The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am
Phillip Adams clings to his beloved myths:
Since 9/11, home security legislation has given the president unprecedented powers, rolling back the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and vanquishing the hard-won victories of decades of activism and the 1960s civil rights movement. Less and less a democracy, not quite a dictatorship, the US has a wilfully ignorant electorate eager to vote against self-interest. So let’s call it what it is: the world’s first dumbocracy.
List all those lost rights and the relevant Constitutional clauses, Phillip. Please. “Dumbocracy” seems to be taking hold in the Middle East, and Jon Stewart is having second thoughts about George W. Bush’s chimpoid Hitlerian fascist Halliburtonism. Commenter Rob at Austin Bay suggests “Not in Your Name” rallies to celebrate this progress. Mark Steyn would agree:
The other day in the Guardian Martin Kettle wrote: ‘The war was a reckless, provocative, dangerous, lawless piece of unilateral arrogance. But it has nevertheless brought forth a desirable outcome which would not have been achieved at all, or so quickly, by the means that the critics advocated, right though they were in most respects.’
Very big of you, pal. And I guess that’s as close to a mea culpa as we’re going to get: even though Bush got everything wrong, it turned out right. Funny how that happens, isn’t it? In a few years’ time, they’ll have it down pat — just like they have with Eastern Europe. Oh, the Soviet bloc [the Middle East thugocracies] was bound to collapse anyway. Nothing to do with that simpleton Ronnie Raygun [Chimpy Bushitler]. In fact, all Raygun [Chimpy] did was delay the inevitable with his ridiculous arms build-up [illegal unprovoked Halliburton oil-grab], as many of us argued at the time: see my 1984 column ‘Yuri Andropov, The Young, Smart, Sexy New Face Of Soviet Communism’ [see the April 2004 Spectator column ‘Things Were Better Under Saddam: The coalition has destroyed Baathism, says Rod Liddle, and with it all hopes of the emergence of secular democracy’ — and yes, that really ran in these pages, on 17 April, not 1 April.]
By the way, when’s the next Not In Our Name rally? How about this Saturday? Millions of Nionists can flood into Trafalgar Square to proclaim to folks in Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority that all the changes under way in the region are most certainly Not In Their Name. Among the celebrity Nionists, Harold Pinter should be available to denounce Blair as a ‘war criminal’ and a ‘hired Christian thug’ one mo’ time. For as the Guardian reported this week, the great man announced that ‘he has decided to abandon his career as a playwright in order to concentrate exclusively on politics’.
The world trembles.
UPDATE. Right on cue, The Guardian’s Timothy Garton Ash writes:
Has Osama bin Laden started a democratic revolution in the Middle East?
(Via the Ombudsgod, who also has news of an attack on free speech.)
UPDATE II. Re Adams’ sensational “dumbocracy” line, reader Stephen W. writes: “Thanks, Phil. I always thought it meant a flying elephant had taken over the circus.”
- Jon Stewart is still a smug, self-satisfied bastard who is even so not above kissing ass for the approval of his leftoid audience. If he has mixed feelings, good! It’s time somebody shook up that tidy little ivory tower he and the rest of his kind live in.
At least I can give him credit for having mixed feelings and not clinging stubbornly his prejudices like… well… this Phillip Adams fellow, and those Guardianistas.
- That TGA column is a squishy grab bag of moral and intellectual incoherence. Ash struggles to recap the left’s Alice-in-Wonderland logic that credited Reagan’s victory in the Cold War to their beloved messiah Gorbachev. This time the awardee is Osama bin Hiding-under-a-bed.
Same fecal material, different—well, actually, nothing’s different.
Since 9/11, home security legislation has given the president unprecedented powers, rolling back the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and vanquishing the hard-won victories of decades of activism and the 1960s civil rights movement
How in the hell can someone make a statement like this and expect to be taken seriously?
Posted by CJosephson on 03/05 at 04:09 PM • permalink
- TGA sounds like hes about 19 years old – conceived during a Jackson Browne concert.
Its all about social consciousness, moral ethics and political activism in the context of peace.
What I want to know is, if nuclear power is so expensive to set up why is oil rich Iran developing it?
- Yes! I’m finally ahead of the curve!
My new sign at last night’s counterprotest read:
AFGHANISTAN
IRAQ
LEBANON
EGYPT
SYRIANOT IN YOUR NAME?
FINE!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 03/05 at 05:07 PM • permalink
- Well, they did lose the right to not be talked back to by all those uppity students, audience members… oh, and voters…Posted by richard mcenroe on 03/05 at 05:08 PM • permalink
- So let’s call it what it is: the world’s first dumbocracy.
The first, eh? Phil, isn’t Australia also a dumbocracy? Or did you back Howard last election?
