle is used to pull the statue of Saddam from it's base. The entire event is being hailed as an equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling... but even a quick glance of the long-shot photo shows something more akin to a carefully constructed media event tailored for the television cameras.
SEE Also: Media Watch: Human Beings As Feces On FOX NEWS (Broadband) A must see program from Australia's ABC Click Here to view video if you have a Dialup Connection Warning: Video Contains Graphics Depictions Of War Source: NYC IndyMedia
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
See Also: Is This Media manipulation on a grand scale?
9/11 Pentagon Flag Used To Cover Saddam's Face In Baghdad
Robert Fisk: "A statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down on Wednesday, in the most staged photo-opportunity since Iwo Jima."
Journalists Reveal Their True Colorshttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm
You have probably seen the photos of the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled, and TV footage of jubilant Iraqis rolling the bronze head around, bringing back memories of so many previous popular uprisings – 1989, 1956, 1953...
If there is one thing this war has taught us all, it's that we can't believe what we're told. For Donald Rumsfeld these were "breathtaking". For the British Army they were "historic". For BBC Radio they were "amazing".A wide angle shot in which you can see the whole of Fardus Square (conveniently located just opposite the Palestine Hotel where the international media are based), and the presence of at most around 200 people – most of them US troops (note the tanks and armored vehicles) and assembled journalists.The BBC website had the honesty to say that "dozens" of Iraqis were involved, but this grain of truth was swamped by the overwhelming impression of mass joy. The radio and TV were even worse.The masses are no doubt glad to see the back of Saddam Hussein, but was this a US Army propaganda coup.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm
UNBELIEVABLE I ACTUALLY FOUND THOSE PHOTOS A FEW DAYS AGO i THINK THEY GOT RID OF THE FOX PIECE i HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING IT UP; FIGURES
Quick way for FIVE MINUTES FOR DEMOCRACY:
1. WAR BUCKS Remember when the democratic presidential candidate referred to the cost of the Iraq war as 200 billion and they called him such a liar and exaggerator? Well guess what, we are there already and now they want ANOTHER 83 billion for corrupt no-bid contractors.
There was an interesting development today as Iraq's new president, the Kurdish Jalal Talabani, suggested that they might need the protection of U.S. and other allied forces for as long as two years.
http://www.usalone.com/warbucks.htm
2. BOLTON - UN Of course, the key word here is OTHER. We have been playing unilateral cowboy for the last two years when we should have been working with the rest of world in building real stability in Iraq. And we are moving yet further in the wrong direction with the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador with his carpetbomb approach to diplomacy.
Meanwhile the rest of the world deserts our so-called coalition as quietly as possible. At this critical time we can make a real difference by demanding that Bolton be rejected, and by demanding that the Senate require real international cooperation before we melt down another dime in Iraq
Especially if you live in Rhode Island, please make your voice heard on the Bolton question as Republican Chafee has already expressed strong reservations and the White House is leaning on him as hard as they can.
http://www.usalone.com/bolton.htm
3. BANKRUPTCY And please, if you have not already submitted your objections to the bankruptcy bill in the house, there is still time as that debate was mercifully delayed to this coming week. Whether you are outraged by its endorsement of usurous interest rates of over 30 percent, or its abandonment of our medical cost victims, our elderly on subsistance and our overdeployed military, we MUST take a strong stand on this to build a platform for 2006.
http://www.usalone.com/bankruptcy.htm
The other side has squandered their mythical political capital exploiting the tragedy of the unfortunate. They are weak, their violations of law are being exposed, and our strong voices can turn the tide.
Their snake oil salesman in chief has been in fulltime campaign mode trying to persuade any world banker who wants to listen that our goverment securities are nothing but worthless paper. And so it will be unless we all raise our voices to stop the insane policies that will mislead us to nothing but utter ruin. Please forward these links to everyone you know. It's up to us alone.
BY CLICKING THE LINKS, YOU CAN AUTOMATICALLY AND EASILY ALERT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES
Its me again, darn i am taking up space sorry
Baghdad Burning
... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Sunday, April 03, 2005
...American Media...
You wake up in the morning. Brush your teeth. Splash the sleep out of your eyes and head for the kitchen for a cup of coffee or tea and whatever is available for breakfast.
You wander to the living room and search for the remote control. It is in its usual place- stuck inexplicably between the sofa cushions.
You turn on the television and stand there flipping from one channel to the other, looking for a news brief or something that will sum up what happened during those six hours you slept. You finally settle on the pleasant face on the screen- the big hair, bright power suit, capped teeth and colorful talons- blandly reading the news.
