Issues
Are We Too Political?

{Issues.28.26}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Thu, 03 Jan 2002 16:21:31 CST (22 lines)

I don't justify giving different answers, I didn't give different
answers Ken (still assuming are we Ken?). I still believe that being
proud of ones' race is immoral. Theres no borders inside a race that
truly unite those within that ethnicity. For example, there is no
characteristic about every white person that would unify the entire
race, there is only the color of their skin. Therefore, being proud
of being white is association of ones self with everyone who is
white, but mental distancing from those who aren't. The same goes for
every race. Skin color is not a uniting or dividing factor, it is
only an insignificant physical characteristic.

Now, I don't know how James Brown's pride in his race could be the
sole defence in your arguement, he's just a singer and an
entertainer. Anyone who associates themselves with their race as a
whole isolates that race in their mind, and the last thing we should
do in a diverse culture is single our skin color out from others'.
Ken, I never stated that James Brown was acting superior by saying
that quote, did I? Not being ashamed of who you are is one thing, but
being proud of your race is totally different. Acceptance of
diversity is absolutely important, and pride will do nothing to help
us blur all races of people into what we all truly are. We are all
human.

{Issues.28.27}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:46:36 CST (180 lines)

<<Ken, I would like you to shed some of your great insight on (some of
these I've spoken on, some I've only briefly spoken of or want to):

-America's intervention with the Israel-Palastine Conflict >>

America's government recognizes the need for both Israelis and
Palestinians to live in peace. This is true under both Republican
Presidents and Democratic Presidents of the United States. America
opposes the use of terrorism, including suicide bombings by
Palestinians of Israeli discos and pizza parlors. A representative of
the US government is in the Middle East trying to persuade both sides
of that conflict to peacefully settle their disputes.

<<-The Sudanese medical plant disaster/Pakistan disaster>>

I opposed those missile attacks after President Clinton ordered them
because I believed it was a stupid thing to do. President Clinton said
he ordered it as a military response to the terrorist attacks on two
American embassies in Africa that killed some Americans and many
Africans but I said he was wrong to do that because those missile
attacks were not likely to even begin to solve the problem of bin
Laden's terrorism.

<<-Why the US would be allying itself with dictators, past or present
(Saddam, the PRI, the Taliban, Pinochet, the Saudi governemnt are
good examples)>>

Who the US government supports is decided on a case by case basis. A
guiding principle is that our government works with the government
that is in place unless that government is viewed by our government as
anti-American in a way that endangers many American lives. After Iran
took American diplomats as hostages and Iraq went to war with Iran,
the US government took a more favorable view of Saddam but this did
not give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. The PRI was not a
dictatorship because dictatorships do not allow themselves to be voted
out of office in a democratic election, which is what recently
happened in Mexico to the government of the PRI. Pinochet and the
Saudi government were the governments that were in place and they were
not believed to be anti-American, so our government had friendly
relations with Pinochet and has friendly relations with the Saudi
government.

<<-The Northern Alliances history of rape, gang warfare, and innocent
killings>>

I am not an expert on the Northern Alliance but I do not accept your
characterization of it. If it made mistakes in the past, it appears to
have reformed and it is certainly under different leadership than it
had before last September. The deadly attacks against America of
September 11th had to be stopped and the Northern Alliance's new
leaders helped our military fight against the terrorists who ordered
the attacks and who were planning more attacks against Americans.
Because of American military action there, Afghanistan is a freer,
happier and better place than it was under the Taliban which oppressed
its people, especially its women, and banned art and music.

<<-The economic sanctions instituted in Iraq that kill thousands>>

Economic sanctions have not killed people in Iraq, it is the way that
the government of Iraq spends its money that deprives some of its
people of what they should have. Saddam has plenty of money for his
palaces and for developing new weapons. He should use some of that
money to provide for the basic needs of the Iraqi people. Sanctions do
not block food or medicine from reaching Iraq.

<<-Reasons and results for the US Contra Wars in Latin America>>

The US government favored pro-American forces in their fight against
anti-American forces, just as you might be more likely to favor
someone who likes you over someone who hates you. The result is that
every government in Central America is free and democratic and all of
those nations are at peace.

<<-How corporate media outlets report biasly in favor of the
government and ignore certain facts that need to be reported>>

Every editor decides for himself what needs to be reported, and his
news judgment could be different than yours. Most media outlets are
objective but some of them have a left-leaning or a right-leaning
point of view. Depending on the issue, most of our media sometimes
supports the government's decisions and most of it sometimes opposes
government decisions. Some of America's media forced President Nixon
to resign the presidency in disgrace when it publicized his
unconstitutional actions. Much of the media strongly criticized
actions of President Clinton and President Bush.

<<-What evidence there is to convict Mumia>>

I do not know what evidence there was to convict almost anyone. Juries
decide cases based on the evidence and I do not second-guess them.

<<-Why diplomacy was avoided and threats made after Sept 11 with the
Taliban>>

The Taliban was financed, owned and operated by Osama bin Laden, so
although the US government asked the Taliban to give him up, it never
was something that was likely to happen. Afghanistan under the Taliban
endangered the lives of the American people who faced additional
attacks like those of September 11th unless the source of that
terrorism ended its training of terrorists. American military action
in Afghanistan, in cooperation with anti-Taliban Afghan forces, freed
Afghanistan from oppressive Taliban rule and it also ended the use of
Afghanistan as a base for terrorists.

<<-What evidence you have to support the governments institution of
NAFTA and how it has impacted Mexico>>

I have no evidence on that subect.

<<-Do you even know who the Zapatistas are??>>

Yes, they are a movement of people in Chiapas, Mexico under the
command of sub-commander Marcos who oppose actions of the Mexican
government.

<<-How American capitalism on an international level (globalization)
has positively effected 3rd world countries vs negetively effected>>

The answer to your question would be a doctoral thesis. The answer
also differs from country to country.

<<-How the IMF, WTO, and World Bank are supporting developing
countries (Argentina for example)>>

This is also something that I do not know much about.

<<-Why the Ku Klux Klan and other American terrorist organizations
have not been eliminated>>

Those organizations have nearly been eliminated. They are far smaller
than they once were and they are insignificant. They are shrinking
instead of growing. A trial of someone from the KKK is now going on
according to news reports.

<<-Why the US intervenes with democracy in foreign countries (rigged
elections and support of "democrats" who would allow for their
countries to be subject to globalisation)>>

You did not ask the above question clearly enough for me to attempt an
answer.

<<-What you think neoliberalism is>>

It is a school of thought that I do not believe is significant.

<<-Why the US will train and use terrorists (CIA training terrorists
in particular, not just Osama too) but condemn terrorism in this war>>

The US does not train or use terrorists.

<<-Why the government has given back $140 billion to corporations and
not to citizens (who pay the taxes in the first place)>>

The Republican Party was influenced by campaign contributions to
support that mistaken legislation. This is likely to be a campaign
issue in next year's congressional campaigns. It is another reason why
I believe that campaign finance reform is needed in the USA.

<<-How your government has justified killing OVER 3500 (likely around
3800) innocent civilians in Afganistan>>

Neither you or I know how many people were killed in Afghanistan and
how many of them were innocent, especially because many of those
killed were terrorists. The justification is self-defense by the USA.
Our government had to take action to attack the source of
anti-American terrorist training that was responsible for the attacks
of September 11th.