Curiouser and curiouser…
Posted by Quentin George on 03/05 at 05:36 PM • permalink
- I know it’s a bit futile, but Adams’ whole column in the Australian Magazine this week could do with a good fisking – by the end of it he has us all living in fear because we’re NOT living in fear! “Ahhh, you haven’t been arrested by the Secret Police, tortured & murdered, because they don’t have to – you’re totally brainwashed. The proof is obvious – Howard lacks charisma and I have trouble hating him”.
The mystery is how he still gets published.
Since 9/11, home security legislation has given the president unprecedented powers, rolling back the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and vanquishing the hard-won victories of decades of activism and the 1960s civil rights movement
“How in the hell can someone make a statement like this and expect to be taken seriously?”
It very much sounds like a statement made by someone with no actual experience with the United States, either now or in the past. The only way to roll back rights in the Bill of Rights and Constitution is with a constitutional amendment. There hasn’t been any sort of constitutional amendment for about 50 years. Oh yeah, it also requires approval of 3/4ths of the states, in addition to the Congress. It’s not a one-man job.
This statement “vanquishing the hard-won victories of decades of activism” is so vague as to be meaningless and this statement “vanquishing … the 1960s civil rights movement” is absurd. The Civil Rights movement was about the end of officially sanctioned discrimination based on skin color. That policy is dead, buried and beyond resurrection, no matter which party gets elected, as it’s a matter of national consensus. Even a casual look at President Bush’s cabinet, compared for instance to that of the great Democratic icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s, would make that clear.
Phillip Adams needs to buy a clue. He should take a well-deserved (or at least well-needed) sabbatical and do a little traveling. I’ll put him up at my house and show him whatever he wants to see. If he can spend a month living here and think he’s in a dictatorship or even a near-dictatorship I’ll personally buy him a ticket to North Korea, Belarus, Turkmentistan, Burma or one of any of dozen other countries. His choice. Then let’s see what he has to say.
- Here, for example, is what the undersecretary of state for global affairs, Paula Dobriansky, said on Monday: “As the president noted in Bratislava just last week, there was a rose revolution in Georgia, an orange revolution in Ukraine, and most recently, a purple revolution in Iraq. In Lebanon, we see growing momentum for a ‘cedar revolution’ that is unifying the citizens of that nation to the cause of true democracy and freedom from foreign influence.” Spot the odd one out. “Purple revolution” in Iraq? Purple, as in the colour of blood?
Is it possible that TGA does not know why it’s called the Purple Revolution?
I swear, if people who speak against the War Against Terrorism are so ignorant of the facts to not even know something so important as this, then they’re nothing less than traitors against reason and humanity.
I say put them before cameras and make them apologize.
Posted by wronwright on 03/05 at 10:47 PM • permalink
- The United States political system is an apparatus for Big Business and evangelical Christians to promote their agendas.
The Bush administration’s ties to big business are well documented but at least he looks after his friends
Dubya’s limited intellect is pre-occupied by thoughts of the impending apocalypse.
The American moral compass is variable , and can shift at any time depending on the current political and business environment.
The far right Christian Lobby enjoys wonderful support from the Bush Administration. Thank God!! How else would hugely important bills like this be passed?
What a great democracy, where any billionaire can become president! Democracy by all means, but one that represents ALL people.
PS – I’m a former American Citizen. I left many years ago because of the above.
Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/05 at 10:59 PM • permalink
- From the brow of Hiawatha
Gone was every trace of sorrow,
As the fog from off the water,
As the mist from off the meadow.
With a smile of joy and triumph,
With a look of exultation,
As of one who in a vision
Sees what is to be, but is not…The Democrats want to punish a technical writer at the Boston Globe for posting on a blog somewhere?
Who owns McCarthyism now?
#14 above – reveals the true worth of David Heidelberg.
- Thanks for leaving, David. Your absence has raised the average intelligence of the US.
My apologies to whatever country you have inflicted yourself upon.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 03/05 at 11:48 PM • permalink
- “What a great democracy, where any billionaire can become president! Democracy by all means, but one that represents ALL people.”
Name one billionaire president. Of course, you can’t. Most every president for the last 50 years has been a small town boy who grew up and made good. Dwight Eisenhower(R), Lyndon Johnson(D), Richard Nixon(R), Gerald Ford(R), Ronald Reagan(R), Jimmy Carter(D), and Bill Clinton(D) easily fit that bill. The ones who might be put in the other column to *some* degree are John Kennedy(D), George Bush(R) and George W. Bush(R). Even so, not a billionaire among them. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the accuracy of your thesis.
- Well, David, just when you had redeemed yourself by responding reasonably to some other comments, you go ahead and ruin it all with your childish and stupid paranoid-leftist-hippie crap about the government of the United States. Chalk me up as another American who’s glad you left. Tell me, did you at least have the balls to renounce American citizenship, or are you clinging to your status as an expatriate American just in case you make things to hot for yourself in Australia?Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/06 at 12:23 AM • permalink
- I think it is hillarious when people expression opinions like the following in major newspapers.