The anchoress is Julie Chan. The program is CBS’s The Early Show (Live from Fifth Avenue!).
Guess the nationality of the viewer above. Three guesses. American? No. Canadian? No. British? Japanese? Australian? No, no and no. The viewer is Iraqi… or Jordanian… or Lebanese… or Syrian… or Saudi… or Kuwaiti… or… but you get the picture.
Two years ago, the major part of the war in Iraq was all about bombarding us with smart bombs and high-tech missiles. Now there’s a different sort of war- or perhaps it’s just another phase of the same war.
Now we’re being assailed with American media. It’s everywhere all at once. It began with radio stations like Voice of America which we could access even before the war.
After the war, there were other radio stations- ones with mechanical voices that told us to put down our weapons and remain inside our homes, ones that fed us American news in an Iraqi dialect and ones that just played music.
With satellite access we are constantly listening to American music and watching American sitcoms and movies. To be fair- it’s not just Iraq that is being targeted- it’s the whole region and it’s all being done very cleverly.
Al-Hurra, the purported channel of freedom, is the American gift to the Arab world. What they do is show us translated documentaries about certain historical events (American documentaries) or about movie stars (American stars) or vacation spots.
Throughout this, there are Arab anchors giving us the news (which is like watching Fox in Arabic). It’s news about the Arab world with the American twist. Our new “national” channels are a joke.
One of the most amusing, in a gruesome sort of way, is Al-Iraqiya. It’s said to be American sponsored but the attitude is decidedly pro-Iran, anti-Sunni. There’s a program where they parade ‘terrorists’ on screen for us to see in an attempt to show us that our National Guard are not only good at raiding homes and harassing people in the streets.
The funny thing about the terrorists is that the majority of them have “Sunni” names like Omar and Othman, etc. They admit to doing things such as having sexual intercourse in mosques and raping women and the whole show is disgusting. Iraqis don’t believe it because it’s so obviously produced to support the American definition of the Iraqi, Sunni, Islamic fanatic that it is embarrassing.
Couldn’t the PSYOPS people come up with anything more subtle? Then you have the whole MBC collection. MBC is actually financed by Saudi Arabia, but based in Dubai, as far as I know.
They have several different channels. It started out with the original MBC which was a mainly Arabic channel that was harmless enough. It showed some talk shows, debates and Egyptian movies with an occasional program on music or style. Then we were introduced to MBC’s Al-Arabia- a news channel which was meant to be the Saudi antidote to Al-Jazeera.
Simultaneously, we were accessing MBC’s Channel 2, which is a channel that shows only English movies and programs. The programs varied from talk shows like Oprah, to sitcoms like Friends, Third Rock from the Sun and Seinfeld. Earlier this year, the MBC did a mystifying thing.
They announced that Channel 2 was going to be made a 24-hour movie channel which would show all sorts of movies- old Clint Eastwood cowboy movies, and newer movies like “A Beautiful Mind”, etc. The programs and sitcoms would be transferred to the new MBC Channel 4.Personally,
I was pleased with the change at first. I’m not big on movies and it was nice to know our favorite sitcoms and programs would all be accessible on one channel without the annoyance of two-hour movies. I could turn on Channel 4 at any time and expect to find something interesting or humorous that would end within 30-60 minutes.
The first time I saw 60 Minutes on MBC 4, it didn’t occur to me that something was wrong. I can’t remember what the discussion was, but I remember being vaguely interested and somewhat mystified at why we were getting 60 Minutes.
I soon found out that it wasn’t just 60 Minutes at night: It was Good Morning, America in the morning, 20/20 in the evening, 60 Minutes, 48-Hours, Inside Edition, The Early Show… it was a constant barrage of American media. The chipper voice in Arabic tells us,
“So you can watch what *they* watch!” *They* apparently being millions of Americans.
The schedule on MBC’s Channel 4 goes something like this: 9 am – CBS Evening News9:30 am – CBS The Early Show10:45 am – The Days of Our Lives11:20 am – Wheel of Fortune11:45 am – Jeopardy12:05 pm – A re-run of whatever was on the night before – 20/20, Inside Edition, etc.
...And the programming continues…
I’ve been enchanted with the shows these last few weeks. The thing that strikes me most is the fact that the news is so… clean. It’s like hospital food. It’s all organized and disinfected.
Everything is partitioned and you can feel how it has been doled out carefully with extreme attention to the portions- 2 minutes on women’s rights in Afghanistan, 1 minute on training troops in Iraq and 20 minutes on Terri Schiavo! All the reportages are upbeat and somewhat cheerful, and the anchor person manages to look properly concerned and completely uncaring all at once.