<<-How this war will break the circle of violence when killing thus
far has only promoted retribution>>

The war in Afghanistan ended the use of Afghanistan as a source of
training and planning of attacks against America. It was a necessary
war and it makes the world a better place to live because it decreases
terrorism.

<<I think that just about covers it, I'll come back with more if I
think of them.>>

Okay, I will answer the other part of your message a little later.

{Issues.28.28}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Fri, 04 Jan 2002 20:13:55 CST (234 lines)

Now it's a little later, and here is my answer to the other part of
your long message.
<<China is a communist nation, although it doesn't use true communist
theory. >>

China is communist in name only. It could solve its energy problems if
it could harness the force of Mao spinning in his grave. China's
political system has a lot to be desired in the sense that it is not a
democracy. It also has not renounced going to war against Taiwan
whenever China chooses to do that. But economically, China has a fully
functioning capitalist system including a stock exchange and joint
ventures with corporations from every major industrial nation.

<<Communist Russia was not broken by communism. It was broken
by its approach at expansion, but lost wars. It was broken by its
corrupt government as well.>>

That would not account for its having to abandon communism and
dissolve into many smaller nations. It was the economic bankruptcy of
communism that forced the Soviet Union to collapse. If Russia or any
of the other Soviet successor states or any of the nations of Eastern
Europe thought that communism was the best economic system, then they
would not have abandoned communism, but each of those countries chose
to abandon communism because they want better lives for their people
and they realized that communism was an experiment that failed.

<<it worked much like how the US globalises and spreads their markets
(with the help of terrorists, dictators, the CIA, etc). Although many
of the dictators in those countries don't have to act as such, they
still exist in one way or another.>>

No, the US globalizes and spreads its markets by selling attractive
products at competitive prices. At one time there were many dictators
in Latin America but now the only dictator left there is Castro in
Cuba. There are also many more democracies throughout the world than
there had been. The CIA has nothing to do with our economic system.

<< This is my view on how American democracy works:
2 candidates are nominated and given large sums of soft money by
giant corporations. Those large corporations would only fund
campaigns of someone dedicated to upholding corporate America, it
only makes sense that giant corporations would want to support
someone who supported globalisation, neoliberalism, anti-
egalitarianism (equality is bad for business) and a low minimum wage.>>

I agree with you about this except for your remark about
anti-egalitarianism. There is nothing bad for business about equality
of opportunity and equal rights.

<<The same media outlets that you, Ken, get your news from are owned
by the corporations that provide soft money as well, so they also use
their media to deterr voters onto the 2 candidates nominated. Neither
candidate has any intention to/will destroy the system, but perhaps
alter it, expand it, or cunningly cover it up. When we're given these
2 choices (yes, there are other options, but someone like Nader
didn't lose because his policies weren't appealing) and lied to about
the candidates intention.>>

Third party candidates sometimes win. One prominent example is
Governor Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. No candidate should want to
destroy the system because the American system gives the vast majority
of Americans very good lives. We should want to make changes to the
system to make it better, but destroying something that is working so
well for almost every American would be stupid.

<<"If voting could change the system, it would be illegal."
Theodore Adorno>>

Voting can change the system in the United States. At one time the
only people who were allowed to vote here were white men. Now any
adult American citizen who is not a felon can vote here. Senators used
to be appointed but now they are elected. Voters choices resulted in
"the end to welfare as we know it" by President Clinton and the
elected members of Congress. Those are just a few of the examples that
could be mentioned.

<<Pride in the right light is honorable, pride when taken as supremacy
becomes ignorance.>>

Okay, as long as you do not assume that someone else's pride is an
expression of supremacy unless he or she says that it is based on
supremacy. Pride can be the result of personal accomplishment or being
satisfied with what you are.

<< Ken, you can't argue that pride, whether for a
nation, a religion, an ethnic group, or whatever else, has always
been positive.>>

Nothing is always positive. Even medicine has harmful side effects in
some instances for some people.

<<In the perfect world patriotism would be just, but
certainly it has led America down a trail of ignorance and arrogance.>>

Patriotism is just in any nation that is behaving honorably, which is
why American patriotism is a good thing. You are wrong about its
effect on America. Extremist critics of America often exhibit
ignorance and arrogance.

<<America has become so consumed in its own pride that it feels
righteous to murder civilians in foreign countries but will wage war
commiting more murder than was inflicted upon itself.>>

America has every right to feel righteous. It does not seek to murder
civilians but sometimes accidents happen and sometimes military
targets that need to be destroyed are placed in civilian areas where a
stray bomb could harm innocent people who we would not wish to see
harmed. And of course most Americans would want to see many more of
its deadly enemies killed than were killed by enemy terrorists on
September 11th. The terrorists will kill us until we kill them, no
matter how many of them there are, so it is important to our survival
to kill the terrorists before they can kill additional innocent Americans.

<<If you read the articles I posted before you would have seen an
outrageous quote by Madeline Albright justifying genocide to protect
America.>>

I did not read those articles. I read your messages and I know from
past experience that information on a web site that is not (in my
opinion) a trusted source of information is not worth reading.
Albright may have been misquoted. I do not have a high opinion of her
in any case. If you tell us what she said, other people including me
can comment on it.

<<I was watching CNN the other day and heard loud and clear that
America has the liberty to protect its own interests (in other
countries) with military enforcement. This is what helped spark the
terrorism of 9/11, and I found this outrageous, do you?>>

What you wrote is not clear to me. I agree that the American
government has the right to act to protect the lives of innocent
Americans, as it has done in Afghanistan. What sparked the terrorism
of 9/11 was religious fanatics believing that killing non-Islamic
infidels is a good thing, and I found that their murderous hatred is
outrageous.

<<The American government is most definetly racist and fascist, and
many others agree.>>

A small number of Americans are misguided but our government is not
racist or fascist. The President's Cabinet consists of people of many
different races and both genders. This is also true of Congress. The
Taliban is fascist. If America was fascist then you and I would not
have freedom of speech to criticize it.

<<Police officers think they have the authority to
murder minorities, and whats worse is that they are not or barely
punished for doing so. Border guards near Mexico shoot hundreds of
latino civilians every year, but they are of no significance to the
government.>>

Not true.

<<Mumia himself was racially targeted for being Black, and
his death sentance was overturned on these grounds and he is being
given a retrail (thanks to the millions internationally who have
supported his fight for freedom).>>

If this nation was racist and fascist then that turkey would have been
fried by now and what millions internationally thought would count for
nothing.

<<And Ken, when you say that there are minorities who hold political
power, did you ever think that maybe they have that power to keep
Americans believing that the establishment isn't bigotted?>>

No, they have power because the establishment isn't bigotted - if it
was bigotted then "minorities" would not have been trusted with power.

<<And when you look at wars waged by the United States and targets of
the g8, IMF, WTO and World Bank, don't you see that the American
government has targeted non-white countries (with the exception of the
World Wars, not started by the US, America hasn't engaged a foreign
white nation in war, and the Revolutionary war was only a defense,
Great Britain was never targetted).>>

Americans fought two wars against Great Britain: the Revolutionary War
and the War of 1812. The Spanish-American War was also fought against
a white country, and the recent War in Kosovo was also against a white
country. Both world wars were fought against countries that attacked
us first. The Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War were fought
to help friendly nations that were attacked and that asked for
America's help.