9. His critics – in the community and in the media – seem to be falling silent, exhausted and fatalistic.
Though, by the end up the column he sounded like he was giving up because Howard wasn’t evil enough or something.
Posted by drscroogemcduck on 03/06 at 12:24 AM • permalink
- I just wanted to add an apology to all the Australians who are inflicted with Americans like this, who talk large about how they left the US because of “political” reasons, which usually means they were too useless to make it even here. But see, unlike communist regimes such as Cuba that so many of these folks tend to admire, the US has no laws preventing its citizens from leaving the country whenever they please for any reason whatsoever.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/06 at 12:26 AM • permalink
- Just when I begin to believe that maybe I’m not all that smart (usually after I read a Mark Steyn column—I’ll never write so lucid and yet eloquently as that man, thank goodness he’s a conservative), someone like Mr. Heidelberg restores my self esteem.
Thank you Mr. Heidelberg. You make me feel so much better.
Posted by wronwright on 03/06 at 12:39 AM • permalink
It very much sounds like a statement made by someone with no actual experience with the United States, either now or in the past. The only way to roll back rights in the Bill of Rights and Constitution is with a constitutional amendment. There hasn’t been any sort of constitutional amendment for about 50 years.
There have been five amendments in the last fifty years. And you are right, it does take more than one man to roll back an amendment; it takes a lot of people willing to turn a blind eye. It is pretty hard to argue, without contortions of common sense, that the second amendment isn’t being infringed by federal firearms laws.
It is also pretty hard to argue that sixth and fourteenth amendments aren’t in danger of being broken by the Patriot Act conferring the power to detain suspects for six month intervals without judicial review.
- I find it interesting that people assume my anti-Bush stance somehow makes me a democrat, or indeed my anti-Howard stance makes me a Labor man. NOT TRUE ON EITHER COUNT. I am a fan of transparent democracy, and I don’t think that exists at the moment regardless of which side of politics governs.
Yes Andrea, I did renounce my American Citizenship. And NO I don’t hate Americans. Most of my family still lives there and I enjoy visiting. The US is a wonderfully diverse and interesting country. I just happen to think that their foreign policies are severely on the nose, and that free speech is systematically being destroyed by puritan influences.
I live in Bundaberg, Queensland for those who are interested.
Rather than directly insulting me maybe someone would care to counter the points I made in my first post – I would enjoy reading what you have to say.
Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/06 at 01:00 AM • permalink
- hey davo, who’d want to interact with someone like yourself that has an esteem problem? we’ve all heard your ‘points’ before and it’s the usual anti-American/Aust shite. you’re a Dickhead and a bandwidth thief. i’d tell you to get a grip on yourself but i’m thinking that you’re grippin’ ‘it’ 24/7 anyway ya numbnut . cheers /RPosted by Deo Vindice on 03/06 at 01:58 AM • permalink
- David Heidelberg: “Rather than directly insulting me maybe someone would care to counter the points I made in my first post – I would enjoy reading what you have to say.”
OK… here’s a point to address.
re: “The United States political system is an apparatus for Big Business and evangelical Christians to promote their agendas.”
Do you have ANY clue what an Evangelical Christian is?
An Evangelical Christian church is a church where teachings concentrate on the life of Christ as presented in the Gospels of the Four Evangelists (get it now?), Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Evangelical Christian churches include the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and most especially the Episcopalians, aka: Anglicans, aka: the Church of England, and about a dozen smaller church groups I can’t recall right off hand.
In other words, they’re mainstream Protestants, possibly about 70% of the Anglosphere.
These churches started calling themselves Evangelicals a while back to differentiate themselves from sects that splintered from the Protestants, such as the Seventh Day Adventists and the Latter Day Saints.
The trouble is that too many people in the general public don’t know what an Evangelical Christian is, and often don’t know that they are one themselves ;).
Posted by mamapajamas on 03/06 at 02:16 AM • permalink
- In other words, they’re mainstream Protestants, possibly about 70% of the Anglosphere.
Aha! So the the US government is a place for 70% of the population to advance their agendas.
The fiends!
Posted by Quentin George on 03/06 at 02:20 AM • permalink
- Quintin: “Aha! So the the US government is a place for 70% of the population to advance their agendas.
“The fiends! “
I know. Bring up the background music for the Psycho shower scene! LOL! 😀
Posted by mamapajamas on 03/06 at 02:29 AM • permalink
- Kcom
Regrettably, you would not be able to get thru to Phil Adams despite the generosity of your offer, and no matter how much effort you put in.
Cop this. This spanker is a multi-millionaire. He has a AUD20,000,000 art collection, apparently. He is immensely critical of the Australian Howard (and US Bush) governments no matter what they do, no matter how they do it. He is a raging capitalist in fact.