About a month ago, we were treated to an interview on 20/20 with Sabrina Harman- the witch in some of the Abu Ghraib pictures. You know- the one smiling over faceless, naked Iraqis piled up to make a human pyramid.
Elizabeth Vargus was doing the interview and the whole show was revolting. They were trying to portray Sabrina as an innocent who was caught up in military orders and fear of higher ranking officers.
The show went on and on about how American troops never really got seminars on Geneva Conventions (like one needs to be taught humanity) and how poor Sabrina was being made a scapegoat. They showed the restaurant where she worked before the war and how everyone thought she was “such a nice person” who couldn’t hurt a fly!
We sat there watching like we were a part of another world, in another galaxy. I’ve always sensed from the various websites that American mainstream news is far-removed from reality- I just didn’t know how far. Everything is so tame and simplified. Everyone is so sincere.
Furthermore, I don’t understand the worlds fascination with reality shows. Survivor, The Bachelor, Murder in Small Town X, Faking It, The Contender… it’s endless. Is life so boring that people need to watch the conjured up lives of others?
I have a suggestion of my own for a reality show. Take 15 Bush supporters and throw them in a house in the suburbs of, say, Falloojeh for at least 14 days
. We could watch them cope with the water problems, the lack of electricity, the check points, the raids, the Iraqi National Guard, the bombings, and- oh yeah- the ‘insurgents’.
We could watch their house bombed to the ground and their few belongings crushed under the weight of cement and brick or simply burned or riddled with bullets.
We could see them try to rebuild their life with their bare hands (and the equivalent of $150)…
I’d not only watch *that* reality show, I’d tape every episode
KANGAROO SAYS: AINT THAT THE TRUTH
Rossian
The Gold Star Families transcript has been submitted to Vets for Peace.
I remember the aerial shot when Saddam was toppled (statue). I was familiar with the courtyard as it bordered the Palestine Hotel and I had the link to a webcom from the hotel, which overlooked the courtyard. I could actually watch the bombing in real time (which was a ways away, as the courtyard was not in central Bagdad).
Recently I read "Naked in Bagdad," by NPR reporter Ann Garrels, who was one of the only reporters I trusted in Iraq. She was never embedded and worked for public radio, not tv, and had contacts - having been a veteran war correspondant for years. Her description validates that a few Iraqis did things like throw shoes (an insult) at the statue, then it was pulled down by US tanks and the photos were arranged for best shots. Ann was in Iraq during "Shock and Awe," when all US network and cable tv had left out of fear. She lived in gin, Kit Kat bars & cigarettes and sometimes was truly naked in the dark, using a hidden transmitter! You also cite Robert Fisk. Robert Fisk lives in Lebanon and has covered the middle east for over 30 years. http://www.robert-fisk.com
Another thing people should know - Al Jazeera news site has nothing to do with the Al Jazeera tv network that is so notorious, even though many think they are the same. The Al Jazeera news site is very good. The Al Jazeera media service (tv) has a good reputation but to see it in the US you need special satellite. The people I know who have it are Iranian and Filipino.
Rossian
That Iraqi person from whom you posted a media description should recognize propaganda & not pay attention to it. Quit watching both the domestic and imported lies. I did that in 1991 so that's 14 years now & it's been great! No commercials!!
I have never met a politically naive person from the middle east or someone who is apathetic - who can afford to be?! Now we need to develop the same skill. Many there have known operation and rule by thugs (rotating thugs - as in Iraq - Ottoman, then British, then 10 yrs war with Iran, now US - as in Afghanistan - Russian then US)
We have, for the most part, had the luxury of no war on our shores (unlike Europe). Now we have the "global war on terror" but that should mean that terrorists can be found anywhere in the world so diplomacy with friendly entities and surveillance an (a la Kerry). It should not mean that we are free to pre-emptively attack wherever we see fit (or smell oil)(a la Bush).
I want to share an experience I had tonight. Two years ago a family from our neighborhood left for the Dominican Republic. They did it to answer a "calling" that they had to help others. They are not missionaries, but rather are lending a practical hand to people in need. They are guided by their religious principles and have made a positive difference in the lives of people who had been neglected and forgotten by their government, and the world at large. I don't know and don't care about their political leanings, but I do know that I will always be mindful of this family's sacrifices for others. It is not religious thing for them, but rather it is a human charity that has as its backbone a religious principle. There were about thirty people from our neighborhood there, and I wore my DCP T-shirt.
After our neighbors got done with their presentation to all of us (they never once asked for a contribution, as they showed pictures of what they were doing), I was asked by others what the DCP is. It was an excellent opportunity to describe a movement whose goal is a government based on principle of fairness, equality, opportunity, and truth. I had several people tell me they were going to check out the DCP site, and one told me they want to come to our next cell meeting.