<<Or perhaps you might see that corporations keep minorities in low
paying jobs and often make it impossible to climb the corporate
ladder? Just coincidences Ken? That was then, this is now?>>

Yes, that was then, this is now. The largest American media company is
AOL Time Warner, which is run by an African-American. Minorities also
run other American companies.

<<The American government's abuse of minorities is improving, but only
at the rate that citizens form movements or resist this abuse (the
terrorists, right Ken?).>>

If this was a fascist nation then citizens would not be allowed to
form movements and no change would be allowed. Improvement is the
result of the democratic process working in America.

<<As for fascism, the government has been democratic in the way that
they tell us what to think, and we obey or become un-american
radicals.>>

No, the government is democratic because different political parties
have very different ideas about what policies should be followed and
every year democratic elections decide which politicians get to hold
political power. Americans are free to be candidates for political
office and to vote for any candidate or to choose not to vote at all.
You can choose to be an un-american radical or a patriotic citizen or
anything in between those two positions.

<<One of the greatest things this nation has left is free speech, as
long as it doesn't spark change and danger to the system. We have the
freedom to communicate with one another even if its about dissent.
BUT, we are limited to what we know, and what America doesn't know
keeps the fascist elites in power.>>

Fascist elites are not in power in America. We can speak freely and
that does result in change. It results in less change than you may
want to happen because most Americans disagree with you.

<<The system of America is comparable to the matrix in the
movie, "The Matrix". People are kept in complacency and ignorant
bliss while they are controlled and used (in America's example, by
corporations). There are even those who will fight to protect this
system when introduced to the truth, and that is why the truth is a
weapon of the people. That is also why America has been brainwashed
into consent, not because they're good thinkers like Ken has stated,
but because they either don't know or don't accept the truth.>>

They know the truth but almost all of them disagree with you. I also
enjoyed watching the movie "The Matrix" but I realized that it was
fiction, not a documentary.

{Issues.28.29}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:17:49 CST (122 lines)

I'll start from the top...

The issue dealing with the Israel-Palastine conflict is not being
resolved in an appropriate way, because citizens of neither side are
willing to compromise. The fact is though, that politically speaking
the land is Palastinian. The only claim Israel has to it is that it
is their "Promised Land", but then again, Indian promised land was
stolen by early America and hasn't been returned. Instead of arming
one side or the other (the US has armed Israel, which has also
commited terrorist acts, mind you Ken), the US should either ignore
the issue or use morality and reason.

The Sudanese bombing was covered up when no evidence could be found
that would prove it successful, but this act of terror was never
penalized by any nation, and not even the UN (which has voice, but
lacks power of authority). Its no surprise that our own terrorism
could provoke terrorism against us as well.

One cannot morally justify America allying with an oppressive regime,
whether regarded as threats or not. A NAP would be a better choice,
where neither side is hostile towards another but neither side
aknowledges the other as an ally. The US allies itself with dictators
in the interest of power and money. A dictatorship has the ability of
control, as people under its rule only live to serve it in the
government's view. This is why its so profitable to be allied with a
dictator, although still not justified.

The Northern Alliance has been several clans of warlord-rulers in
Northern Afganistan. Its been known for its mistreatment of women,
but I agree that when they're not raping/torturing women they
probably treat them a lot better than the Taliban. America would be
much better off signing a NAP with them and using their territory for
military bases (if military should be used at all, which is still
controvertial).

Theres a little thing the UN bargains with in Iraq, its a oil-for-
food treaty. The UN provides food for the needy, and in return takes
oil. Fair right? The food is distributed significantly more to the
areas not under Saddam's rule, a hypocracy that allows the UN to
claim that Saddam is misspending money (which still may be true).
Keep in mind that the US supplied many of Iraq's weapons that they
have today. The US has been metaphorically strangling Iraq, cutting
off areas from water (sometimes also poisoning the water),
electricity, medicinal supplies, food, and other essentials. Although
not as severe, the US has also been using military forces to kill
Iraqis.  Here are some articles to help explain more on the issue:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0003/crossette-iraq.html

Ken, I can tell you don't know much about the contra wars from what
you've written. Go out and buy the book "What Uncle Sam Really Wants"
by Noam Chomsky, it explains in depth what the contra wars were
about. In summary, your right. Heres the catch though...it was pro-
American dictators vs. democratic uprisings (not to be called anti-
American simply because they had no interest in American capitalism).

I've already been able to prove to you that American mass media has
an un-truthful bias. The news was not intended to be spoon-feeding
opinions by selecting only parts of the truth. Americans who know
more about politics (relating to the Middle East especially) have a
better idea of what this war means. It goes much deeper than how the
media may have it seem: that the US is a victim and is only acting in
self defense.

There was evidence to convict Mumia, but upon investigation its
obvious this evidence was inappropriate and biased. Theres a great
deal of information at the site www.refuseandresist.org. Go there,
check out the archives on Mumia's case, and judge for yourself
whether justice was done.

Ken, show evidence to me proving that Osama bin Laden financed,
owned, and operated the Taliban. If this was true there would have
been a much bigger issue about the Taliban's existance prior to 9-11.
There were certainly attempts to eradicate bin Laden prior to 9-11,
but they failed miserably (and with further provocation of another
attack). The US, in fact, tried to ally with the Taliban in the
interest of an oil-pipeline.

Ken, show evidence to me proving that Osama bin Laden financed,
owned, and operated the Taliban. If this was true there would have
been a much bigger issue about the Taliban's existance prior to 9-11.
There were certainly attempts to eradicate bin Laden prior to 9-11,
but they failed miserably (and with further provocation of another
attack). The US, in fact, tried to ally with the Taliban in the
interest of an oil-pipeline. This is a great article by Noam Chomsky
on the war in Afganistan, and even proves that the Northern Alliance
has even condemned American bombings.
http://www.zmag.org/lakdawalalec.htm

NAFTA is a "Free Trade" agreement that was instituted in early 1994.
It has allowed multi-national corporations to enter Mexico and tap
into the economy. They do this because its laizes faire capitalism
when put on an international scale. There is no minimum wage, so
laborers will work for far less than in America. You could easily say
that Mexicans could just choose not to work for one of these
corporations, but jobs are limited, and people need income to
survive. Also keep in mind that domestic competition in Mexico is
easily crushed, which further narrows the jobs available.

You have the basics of the Zapatista movement, but theres certainly
much more too it. There are several good books you can find, one of
them called "War Against Oblivion: The Zapatista Chronicles" which
I'm reading right now. This site may also be helpful:
http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/Zapatistas/

This may help you understand globalization, IMF, the WTO, and World
Bank: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/jan2000albert.htm

The Ku Klux Klan is very much alive, contrary to belief. Rallies are
held nationwide continually, with no intervention by CIA, FBI, etc.
They continue to harass minorities all over the American spectrum.
There is more than just the Ku Klux Klan in terms of
American "cleansing" organizations as well. The difference between
these and the Al-Qaeda network is that Al-Qaeda is targetting all
Americans and especially authority, while the Ku Klux Klan targets
minorities. The Ku Klux Klan is not anti-American like Al-Qaeda
though, and is not percieved as a threat to the American government.
You even stated that there is someone from the KKK on trial right
now, and doesn't that mean that other members of the KKK are also
guilty by association (keep in mind that Al-Qaeda members have been
jailed without regard to their terrorist participation)? There is no
good or bad terrorist, and no terrorist that should be ignored.