He also thinks that every ill in the world was made by capitalism. He thinks the rich should be taxed to death – all but him,of course. He thinks properly, you see, and no-one else does. Bush is a ‘racist’ despite teh makeup of his cabinet, Rice is a ‘house nigger’ because she made it on her own, not as a gift from patronising bastards like Adams. You catch the drift. His ‘mind’ is utterly closed. Capitalism and the West is responsible for every evil in the world. That is his world view. Howard won the election, so he must have lied and scared people to do it. He actually criticised the entire Australian public onece in a column (October 2003, I think) for not thinking like him! Me, well, I am congenitally unable to think like him – you see, I use my brain.
I just hope he and Dave Heidelberg don’t start breeding….
MarkL
Canberra
Pure fantasy. There is no such provision in any act, much less the PATRIOT Act.
Section 412. It sharply limits judicial review to habeus corpus applications to specific courts; and success in such application is improbable, since the Patriot Act allows lawful detention if there is even the faintest whiff of terrorism, no actual evidence required. Finally it specifically grants the power to the Attorney General to detain an alien for six month periods so long as deportation proceedings are started within seven days of arrest, irrespective of relief from deportation, or having no country to be deported to.
“Rather than directly insulting me maybe someone would care to counter the points I made in my first post – I would enjoy reading what you have to say.�?
*yawn*
Why do pompous anti-capitalist bores insist on posting the same tired conspiracy-theory links and demand we refute what has been refuted ad infinitum as if they were something new and shocking?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 03/06 at 03:06 AM • permalink
- avocadia, actually you misrepresent the language of section 412. It authorizes detention of aliens suspected of terrorist activities. It requires deportation or criminal charges within 7 days. And it does not limit what district court habeus corpus can be filed, rather it limits appeals to the D.C. circuit. And it doesn’t do anything to make habeus corpus proceedings “improbable”.
As I said, your statement is and remains false.
- Once upon a time, even when I disagreed with Adams, I read his stuff because it was occasionally interesting. What a long, long time ago that seems! What a total intellectual implosion!Posted by Susan Norton on 03/06 at 03:27 AM • permalink
- Americans apply habeas corpus selectively
The United States much practice what it preaches before it can be taken seriously.Sorry for applying the term “evangelical christian” incorrectly. What I meant was, far right conservative christian.
Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/06 at 03:44 AM • permalink
- Here is a story about people being held without charge, for up to four years.
Oh, the outrage. Or should I should I say “quel outrage”, since its France.
- Hey Roberts, this thread is about the United States and it’s role in Democracy, Hence my comments about the United States and Democracy. If Tim starts a thread about another country, then I’ll talk about that country. Pretty simple really
My broken link (result of being computer challenged) relates to United States ignoring human rights, whilst claiming to be a champion of the cause
Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/06 at 04:20 AM • permalink
- Actually, any law in ANY country that enables people to be held without charge is obscene.
Also, don’t lecture me about propaganda, and then link to a Murdoch publication to make a point!
Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/06 at 05:07 AM • permalink
- Got me! I didn’t realise Adams wrote for the Australian. Learn something new everyday.Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/06 at 06:28 AM • permalink
- So there he is, John Howard, as much in control of this country as Causcescu was in Romania. And far, far less likely to be toppled. Not for John is the destiny of the Shah of Iran, Haile Selassie, Marcos or any of a long list of tinpot tyrants who ran away as soon as the crowds went boo. In any case, our crowds won’t say boo. Oh, they’ve tried a few times to get their views heard. Remember the mass rallies against the war in Iraq? But John didn’t take the slightest notice.
Adams has totally lost it. If he cannot live with democracy in action that is sad. But to go completely troppo and say that Howard is comparable to dictators? Rupert will be releasing the flying chimps from a window high in his castle, if we are in luck, with instructions to seek out Adams and … well, counsel him.
Those of us who similarly did not go along with the Anti Iraq War protestors should be calling for Adams dismissal, if that’s all it takes.
Phil, we know the vote in the last election was not to your liking – in fact just about as bad as you ever want to see it. Tough! Its the system. Do you realise you have just negated your credentials to be taken seriously ever again? It’s not dumbocracy just because you don’t like the result! We don’t Topple, Phil. We just vote them out when they pass their use-by date. Remember?
And, are you really saying that the Shah should have stayed and watched his country torn apart, like Saddam?
Haile Selassie was brutally murdered by Mengistu. He is still, to many misguided but largely harmless Rastafarian weed smokers a minor deity. Was Mengistu and improvement?
The crowd at Malacanang Palace in Manila were saying quite a lot more than boo, and with good reason. The assassination of Benigno Aquino as he arrived back from exile showed that reform with Marcos in power was impossible, since a fair vote would be impossible.
Is it really our role to teach history to twats who spout crap? Looks like it.