Please visit kidsalive.org to learn more about what my friends are doing for the disadvantaged children of Dominican Republic. Their work is an important contrast to what we are being told are true "Christian values".
I have never met a politically naive person from the middle east or someone who is apathetic - who can afford to be?!
Posted by: DiAnne at April 10, 2005 09:44 PM
DiAnne,
Your post reminds me of a chilling moment I had that I will never forget. When in Egypt in '93, we had a guide we hired at the airport in Cairo to show me and my husband around. We had many pleasant chats during the week. When we went to say goodbye, he looked deeply into my eyes. He said "Tell President Boosh hello for me." Then he stood back and watched my reaction. I was totally naive. He looked at me to see if I had any clue of what was going on, and he watched me explaining I am "just a citizen of the United States, I don't know President Bush personally", and as I shrugged and put my hands out it was clear to him I was unaware. He watched me with an amazed, wonderous look on his face. As I said goodbye a final time, he repeated it again.
This just in:
This is a new campaign we launched today on the Internet and national cable.
It's different. Please take a look. Will
I'm Phil A. Buster and I approved this message.
Hi! I'm Phil A. Buster. Your friend sent me to you because I'm under attack and need your help.
Republican leaders in Congress are trying to destroy me and want to hurt my friends Checks and Balanz too. So I started a campaign to save myself and my friends from the politicians in Washington who are abusing their power.
Visit my website, http://www.savephil.com/main.cfm , where you can watch the web ad and find out all sorts of additional facts. And then take action-my life and our country's future is hanging in the balance.
Karen
The link didn't work so I put in
http://www.savephil.com - then it does.
It automatically then goes to the link you posted but from my machine it won't open that way.
.. an idea in case anyone has trouble.
I wanted to mention Physicians for Social Responsiblity - great organization - I've been involved for 25 years, since I began to think about whether I wanted to bring a child into this world. You don't have to be a physician.
http://www.psr.org
Rumsfeld caught lying. pretty good. http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/
~snip~
Another thing people should know - Al Jazeera news site has nothing to do with the Al Jazeera tv network that is so notorious, even though many think they are the same. The Al Jazeera news site is very good. The Al Jazeera media service (tv) has a good reputation but to see it in the US you need special satellite. The people I know who have it are Iranian and Filipino.
Posted by: DiAnne at April 10, 2005 09:35 PM
Diane, I was confused by your comment above. I went to the AlJazeera.net website and looked up the "About Us" information.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5D7F956E-6B52-46D9-8D17-448856D01CDB.htm
It opens with:
"Aljazeera has come a long way since it was launched in November 1996.
Today the channel that sent shockwaves through the whole Arab world from its very first day on air has become a global name which people, governments, and decision-makers cannot afford to ignore.
With more than 30 bureaus and dozens of correspondents covering the four corners of the world Aljazeera has given millions of people a refreshing new perspective on global events.
Free from the shackles of censorship and government control Aljazeera has offered its audiences in the Arab world much needed freedom of thought, independence, and room for debate. In the rest of the world, often dominated by the stereotypical thinking of news "heavyweights", Aljazeera offers a different and a new perspective.
We continue to cover all viewpoints with objectivity integrity and balance.
So now when Aljazeera speaks, the world listens and "reads".
Aljazeera.net is the online version of the same Aljazeera.
In January 2001, Aljazeera.net (Arabic) was launched as the first mainstream Arabic news site and in no time, it rose to the top of the Arab media. In 2002, Aljazeera.net (Arabic) received more than 811 million impressions and 161 million visits.
Boiling topics and heated debates along with objective news reporting and interactive feedback are the attributes that put Aljazeera.net amongst the 50 most visited sites worldwide.
Yet more is to come with Aljazeera.net's latest Arabic version. The new design is a first step towards the creation of an integrated network of Aljazeera websites. The upgrade is designed to offer the visitor four sources of online information: News, Knowledge, Channel, and Business.
~snip~
Today, as we officially break the "language barrier" with Aljazeera.net English, our dream of bringing "people and continents together" is coming true. A new window of opportunity to see the world through is now opening.
Aljazeera.net English goes behind the scenes to provide every visitor with "the news they don't see", daringly and boldly as Aljazeera always does
~snip~
Aljazeera.net English has been designed to attract readers from continents poles-apart. Not only does Aljazeera.net English offer a versatile content of news and information, but it also aims to be more interactive.
~snip~
~~~~
From what I observe the website and the satellite TV channel are two branches of the same operation right down to using the same logo. I have seen AlJazeera TV at my friend's house and I'm familiar with the logo they display onscreen.