{Issues.28.30}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:18:24 CST (62 lines)

Ok, continuing now...

I was referring to the controvertial elections in developing nations
allied to the US. Nicaragua was the most recent example I believe.

Neoliberalism in short is the treatment of anything of significance,
and I'm serious when I say anything, as just a way to make a profit.
The Zapatistas have a large conflict with American neoliberalism
under NAFTA, because it is a treatment of not only the resourses of
Mexico (which are sold at extremely little worth), but also of human
labor. The politics involved with oil in the Middle East is an
example of how countries act in neoliberalism. Think of the word this
way, neoliberalism means being at liberty to be greedy and tyrannical
(neoliberalism is often associated with capitalism).

The United States, has in fact, trained and used terrorists. I'm
pretty sure you remember that Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA
to be a terrorist, and was used by the US to fight the Soviets. Other
terrorists have been trained in South America and Mexico especially.
During the Contra Wars terrorists were used heavily to crush
democratic uprisings by, guess what, inflicting terror in the
opposition. And one can only guess what we DON'T know about the CIA's
actions.

The republican party, and the democratic party, both took
contributions. This isn't a new thing either, the idea of taking
corporate hand-outs while keeping corporations happy when a candidate
reaches the White House has been happening since all of us were born.
I distinctly remember that George W. Bush and Al Gore alike pledged
to make this reform, but I would be surprised if this actually
happened.

The most accurate report as of yet has shown that 3700+ CIVILIANS
have died as a result of the bombing. This is a revised and more
recent copy of the article: http://www.zmag.org/herold.htm
I'm sure you'll think this source is laughable because it may not say
what you like to hear, but unfortunately, mass medias have ignored
this issue. Its a good example of brainwash, we are not told the full
truth, just what works in consent's favor. There is no moral
justification for killing 3700+ civilians under any cercumstance. You
say that America is only defending itself. But actually, those
civilians posed no threat to the US. There should have been 0
civilians killed in fighting Osama bin Laden, it should have been
done with military intelligence (if there is such a thing), but its
outrageous that the US has killed more Afgan civilians than the
number of American civilians that died in the attacks on 9-11. This
is how you provoke more enemies, unless the US has the intention of
killing every possible person in the world who may disagree with it
(I assume this is not the case). The sense of protecting America but
only in the way of killing thousands of people, most of which were
not involved, is outragious in itself. Did the Washington Post tell
you to think this is 'ok'?

The war hasn't stopped terrorism in Afganistan at all, we most likely
have provoked more hate. Millions of people in Afganistan have been
negetively effected by the war, whether they were killed, their loved
ones were killed, they lost their house, they lost livestock, and so
on. Many of those who have survived don't even know why they were
bombed, but they may know who did it. You say now they have arts and
music and such, but they still lack many necessities or have lost
things in this war. Go ahead and argue that Afganis are all happy
with the United States for this, but I absolutely disagree.

{Issues.28.31}: Patrick Barry {r3volv3r} Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:55:05 CST (97 lines)

This is what I meant exactly by not holding true to Communist theory,
China makes itself into an empire. Capitalism is dependant on the
system of 'haves' and 'have nots', and a great portion of China is in
poverty due to this system. To say that capitalism is successful is
to be ignorant to those who have suffered from it, the 'have nots'.

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate
must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the
unfortunate."
-- Bertrand Russell

You forget, Ken, that true communism has not been allowed to be
demonstrated. In communism there are no 'have nots', contrary to what
has happened in communist countries. Corrupt governemnts are what
make communism go sour. Russia also was able to recover its economy
witht the help of the US. It cannot be a failed experiment when it
has never been done right, because then it would always be a failure
like has been shown. Capitalism and communism would both work well
(theoretically) in a nation with a moral and virtuous government.
Capitalism has worked to the extent that we're lucky enough to be
the 'haves' or the 'have-a-little-want-mores', and not on the 'have
nots' side of capitalism.

The CIA has been used to monitor countries that are on the 'have not'
side of capitalism, and were used in the Contra wars to help stop
democratic uprisings that knew the effects of globalization. Flashy
products aren't everything that has to relate with globalization,
Ken. Globalization is just spreading capitalism to an international
level, and its the work plus the product that goes with it. Also,
sometimes resources are needed for corporations. They globalize to
get those resources at a lower cost, for example, oil in the Middle
East.

Equality is bad for capitalism, Ken, you should know this by now. If
all people eared the same amount of money that worked under every
American corporation, you would see what equality looks like when
mixed with capitalism. This has never been done before, because we
don't live in a perfect world, and we know that greed and arrogance
of the richest and most powerful in a corporation doesn't allow for
equality. The leaders in our "democracy" are the greedy and arrogant,
its not very hard to see this.

Ken, you STILL forget why most Americans live so well, its at the
expense of others. If the system is destroyed it will benefit
humanity as a whole, but you can't think outside the American bubble.
Try to explain what the system is Ken, I'll tell you if you're right.

Those changes in the system did not come by voting Ken, but I really
do admire your ability to assume. Change for the system has barely
originated by voting at all. But, I'm eager to hear your opinion on
what the system is.

Being satisfied with who you are is acceptance, not pride. Pride
comes from a feeling that one is better, or that one has accomplished
something. Patriotism is national pride, and if you're any
indication, it is definetly arrogance and ignorance. Your ignorance
to certain truths and problems while talking only of the benefit of
America shows this pride well. Pride can be related to some type of
competition. American competition to be the richest and most powerful
nation is a crime against humanity. Stop thinking inside the American
bubble and maybe you'll realize this.

Ignorant to truth you may not like? Sources are automatically wrong
because you don't like what they say? Such is the American bubble...I
realize that your likely still too ignorant to accept some of these
things, so I won't force you too, we can just continue arguing.

Heres the quote you wanted:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a
half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than
died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

The quote about America protecting its interest is an example of the
America spirit to conquer without regard to consequence. I never said
anything about Afganistan.

Ken, try to come up with some better evidence to support your
arguement than saying America has minorities with power, I've already
written my opinions on that but you ignored them. You ignored the
part about free speech too, because speech alone is nothing, action
is the key to endangering the system.

Next, you just comment "not true" about police brutality? I'm sure
you can put up a better fight than that, there's entire archives of
information that would prove me right.

Mumia Abu Jamal would have been "fried" as you said before, but he
recieved so much support that the government wouldn't get away with
it. Theres a good chance he will go free now, and that will prove his
innocence to the ignorant and arrogant of this nation.


I'll continue tommorow

{Issues.28.32}: {dee} Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:44:46 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:46:57 CST}

{Issues.28.33}: {dee} Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:47:19 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:47:40 CST}

{Issues.28.34}: I'm totally off-topic {dee} Tue, 08 Jan 2002 14:50:19 CST (187 lines)

Oy!

 Okay. So this conversation seems to be between Pat and Ken...I'm
about to butt in on the "racism" tip, since my argument with regard
to this issue is most obvious to me. I mean, you all have been
discussing some other compelling issues I'd also like to address...but
at this point you've deconstructed those issues to the point where
they're almost unrecognizable - at least to those not originally
involved in the conversation.

 It's hard to know where to begin. I'd like to quote you both, but
number the quotable quotables exceeds my cutting and pasting limit.
Having said this, I'll irresponsibly grab things from the air and you
can get up in arms if you feel I've somehow misrepresented the themes
you've raised.