- AFGHANISTAN
IRAQ
LEBANON
EGYPT
SYRIANot sure if that was intentional, Richard, but any way to get under the skin of those protesters is fine by me. 🙂 How long till somebody claims that FOX News are the puppet masters of Dubya, rather than the other way around?
And David, you’re rapidly descending into Bryla territory, where you make claims that are laughable on their face and then proceed to grandstand about your alleged superiority as a defense (only that you’ve chosen moral superiority, while Bryla prefered the intellectual kind). You may want to tone down your act a little bit if you have the slightest interest in being taken seriously here.
- Of course, if Australia is a “dumbocracy”, then Australians were dumb not to elect the West Australioan Liberal leader colin Barnett, with his uncosted promise of a $2 billion canal from the Kimberleys.
Actually what the Federal and WA State elections in quick succession proved is that Australians don’t like irresponsible, dim-witted snake-oil merchants of either party.
Posted by Susan Norton on 03/06 at 07:36 AM • permalink
- I think we need people like Mr. Heidelberg to ask the easy questions. Why is the war in Iraq good? Why is the arrest of terrorists bad? Why isn’t the US political system an apparatus for Big Business and evangelical Christians to promote their agendas?
For all I know, Mr. Heidelberg could be Tim Blair using an alias to spice up the comments. (Come on, let’s admit it. We all understand the liberal left positions, and we’ve all had a thought of playing the other side, if for no other reason than to pull the chain of Quentin, The Real JeffS, or Andrea). As long as he does it in a respective and civil manner, I’m OK with it.
The problem for some of us Mr. Heidelberg is that it brings up memories of countless occasions where we had to argue with college professors over issues we thought had a consensus of opinion. Why was opposing Nazi Germany a good thing? Why was FDR’s adoption of social programs both a good thing and a bad thing? Why is the adoption of a 70% top marginal tax bracket counterproductive to a healthy economy?
It wouldn’t be such a problem if professors were simply trying to get the classroom to think about the subject and debate the issues. Law professors often assign to liberal students the task of arguing the conservative side, and the reverse. A good law student should be able to do so with little problem or no reduction in the zealousness of their defense.
Yet it seemed to me that many actually didn’t know the accepted consensus on issues, or worse, had adopted positions contrary to the accepted views. Hence, the senstivity of many of us to people like Ward Churchill. We know his ilk well.
In my situation I have debated, via email, liberal leftist columnists on the issue of Iraq until I’m tired of doing so. In some cases, I just save to my computer my discussion and paste it on my replies to their positions. The debate almost always stops when I say the following:
The War Against Terrorism in at heart a war to save humanity and civilization. It’s immediate goal is to prevent the detonation of a WMD in a US or Western city. If you have a better plan, let’s hear it. If’s it good, I’ll personally vote for you to be the next US President.
Since I never hear from them after that, I assume they have no alternative plan. I assume the same of Mr. Heidelberg.
Posted by wronwright on 03/06 at 09:57 AM • permalink
- Has Osama bin Laden started a democratic revolution in the Middle East?
Memo to Timothy Garton Ash:
No.
Idiocy of biblical proportions.
Posted by scott crawford on 03/06 at 10:34 AM • permalink
- New article idea for Timmy — “Did Hitler start the fall of global communism?”
(and for the irony challenged: of course not)
Posted by richard mcenroe on 03/06 at 01:42 PM • permalink
- SteveH: “One minor correction: Seventh Day Adventists have never “splintered from the Protestants�?, as they are Protestants, and consider themselves as such.”
I didn’t state what I mean clearly enough. The mainstream, ie: the older and better known Protestant churches call themselves Evangelistic to differentiate from the churches that originated in Protestant churches, but split away from that specific sect… like the Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons did.
I KNOW the SDA’s consider themselves Protestant. My stepmother is an SDA, and I’ve been to church with her. If you weren’t aware that you were attending church on a Saturday instead of a Sunday, you’d have to read the sign on the way in to tell the difference between an SDA service and, say, a Methodist. Same with the Latter Day Saints.
The SDA’s are, in fact, an example of a church that is Protestant, but NOT EVANGELICAL.
See what I mean? 🙂
Posted by mamapajamas on 03/06 at 03:12 PM • permalink
- David, the people held in Guantanamo Bay are held there because their actions placed them outside all the laws of man. They were acting in ways that, in past wars, would have resulted in them being shot the moment they were caught.
They’re not criminals arrested by police; they’re subhuman scum who tried to fight a war by killing as many women and children as they could. The very “international laws” that are cited in an attemp to defend them in fact convict them.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 03/06 at 03:47 PM • permalink
Americans apply habeas corpus selectively
Would you rather we apply it across the board?