The Crusaders
Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own image
By BOB MOSER
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."
SNIP
"The other side knows we've got strongholds in the executive and legislative branches," Cass tells the troops. "If we start winning the judiciary, their power base is going to be eroded."
SNIP
The most vivid proof of the Christianizing of Capitol Hill comes at the final session of Reclaiming America. Rep. Walter Jones, a lanky congressman from North Carolina, gives a fire-and-brimstone speech that would have gotten him laughed out of Washington thirty years ago. In today's climate, however, he's got a chance of passing his pet project, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which would permit ministers to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, effectively converting their tax-exempt churches into Republican campaign headquarters.
"America is under assault!" Jones thunders as his aides dash around the sanctuary snapping PR photos. "Everyone in America has the right to speak freely, except for those standing in the pulpits of our churches!" The amen chorus reaches a fever pitch. Hands fly heavenward. It's one thing to hear such words from Dominionist leaders -- but to this crowd, there's nothing more thrilling than getting the gospel from a U.S. congressman. "You cannot have a strong nation that does not follow God," Jones preaches, working up to a climactic, passionate plea for a biblical republic. "God, please -- God, please -- God, please -- save America!"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1113219320687&has-player=false
Posted by: oncall at April 11, 2005 09:18 AM
That's one scary story. For those of you in the NYC area, or planning to be in the NYC area the last weekend of April, there's a conference on this topic that you might want to attend. I'll be going.
http://www.opencenter.org/Trainings/Religious_Right_Agenda.html
If I have to thank God for something, it's for my 1905 Law defintely separating church and state.
Things are extremely clear : the state is public field, religion/belief a private one. We never mix the two.
If you want to know why this law was passed and how it works, take time to read the following article.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/relfreedom.htm
Two different items of Kerry news on Light Up the Darkness this morning:
Kerry raising money for Democrats for 2005 and 2006 races:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view...
Kerry to propose increased benefits for military families
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view...
also other items over the weekend including voting reform and news on Teresa
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp
Rep. Christopher Shays calls for DeLay to step down:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=659647
Dwahzon
This is the Al Jazeera website which is unrelated. http://www.aljazeerah.info/
Al Jazeera media has its own website and it's the one you referred to. http://www.aljazeerah.com
Some people have thought they are all the same & they're not.
Andree
Very good article on separation of church and state - I read it twice & will save it
Cyrano
There is no way they are going to force someone to worship something they don't believe in, no matter what they do. It is appalling to have someone use Congress as a pulpit.
Chafee should not be trusted on the Boulton nomination. Why Democratic voters continue to cross over in Rhode Island and re elect Chafee amazes me. He said the right things (fed to him by Frist), whoopie. Chafee is easily apparently intimidated by RNC. threats.
"The outcome could depend on moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. Chafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan said the senator was leaning toward supporting Bolton "unless something surprising shows up" at the hearing."
"You said all the rights things in your opening statement," Chafee told Bolton during the session.
Chafee is easily intimidated by RNC threats to have a right wing Republican run against him next year.
Posted by: DiAnne at April 11, 2005 12:32 PM
DiAnne,
The names are spelled differently.... granted, not much differently, two have an 'h' on the end and the other two don't and the endings are different: .com .info .net but therein lies significant difference in identity.
The satellite TV station is associated with the website AlJazeera.net (the one without the 'h' on the end). http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
The site with the 'h' on the end and ending in .info is obviously a one person show:
http://www.aljazeerah.info
The site you mentioned, with an 'h' and ending in .com, http://www.aljazeerah.com connects to a shopping mall website.
There is a 4th website, http://www.aljazeera.com
without the 'h' but with a .com, not a .net ending, which is obviously NOT associated with the satellite TV channel as per their "About Us" statement which goes out of its way to say they're not associated.
http://www.aljazeera.com/about.asp
Which one of these are you saying is a balanced website?
Regarding the Catholic intervention in American politics:
In the old days the Catholics were intervening on behalf of the poor and the disadvantaged. Granted, most Catholics did fall into that category back then, but the Catholics intervened for them - regardless of the beneficiaries' faith.
Today's Catholic church is no more than a hungry power broker like its Protestant counterparts. It has completely forsaken its heritage of fighting for justice, in favor of eroding the separation of church and state for the benefit of the death cultists who claim to be "pro-life" but couldn't care less if someone like me died.
I have mixed feelings toward the late Pope. While he was good in reaching out toward leaders of other religions and mending fences with them, I am very troubled by his arch-conservative legacy of pushing a "culture of life" which really wasn't.