 So with all the arrogance and posturing I can summon from the
heavens, I'll proceed:

 Basically, Pat and Ken have taken stereotypically conservative and
liberal positions on the issues. Yay. As an arrogant posturer I'll
incite a big fat ideological argument with Ken first. Of course, as a
more conservative fellow, you tend to use data on...I guess...the
level of the individual as oppposed to <i>the group</i>.
Which is fine...as the phrase goes: <b>do you</b>

Ken gives us beautiful nuggets like, <b>"No, they have power because
the establishment isn't bigotted - if it was bigotted then
"minorities" would not have been trusted with power."</b> (Note how he
puts the word "minorities" in quotations, as if to say, <i>"see how I
don't believe we should use the word 'minorities'? despite my
undercover racist values, I can't be racist because I'm smart enough
to reguritate socially acceptable answers to socially acceptable
questions</i>").

Has it occured to you Ken, that Rice and Powell
are...well...conformists? I mean, I don' know 'em personally, but
I'd say they definitely conform to white, middle class American
values (Powell was in the <i>army</i> for godsake! The army can only
exist if its consituents conform to its values. If Powell's not a
conformist, goddamit, I don't know what is!). Conformists generally
have an easier time manuevering through any system, dontcha think?
(Not to say that conformists are <i>bad</i>. We need 'em. They do what
they do and serve a purpose in the short run.)

 Going on the assumption that Rice and Powell are conformists (I admit
this is an assumption) who have whole-heartedly accepted the values
instilled in them through education (a eurocentric education - you can
quantitatively measure that) and socialization...OF COURSE THEY'D BE
SUCESSFUL IN THIS SOCIETY. Of course the AOL guy is successful.
They're brilliant people...who use they're
brilliancy...and...well...conform. The people in power (white men -
you can measure that quantitatively, too) love 'em because they
embrace the values that make the country work. They're
non-threatening black people. Have you heard that term before?
I'll repeat it: they're NON-THREATENING black people. Sounds harsh
and racist and all that...but it's a) not and b) the truth.

Rice and Powell don't threaten the people in power because both
of these incredibly intelligent and amazing individuals have aspired
to <i>be what the people in power deem acceptable</i>. You think
Rice would be briefing Bush on post-Cold War Russia if she were a
black woman with an Afro (or dreads) who once had ties
to...say...the black panther party? Heh.

The success of Rice and Powell doesn't translate into the country not
being racist. In fact, it solidifies the image of this country as
being a racist one. The message Rice and Powell send is this: little
black boys and girls, assimilate (into?) the mainstream as much as
possible to get by and get ahead. These are the rules of the game.

 Not that the mainstream is the evil empire. People need to survive
and feed their children, etc. It just sucks that the rules of the game
give people of color so little leeway.

 Rice and Powell are tokens. I recognize a token when I see one
because I am one. (BTW, Powell has a lot of power in theory, but in
practice his influence doesn't run that deeep - especially lately. I
can discuss that further later if you have a problem which this
statement).

 Other beautiful "Ken nuggets": <b>The answer is that there is nothing
wrong with saying "proud to be white" or "proud to be American" unless
you think that James Brown was being racist when he said and sang "I'm
Black and I'm Proud". It would also be racist to say that it is okay
for a Black to be proud of being Black but it would be wrong for a
white to be proud of being white.</b>

 Geez Ken. For a smart guy you have an extremely painful way of
looking at issues on the surface, observing what you want to observe
only to disregard what could be a wonderfully fulfilling analysis.
Unfortunately, your supposition or assumption here contains a hidden
premise. So even if I didn't think your idea was dead wrong, your
argument would suck based on logic and well...math (observe someone in
a logic class break down a hidden premise using numbers: you'll never
be the same again).

Explanation (without the numbers):

Premise 1: Going on the assumption that A and B are supposed to be
equal in every sense of the word (their actions are equal, their
entitlements are equal). This means if A can do something B should
automatically be afforded the right (or priviledge) to do the same
thing.

Premise 2: On the surface this argument is absolutely correct. If I'm
going to shout out "I'm black and proud!" on a crowded metro car, by
god, the white guy beside me should be able to do the same thing and
be correct in his assertion.

This is all well and good and wonderful...until you examine what's
between premise 1 and 2. Let's call it 1b.

<examines the what Ken should have between premise 1 and 2>
<looks harder to be fair>

 There's nothing there, Ken, and so your argument collapses on top of
itself. Premise 1 doesn't automatically lead to premise 2 because of
extenuating circumstances. If the whole argument were that easy, we'd
all feel very comfortable about hearing white people say, "I'm white
and I'm proud." As society stands, a great majority of us <i>don't</i>
feel comfortable with that kind of assertion even if we <i>do</i>
agree (based on the democratic values we so love and admire) people
should be allowed to proclaim this idea to the high heavens. A lot of
us don't know <i>why</i> we aggree with the principle and not the
action, but then again, many of us prefer not to think about the whole
mess at all.

 From an ideological stand-point I'll explain. When James Brown says,
"I'm black and I'm proud" he says so as an African American male, the
descendent of a cottom-picking slave, whose culture and very identity
were obliterated. He says so as a man who has been told (implicitly
and perhaps explicitly) by various factions that he should <i>not</i>
be proud of being black because black is 1) ugly 2) stupid 3) poor 4)
hopeless 5) worthless etc. He has been told this buy 1) the tv show in
which the man who looks like him plays the part of the servant
2)various whoopi goldberg characters ;) 3) the messenger that told him
he'd be cute on stage with straightened hair (oh Ken...you didn't
think that was his natural hair, did you?) 4) the person who gave him
the last name "Brown" (which we'll assume is his real name for
the sake of this argument 5) the bandaid he may have worn, for a cut,
at the time, that was flesh colored (pink) 6) the language he speaks
which designates the words "dark", "black" etc as being "wrong",
"scary", "evil" etc.

 Now, you might say "what does any of that have to do with it?" (after
all...you <i>did</i> miss the whole point Patrick was making about the
matrix). I'd say semantics and constant bombardment with negative
images and alienation would have a big effect on a person, don't you?
And this individual would have a desire...a need...to assert that they
are proud of themselves and a culture that has been so despised that
it has nearly been slaughtered, and where it has not, tends to surface
in the twisted, gnarled form of UPN comedies and BET.

 Conversely...the term "white" has always been associated with the
dominant, mainstream culture. The good culture. The culture that Rice
and Powell bought into to the extent that they can now relate to
George W Bush enough for him to have hired them. Hmm...I can't
remember a time when "white" the meaning of the word, has ever been
rampantly associated with negativity. And while the culture of "white
people" in America is a mixture of various peoples from Europe, it
still belongs to white people and still dominates and alienates others
to the extent that they fail standardized tests, and must enroll in
special programs to master the english language. By default, every
time I turn on the TV, read a news paper, hang out with my white
friends, go out into Northampton or Amherst (New England) I'm exposed
to the proclamation "we're proud of what we've created."