As for your claims about the “far-right conservative Christians” “controlling” the government, far be it from me to understand the mind of someone who lines his apartment with tinfoil, but I’ll kindly point out to you that George Bush belongs to the Methodist church, which has taken a stand against the war. However, they did toss out that lesbian minister, so maybe they really are frothing rightwing loons who want to chain all women in the kitchen and so on & so forth etc.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/06 at 03:51 PM • permalink
- mampajamas,
The SDA’s are, in fact, an example of a church that is Protestant, but NOT EVANGELICAL.
They do not take the label of Evangelical (although they still largely focus on the Gospels, as do Evangelicals), correct. The label seems to be something less than totally defining…
See what I mean? 🙂
Yes, although SDAs tend to be mildly annoyed to be lumped in with groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, that have turned away from normative Christian beliefs like, well, Christ.
No worries, on with the thread… :}
- SteveH: “They do not take the label of Evangelical (although they still largely focus on the Gospels, as do Evangelicals), correct. The label seems to be something less than totally defining… “
Bingo. Thank you for helping me clarify what I meant :).
Except for the dietary laws… which have some good points to them… the SDAs seem like an everyday Protestant church to me. But the fact that their church doesn’t identify ITSELF as “Evangelical” is exactly what I meant :).
Posted by mamapajamas on 03/06 at 07:28 PM • permalink
The War Against Terrorism in at heart a war to save humanity and civilization. It’s immediate goal is to prevent the detonation of a WMD in a US or Western city. If you have a better plan, let’s hear it. If’s it good, I’ll personally vote for you to be the next US President.
I suppose we could argue until we are blue in the fact.
I, and many others believe that the USA’s motivation is oil and Israel.
If the USA was serious about saving humanity, then I think that they need to look more closely at North Korea and their support of Taiwan. I believe that these issues are the biggest threat to mankind.
David, the people held in Guantanamo Bay are held there because their actions placed them outside all the laws of man. They were acting in ways that, in past wars, would have resulted in them being shot the moment they were caught.
I’m not suggesting for one minute that these people are peace loving pacifists. I’m just saying that without due process, the USA and it’s supporters look like hypocrites. We’re just becoming what we proclaim to hate.
Andrea, Bush’s support base is right wing christians. The fact that the Methodist church is against the war is irrelevant.
Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/06 at 09:06 PM • permalink
I, and many others believe that the USA’s motivation is oil and Israel.
Mark of the moonbat. Yawn.
Bush’s support base is right wing christians.
Then why did so many people like me (not a “right wing Christian” by any other definition than yours) vote for him? You’ll never understand that, so you take refuge in fantasy. Have fun watching democracy bloom in the Mideast, no thanks to you and your kind.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/06 at 09:50 PM • permalink
- I doubt that i’ll ever understand “your type” Andrea. Doesn’t stop me from trying.
Have fun watching democracy bloom in the Mideast, no thanks to you and your kind.
That’s right, only Americans understand and strive for democracy…Yawn..Such arrogance.
Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/06 at 10:46 PM • permalink
- And one more:
If the USA was serious about saving humanity, then I think that they need to look more closely at North Korea and their support of Taiwan. I believe that these issues are the biggest threat to mankind.
Now we’re getting somewhere… U.S. support of tiny, democratic Taiwan against China is one of the two biggest threats to mankind, eh?
And you’re a counselor? God help those who you advise. (And I’m invoking God as a Bush-supporting agnostic, thankyouverymuch.)
- I would have explained that by your “kind” I was referring to your ideological brothers and sisters, not any particular nationality, but PW beat me to the punch. And I had forgotten to say anything about your slam against Taiwan. Thanks, PW!Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/07 at 12:39 AM • permalink
- I, and many others believe that the USA’s motivation is oil and Israel.
Mr. Blair, er, Heidelberg, perhaps it would be best to go to email for our debate. I can see this will take quite a bit of Steyn, I mean, work on my part.
One quick comment. Why would the US invade Iraq when oil was $28 to $34 a barrel? This wasn’t a situation of Iraq invading the gulf states to seize 60% of the world’s oil. Iraqi oil was relatively secure. They wanted to sell it, within the parameters of Oil for Food, and the world wanted to buy it. In essence, oil is a commodity.
If oil is the issue, isn’t it better to leave it under the control of a dictator?
As far as Israel is concerned, I can assure you that 90% or more of your former fellow American citizens would not support a war to assist Israel. Maybe we should. But we don’t. I include myself in that.
This is about the intersection of two terrible dangers: Islamic terrorism and WSD. What made it evident to the US and to Bush that those dangers finally met was 9/11. You did read about 9/11, right?
Posted by wronwright on 03/07 at 12:56 AM • permalink
I, and many others believe that the USA’s motivation is oil and Israel.
Good show, Mr. Heidelberg, now you REALLY look clear-minded and rational.
After you scurried off with your tail between your legs on that other thread after discovering that there were plenty of reasons to think that terrorists to commit their crimes against humanity apart from it being the fault of the Big US/OIL/ISRAEL/CHRISTIANCONSPIRACYOHNO, I hope that some cracks are forming in the thick, hateful membrane that separates you from reality.
You cannot argue that the US is not serious about saving humanity by pointing fingers in other directions. That we’ve decided to start with toppling dictators in the Middle East instead of North Korea is a matter of priorities, not motivation.
We’re not in this for the oil or for evil conspiracies. Liberty abroad means safety here. Democratic reform in the Middle East will strangle terrorism’s roots, and you know what? YOU AND YOUR IDEOLOIGCAL ALLIES have objectively (and often openly) aided every tyrannical regime that was coincidentally anti-US/Isreal. So when we say that it’s no thanks to you that there’s a wave of peaceful democratic uprisings in the wake of Iraq’s successful elections, we can say it with conviction. You can whine about it all you want, but we’re not going to let you take any credit when it comes to fruition. This was all NOT IN YOUR NAME, remember? You’ve earned your shame.
Wronwright– I’m certain that David is not Tim. Tim is far too pithy and clever, and there has never been any need to impersonate leftist bullshit on the internet. The real thing is far too common.
- David H: “I, and many others believe that the USA’s motivation is oil and Israel.”
Yeah, right.
You DO know, of course, that the cheapest, safest, and politically safest way to obtain oil would be for Bush to sign an executive order that basically says, “Screw the EPA… commence drilling, and start building those refineries!”
We have oil in ANWR, and we have an untold amount of oil off the coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. There’s so much there that it’s leeching up from fissures at the bottom of the Gulf. Oil slicks that were once thought to come from dirty shipping have proven to be a very fine quality crude. Scuba divers were claiming to see it coming up from fissures, and FSU finally sent a team out into the Gulf to test it and find out once and for all where it was coming from. The divers were right ;).
The US “oil” problem isn’t so much a lack of oil as a lack of refineries.
Posted by mamapajamas on 03/07 at 02:46 AM • permalink
- So DH (how’s that for an ironic pair of initials) is yet another member of the horde of whiny expatirate American lefties and hippies that infest academia, advocacy groups and welfare organisations in this once fiercly independent nation; explains a lot. I like the USA, but wish they wouldn’t use us as a dumping ground for their surplus idiots- we have enogh of our own home-grown ones. Srely they’d feel a lot more comfortable in a socialist utopia and worker’s paradise like New Zealand (and here’s a hint, no visa required with an Aussie passport). As public faces of green/consumer/ wanker groups, a pasty Berkley refugee hectoring us on out evil ways is slightly less appealing to Australians as an obviously North England-sourced trade union official.
- The United States claims to be strong supporters of the one China policy, yet are quite happy to sell the most sophisticated weapons available to the Taiwanese. All this whilst openly acknowledging that these weapons are for use against the chinese should they decide to ‘re-unify’ Taiwan.
In fact during one bizarre speech last year, Representative James A. Leach Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, managed to support the one China Policy, and Taiwan against aggression in one go!!
You DO know, of course, that the cheapest, safest, and politically safest way to obtain oil would be for Bush to sign an executive order that basically says, “Screw the EPA… commence drilling, and start building those refineries!�?
I didn’t say that they were after the cheapest oil. Their motivations are much more grand. Please read this article.
My opinions are derived from the articles that I read. If people interpret these differently, I’m interested in hearing what you have to say.
Wronright. I can assure you that I’m not Mr. Blair. Whilst I disagree with virtually everything he says, I acknowledge him as being a man of wit and intellect.
Posted by David_Heidelberg on 03/07 at 04:42 AM • permalink
- MY dear David:
“The United States claims to be strong supporters of the one China policy, yet are quite happy to sell the most sophisticated weapons available to the Taiwanese. All this whilst openly acknowledging that these weapons are for use against the chinese should they decide to ‘re-unify’ Taiwan”
Please read thjis slowly.
Taiwan is the first Chinese democacy in 5000 years.
It is a small offshore isalnd.
It is well governed.
Its people are wealthy.
The PRC is a Communist dictatorship.
You apparently support the dictatorship against the democracy.
The USA does not. It cleaves to a one-China policy to ease pressure on Taiwan, while supplying it with a limited range of weaponry to permit it to standa a chance of defending itself against unprovoked aggression from the PRC. This weaponry is mostly defensive, such as SAM systems, 3D air warning radars, short range air superiority fighters, and army equipment – but not amphibious assault equipment, AEGIS systems, or long range strike systems.