 In this context, for someone to further assert "I'm white and I'm
proud" kind of seems in "bad taste" - especially since (arguably) one
could say white mainstream culture has created the rules of the game
that so many people of color seem to be losing at the moment. It's
kind of like rubbing the fact that you've won something in the face of
the the person who has lost a great chunk of their identity to you.
And in their efforts to reclaim what dignity they've lost, at least
give 'em "I'm black and I'm proud" as a step towards regaining some of
that dignity. Heh. ;)

 Addressing Patricks arguments are a little more complicated. I guess,
maybe, I'll do that in the future.

 Kudos to you (whoever you are) for actually deciding to stick this
post out til the end!

 <does a happy dance>

 Sorry about any and all typos, etc.

{Issues.28.35}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Wed, 09 Jan 2002 20:45:39 CST (5 lines)

I am dee-lited to see dee post here. I plan to answer her soon and
then answer Pat soon afterwards. Aside from saying in my best Arnold
Schwartzenegger impression "I'll be back", I also want to suggest
that dee wrongly assumes racism in messages and posters where it does
not exist. I will give a more complete answer a little later.

{Issues.28.36}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:55:52 CST (105 lines)

<<Ken gives us beautiful nuggets like, "No, they have power because
the establishment isn't bigotted - if it was bigotted then
"minorities" would not have been trusted with power." (Note how he
puts the word "minorities" in quotations, as if to say, "see how I
don't believe we should use the word 'minorities'? despite my
undercover racist values, I can't be racist because I'm smart enough
to reguritate socially acceptable answers to socially acceptable
questions").>>

You are wrong about what is and what is not racist. If someone said
"Kill all Niggers or at least send all of them back to Africa" that
would be racist. It would also be racist to say "All African-Americans
have rythmn." I do not hold either of those views. I used "the N word"
in a way to try to bring you back to reality and in the sense that
Dick Gregory used it in his book of the same title years ago and that
Randall Kennedy uses it in his recent book. If someone objects that
any use of that word is offensive, your calling me racist is something
that I find offensive. We can all agree to "play nice" or to flame
each other but we will not have two sets of standards where you can
flame me and I cannot react in the same way. Now I will try Nice again.

<<Has it occured to you Ken, that Rice and Powell
are...well...conformists? >>

Of course.

<<You think Rice would be briefing Bush on post-Cold War Russia if she
were a black woman with an Afro (or dreads) who once had ties
to...say...the black panther party?>>

Yes, as long as she was, in your word, a comformist, Bush could care
less if she wore an Afro or what her past ties were.

<<The success of Rice and Powell doesn't translate into the country
not being racist. In fact, it solidifies the image of this country as
being a racist one. The message Rice and Powell send is this: little
black boys and girls, assimilate (into?) the mainstream as much as
possible to get by and get ahead. These are the rules of the game.>>

This country is not racist and the success of millions of
African-Americans proves it. If it was racist, it would say that
Blacks will not be allowed success, fame, power or wealth under any
circumstances because the fact that they are Black means that we will
not trust them no matter what they do. It is not racist to say that if
any Blacks act like they believe in our values and play by our rules,
then they will be richly rewarded in every possible way. You cannot
change your race but you can change your behavior. A racist does not
care about your behavior because your race is enough to condemn you if
you are Black. Or in the case of Black racists, if you are white. You
can object to someone insisting on your comformity to a set of rules
or laws, but you are totally wrong to say that this is racism unless
laws treat different races differently (such as saying that some races
cannot own property or be candidates for political offices).

<<It just sucks that the rules of the game give people of color so
little leeway.>>

It is fair for you to think that and it is fair for me to disagree,
but neither of us are being racist when we do that. The success of
Muhammad Ali, Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson Jr., Al
Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Sean Combs, Dr. Dre and many other people who
we both could name prove that there is really a lot of leeway given.

<<Other beautiful "Ken nuggets": The answer is that there is nothing
wrong with saying "proud to be white" or "proud to be American" unless
you think that James Brown was being racist when he said and sang "I'm
Black and I'm Proud". It would also be racist to say that it is okay
for a Black to be proud of being Black but it would be wrong for a
white to be proud of being white.

Premise 1: Going on the assumption that A and B are supposed to be
equal in every sense of the word (their actions are equal, their
entitlements are equal). This means if A can do something B should
automatically be afforded the right (or priviledge) to do the same
thing.

Premise 2: On the surface this argument is absolutely correct. If I'm
going to shout out "I'm black and proud!" on a crowded metro car, by
god, the white guy beside me should be able to do the same thing and
be correct in his assertion.>>

Even after reading everything that you wrote, I accept both premises.
To me and many other people, having different rules for people of one
race than you have for people of another race is racist by definition.
My view is: treat people as people regardless of their race and have
the same rules for all people.

<<I'd say semantics and constant bombardment with negative
images and alienation would have a big effect on a person, don't you? >>

It could, but how you react to any statement is your choice. You do
not have to buy into propaganda or negative statements of any kind.

<<In this context, for someone to further assert "I'm white and I'm
proud" kind of seems in "bad taste" >>

There is no accounting for taste. Reasonable people can differ on what
is in good taste. More freedom is better than less freedom, and that
includes the freedom to behave in a way that someone else may believe
is in bad taste. Rap music videos would be outlawed if someone's view
of bad taste was against the law.

<<does a happy dance>>
Keep dancing. Or not, it's your choice. I plan to get back to Pat's
messages tomorrow.

{Issues.28.37}: Huh? {dee} Wed, 09 Jan 2002 22:26:37 CST (67 lines)

Heh.

1)I said your VALUES were racist...think about that a bit. There's
overt racist values and then there's..well..the values you've shown
here. Especially with your deconstruction of the "N-word"
(hehe...that came from the O J Simpson trial, right?)

2)Flaming based on the evidence presented is fine with me.

3)So you totally missed the whole point of the conformist, bit, huh?
By default, straightening your hair, for many black women, is one of
the first steps to totally conforming to black middle class values,
which are, essentially, white middle class values. Usually, when a
person is accepted into a corporate structure, like , say, the
Whitehouse...one criteria is that they keep a "professional
appearance"? Agreed? What does that mean, you ask? Well, up until
recently, for black women, it meant (among other things) straightened
hair (thankfully, though, that whole bit is changing). That in itself
reflects internalized racism and the racism inherent to various
post-colonial societies in and of themselves. Hair (and what we do
with it) is a big deal to many black women, in a way that, I think a
lot of other folks don't understand. It's a separate topic on its own,
and I don't think there's any way i can get to the intrinsic meaning
of straightened hair versus an afro or...even "worse" (in terms of NOT
conforming) dreadlocks, without making seem like a thesis.

Suffice it to say, if Rice wore an afro or deadlocks she would
automatically NOT be conforming to the values upheld by our society
(though hatred of natural black hair is slowly changing to the point
where a woman COULD where dreadlocks to work without having it be a
big deal).

4) You said, "This country is not racist and the success of millions
of African-Americans proves it." And then you named all of these
celebrities (a lot of them in the entertainment industry) to back up
your point, which is what people with racist values have done since
the dawn of time. "Look at those successful black people! See! It just
proves that the black people who aren't successful are just lazy! Why
don't they just take control of their lives? Who cares that taking
control of our lives in our society means having the MONEY to take
control of our lives! And it couldn't be the fact that the system is
such that black people in this country...and by gosh...the world...are
disproportionately poor, sick, in jail etc, because many black people
struggle with (physically, emotionally and mentally) the undercover
effects of everyday racism (even if we don't always realize that what
we watch, read and experience can have effects on one's psyche and
sense of self even if that effect is INVOLUNTARY)! No! They're just
lazy! Can't take control of their own lives! There's no racism here!
Oprah's rich, right?"

5) As for your whole speal about different rules being racist..blah,
blah, blah: Hmmm...isn't that convenient? And simplistic?

 People are different? Would you agree? Culturally, racially, etc. We
are not all the same, nor would we want a homogenus culture etc.
Having said this: can't we be DIFFERENT, but EQUAL? And in the context
of DIFFERENCE, don't we need different stipulations? But shouldn't the
stipulations add up to equality for all? That's what I'm talking
about. It's just practical, and it will eventually yeild the most
results.

6) You addressed the "ideological" aspect of my argument, but you did
not defend the structural weakness of your own.

<does a happy self-righteous dance>

 Later.

{Issues.28.38}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:54:48 CST (125 lines)

<<I'll start from the top.>>
Me too.

<<The issue dealing with the Israel-Palastine conflict is not being
resolved in an appropriate way, because citizens of neither side are
willing to compromise. The fact is though, that politically speaking
the land is Palastinian. The only claim Israel has to it is that it
is their "Promised Land", but then again, Indian promised land was
stolen by early America and hasn't been returned.>>

The land of Israel is Israel's. The ancestors of the people of Israel
have lived there for thousands of years. Israel's right to that land
was recognized by the British government which drew the national
boundaries of many Middle Eastern and African nations, the United
Nations, and even Arafat years ago when Arafat was seeking a peaceful
solution. Israel is not going to pack up and leave, so the only hope
for peace is to recognize its right to live in peace there and, as you
said to begin with, to compromise. Otherwise there will be continued
bloodshed on both sides of that conflict.

<<Instead of arming one side or the other (the US has armed Israel,
which has also commited terrorist acts, mind you Ken), the US should
either ignore the issue or use morality and reason.>>

The government of Israel kills terrorists, which is a perfectly
sensible thing for it to do as a matter of self-defence. Israel does
not target civilians in pizza parlors or other public gathering places
as Palestinian terrorists do. The US government is trying to use
morality and reason but as long as the Palestinians want war, there
will be armed conflict there.

<<The Sudanese bombing was covered up when no evidence could be found
that would prove it successful, but this act of terror was never
penalized by any nation, and not even the UN (which has voice, but
lacks power of authority). Its no surprise that our own terrorism
could provoke terrorism against us as well.>>

I already wrote that the Sudanese bombing was both stupid and wrong
and I condemned it when it happened. It happened later in the same
week that President Clinton lied to a court about his sexual relations
with a White House intern. That bombing was a one-time event that was
probably intended to take people's minds off Clinton's problems with
the courts. Clinton was later impeached as part of a serious attempt
to remove him from office. His misuse of the military was not one of
the grounds for impeachment, but it should have been. Terrorism is not
one quick and stupid action. Terrorism is a series of attacks over a
period of many months or years, such as Palestinian suicide bombings
and bin Laden's many murderous attacks on Americans in Africa and America.

<<One cannot morally justify America allying with an oppressive regime>>

Of course it can easily be justified. We would prefer to ally
ourselves with a government that is not oppressive, but when we are in
a deadly conflict we will accept assistance wherever we can find it.
An example of this was America's alliance in World War II with
Stalin's oppressive Communist Soviet Union. There was an even greater
evil to fight, so we made common cause with Stalin because it was a
better alternative than losing the war against the Nazis.

<<The Northern Alliance has been several clans of warlord-rulers in
Northern Afganistan. Its been known for its mistreatment of women,
but>> <<they probably treat them a lot better than the Taliban.>>

Yes they treat women much better than the Taliban did. You keep trying
to blame the Northern Alliance for wrongs of the past but you forget
that the Northern Alliance is under new leadership and it is not
responsible for wrongs of the old leadership.

<<Go out and buy the book "What Uncle Sam Really Wants"
by Noam Chomsky>>

I have no interest in reading what that turd has to say, much less
buying anything that he wrote. Ralph Nader, Cornel West, Gore Vidal
and Edward Said are just some of the many critics of American policies
who I respect and read and listen to with interest. I have no respect
for Chomsky, no interest in reading what he wrote, and no interest in
discussing any of his ideas. He has a right to speak and I have a
right to ignore him. This is easier because he is insignificant. The
critics that I listed, from Nader to Said, have patriotism and common
sense, so they are worth my time. My favorite thinkers are these
critics who have all had disagreements with President Bush: John
McCain, Tom Daschle, and Jesse Ventura.

<<I've already been able to prove to you that American mass media has
an un-truthful bias.>>

No, you proved that to yourself, you did not prove it to me. In
America we have many different news sources which have different
points of view than each other.

<<Go there, check out the archives on Mumia's case, and judge for
yourself whether justice was done.>>

Different people have different interests. I am not at all interested
in reading about Mumia's case.

<<Ken, show evidence to me proving that Osama bin Laden financed,
owned, and operated the Taliban.>>

I read it from reliable media sources and it convinced me. I did not
make notes to convince other people later. There was also a long
report on '60 Minutes II' that I found very convincing. This will not
convince you. Sorry about that.

<<If this was true there would have
been a much bigger issue about the Taliban's existance prior to 9-11.>>

No, it was the attacks on America of 9-11 that convinced most
Americans that there was a real need to quickly do something about the
Taliban.

<<You have the basics of the Zapatista movement, but theres certainly
much more too it.>>

There's much more to everything. These are messages, not encyclopedias.

<<The Ku Klux Klan is very much alive, contrary to belief. Rallies are
held nationwide continually,>>

How many people supporting the KKK do you claim attended each of its
three largest rallies in the past year? Even though I heard the phrase
"three is a crowd", a "crowd" of three people is not much of a rally.
The fact is that although the KKK was significant 100 years ago, it is
insignificant and shrinking. That addresses your first message. I will
get to the other messages later.

{Issues.28.39}: {kenknows} Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:48:15 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:43:05 CST}

{Issues.28.40}: {dee} Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:37:12 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:05:34 CST}

{Issues.28.41}: {dee} Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:40:20 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:05:36 CST}

{Issues.28.42}: Mikhaila Richards {dee} Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:11:54 CST (24 lines)

Hehehee. Hey, it's not my fault you can't back up your argument
sufficiently so that you a) make sense b) don't resort to cliches and
c) refute my argument without resorting to calling me an asshole.

I almost feel bad for making you so mad...but I'd rather declare
victory and hide from your wrath.

 <assumes the pose of a WWF wrestler>

 <ducks from the shit Ken has hurled>

 Sweet. My fellow FemiNazi's would be proud.


 Re:

 "Okay Dee, you flaming asshole. Your insisting on calling someone you
communicate with a racist is stupid, wrong, and proof that you are an
asshole. It is a conversation stopper because I do not discuss ideas
with assholes. I wrote "My rule is: treat people as people regardless
of their race and have them same rules for all people." Asshole Dee
viewed me as a racist for making statements like that. Anything that
that asshole disagrees with is racism according to her warped
viewpoint."

{Issues.28.43}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:43:09 CST (10 lines)

Dee claimed I "can't back up (my) argument sufficiently". My
"argument" is that I am not a racist and she it too stupid to realize
that calling someone a racist is not a good basis for further
discussion, especially when the person who you tried to slur is not a
racist. In my earlier messages I wrote "My rule is: treat people as
people regardless of their race and have them same rules for all
people." Dee pretends to confuse that with racism, or maybe she really
is too stupid to know that a racist wants to treat different people of
different races differently, not to treat them equally. I favor
equality, which Dee confuses with racism.

{Issues.28.44}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:50:29 CST (122 lines)

Now I will reply to another of Patrick's messages where he wrote:
<<Neoliberalism in short is the treatment of anything of significance,
and I'm serious when I say anything, as just a way to make a profit.>>

I never heard of that definition of neoliberalism before or anything
like it. It has nothing to do with liberalism. Maybe it could be
called neocapitalism. Is there a "Journal of Neoliberalism" authored
by people who promote that "philosophy"? I don't think so. In the real
world, some Americans call themselves conservatives, some call
themselves liberals and some call themselves progressives, but I have
heard of no one who calls himself a neoliberal. That use of the word
"neoliberal" sounds like fiction invented by some ivory tower
professor. When you used that term in an earlier message, I thought
you were speaking of anti-communist liberals.

<<Think of the word this way, neoliberalism means being at liberty to
be greedy and tyrannical (neoliberalism is often associated with
capitalism).>>

Your first definition of "neoliberal" sounded like you were describing
an investor or an entrepreneur. Tyranny implies police power which
investors and entrepreneurs do not have. Police protect people's
property, but they do not act outside the law to follow the orders of
investors.

<<The United States, has in fact, trained and used terrorists. I'm
pretty sure you remember that Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA
to be a terrorist, and was used by the US to fight the Soviets.>>

I'm pretty sure you remember Timothy McVeigh used to be an American
soldier. He was treated pretty well when he was acting as a loyal
soldier but he was tried, convicted and executed after he left the
military and engaged in an act of terrorism. Whenever anyone changes
sides and starts killing Americans he is viewed as an enemy and is
punished as an enemy.

<<The republican party, and the democratic party, both took
contributions. This isn't a new thing either, the idea of taking
corporate hand-outs while keeping corporations happy when a candidate
reaches the White House has been happening since all of us were born.>>

Yes, and that is one reason why I support campaign finance reform.

<<There is no moral justification for killing 3700+ civilians under
any cercumstance.>>

Of course there is justification: self-defense. If America's military
was trying to kill civilians in Afghanistan, there would be many times
the number of civilian deaths there than even you claimed. The fact
that some people in the American military killed other people in the
American military in Afghanistan by mistake is proof that accidents
happen where deaths were the unintended result.

<<You say that America is only defending itself. But actually, those
civilians posed no threat to the US.>>

I explained how some civilians were killed by accident but when
enemies locate their forces in civilian areas, that also increases the
number of civilian deaths. The armed forces of bin Laden had to be
killed or else they would continue to kill large numbers of Americans,
so our military had to fight them wherever they were, even if they put
their forces nearby civilians.

<<it should have been done with military intelligence (if there is
such a thing)>>

There is no such thing. Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

<<its outrageous that the US has killed more Afgan civilians than the
number of American civilians that died in the attacks on 9-11.>>

No it is not outrageous, even though I disagree with your inflated
estimate of how many were killed. When a nation is faced with a large
number of people who are all intent on killing as many Americans as
possible, it is stupid to say "They killed 4,000 of us so we are going
to stop killing when we have killed 4,000 of them, and we will let the
rest of bin Laden's killers have another chance to kill more Americans
before we go after them again." America could not allow them to
continue to kill innocent Americans, no matter how many anti-American
terrorists had to be killed.

<<This is how you provoke more enemies, unless the US has the
intention of killing every possible person in the world who may
disagree with it>>

I disagree with you, the enemies of America do not need "provocation"
because anything we do would be something that they could rationalize
as a reason for killing more Americans. Because unlike the Taliban's
Afghanistan, we allow women in our country to work, that could be
provocation enough for them to seek to kill us. Disagreement with
America is okay, but anyone who is engaged in killing Americans has to
be stopped even if our military has to kill them.

<<Did the Washington Post tell you to think this is 'ok'?>>

The Washington Post is a very good source of information but I
sometimes disagree with their editorial positions.

<<The war hasn't stopped terrorism in Afganistan at all, we most
likely have provoked more hate. Millions of people in Afganistan have
been negetively effected by the war, whether they were killed, their
loved ones were killed, they lost their house, they lost livestock,
and so on.>>

The war has stopped the use of Afghanistan as a base where terrorists
would be trained to attack America. It also revealed information that
allowed nations like Singapore to arrest terrorists who were planning
additional murderous attacks on Americans. The vast majority of
Afghans are much better off because of this war than they otherwise
would have been under the oppression of the Taliban. Even under the
inflated estimates that you gave, only a few thousand Afghan civilians
died but many millions of Afghan women are free of the horrible
oppression and beatings they received under the Taliban. Afghan men
also benefit by being allowed to experience music and art that was
forbidden by the Taliban.

<<Go ahead and argue that Afganis are all happy
with the United States for this, but I absolutely disagree.>>

Not all Afghans are happy. Those Afghans who oppressed other Afghans
are not happy, but the vast majority of Afghans are very happy that
their oppression ended.

{Issues.28.45}: {dee} Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:34:16 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:36:41 CST}

{Issues.28.46}: {dee} Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:01:44 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:02:52 CST}

{Issues.28.47}: {dee} Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:07:25 CST (0 lines)
{erased by dee Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:30:12 CST}

{Issues.28.48}: Ken Nostratis {kenknows} Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:26:25 CST (9 lines)

Dee set a new record by posting a message, erasing her own message,
posting a second message and erasing it too, and then posting a third
message and erasing her third message too. What she writes shows that
she is terribly confused, but by posting and erasing her own messages
repeatedly without finding any opinion of hers that she wants anyone
else to see, she continues her record of confusion. When I wrote in
favor of equality and treating people the same no matter what race
they happened to be, she mistakenly called that proof of racism. Her
false accusation was another example of her confusion.

{Issues.28.49}: li'l bit {quasimodo} Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:50:52 CST (8 lines)

*ahem*  For the record, personal attacks don't count as valid
arguments in a debate.

*resists the urge to troll*

Trolly-wolly!  MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

~li'l bitty troll

{Issues.28.50}: Issues in the Issues Forum {dee} Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:46:52 CST (22 lines)

But, you gotta admit: the conflict is kinda exciting! Remember when we
were talking about our yearning for conflict (the exchange can
probably be found in the Blurt forum)?

Having said this: Let's sit in on Ken's inner dialogue, shall we?

 Omigod! Omigod! There's this girl - a girl!!!! - who is way, way, way
smarter than me and I don't know what to do. Plus, sometimes she uses
words I don't understand. Shit! Okay. Okay. OKay. Ken! Ken think! How
can I save face here after she made me look like a text-book case of
unoriginal thinking?! Shit! Okay! I know! I'll take a washed up
argument and try to attack her with it! Maybe if I call her racist
she'll get mad! Shit! That didn't work like I wanted it to. Damn.
Okay, maybe if I repeat the same covertly racist argument people will
support me and see that I'm smart! That militant bitch, Dee! Where the
hell did she come from?! I'm smart! I'm smart! Why won't she see
that I'm smart? Ken! Look in the mirror!

 <Ken looks in the mirror>

 You are smart! You are capable! You are an American! God Bless
America!