This is an extract from an article in the latest Pacific Defence Reporter, by one Mr Kaplan:
“The main drivers of the PLA(N) modernisation are Taiwan and the USN. The Communist government has been watching Taiwan turn itself from an authoritarian state in to the very first successful Chinese democracy in 5,000 years. Just the existence of Taiwan as a successful Chinese democracy is a very serious, and completely intolerable threat to Communist control of the mainland. If that democratic government model proves sustainable within the Chinese cultural context, then the Communist dictatorship on the mainland again faces the mortal political threat it crushed at Tiananmen Square. So the main driver is the need for the PRC to be able to take Taiwan by force. This requires two things to be done: firstly the island has to be isolated by sea and its air force destroyed. Then it has to be invaded and its defences overcome. The strategic requirements take on a life of their own at this point. Taiwan is protected by a very significant ambiguity built in to US policy. There is no guarantee that the USA will not fight to protect Taiwan. So Beijing has to assume that the USA will fight to protect Taiwan. Therefore, the PLA(N) must have the ability to successfully fight and fend off the USN for a certain period of time.
The first strategic driver gives the PLA(N) a major supporting role in the neutralisation and invasion of Taiwan. The PLA has main carriage of this role, with the PLAAF and PLA(N) in support. But in the second strategic driver, the PLA(N) has prime responsibility.
Therefore, the PLA(N) has to be able to fight USN carrier battlegroups (CVBG) in open ocean, and to keep them at a distance for a certain planned period, probably of 8-12 weeks duration. There is no requirement for the PLA(N) to be intact at the end of this time. It can accept near-complete destruction of its oceanic capabilities as a favourable outcome if the PLA remains in full control of an occupied Taiwan at the end of this period. “
Personally, Sir, I am delighted that the USA chooses to protect a western liberal democracy against a communist dictatorship. Why are you NOT so delighted about this?
One final point: the ‘illegal combatants’ detained at Guantanamo Bay acted outside the rules of war. They acted as bandits.
1. They were not part of a formed military force.
2. They did not bear arms openly.
3. They did not bear insignia.
4. They were not under the authority of regular officers.Therefore, they SHOULD have been treated as francs tireurs. It is legal to do so by European international precedent (SEE: Franco-Prussian War) and by the Hague Conventions that followed it by a few decades.
This means that they should have been shot out of hand when captured.
MarkL
Canberra
- God, he sends us to a Commondreams article. You’re right, blogstrop: time to re-ban.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/07 at 08:21 AM • permalink
- No, we cannot ban dissenters simply because they say things we disagree with. As long as Mr. Heidelberg is civil and careful with his language, we need him here.
If we ban people with opposing points of view, in short order I’ll have to raise the same points he raises. And they are legitimate points. Except for being wrong. And I do not want to have to argue the liberal left side.
Yes, it frustrates us, like his point of the One China Policy. I ask myself, doesn’t he know that the US had a Two China Policy carefully maintained through decades of presidential administrations until Bill Clinton made a collosal mistake and made a speech which seemed to adopt the One China Policy? And then instead of correcting himself, the State Department had to change gears and go in the same direction, as if it was a calculated decision?
More than anything, what I would like to know is whether Mr. Heidelberg is an 18 year old student at Antioch College or some such who is merely repeating what he heard in college lectures or what P Diddy said on MTV. I’m sorry but I have no desire to debate with someone who cannot at least remember our collective walk through the anti-war protests of Vietnam, the apathy of the 1970’s, the revolution of Reagan, and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Posted by wronwright on 03/07 at 10:51 AM • permalink
No, we cannot ban dissenters simply because they say things we disagree with.
Oh yes we can, Precious!
As long as Mr. Heidelberg is civil and careful with his language, we need him here.
Oh no we don’t! We have loads of civil people here. As for dissenters, I’m all for them. I’m not for people who refuse to give up their simplistic, pre-conceived prejudices merely to be contrary—or for whatever reason—despite the fact that several people have pointed out the inadequacy of their positions. In other words, dissenters yes, mindless bigotry no. If he wants to email me with an (again) apology for the anti-American, kneejerk anti-Christian, sweeping generalities he’s put forth here then I will think about letting him back in. But I don’t see why simply disagreeing makes anyone special. I can disagree all day about fire being hot and water being wet but that won’t make me deserving of respect.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/07 at 11:41 AM • permalink
- Now Andrea. Come on now. Calm down. Hard feelings don’t help us here. Right, Andrea? Andrea, what? What’s with the laser eyes. Come on, put down the modem. Easy now. Hey, I’m on your side.
Wait, wait. Hey, I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m, I’m …
Where am I? There’s no one in here. Quentin? Richard? Nightfly?
Hey Bryla, what are you doing here? What’s with the beret and the hand painted signs.
Mr. Bingley? Where did you come from?
ANDREA!
Posted by wronwright on 03/07 at 05:37 PM • permalink
- The dissenters are the brave voices of truth! We’re just brainwashed thralls, mindlessly chanting “Im… Ho… Tep…” as Mighty W pulls the strings.
(And Rove pulls his strings. And Ailes pulls HIS strings. And Andrea pulls ALL strings. Nobody knows how deep this thing runs, maaaaan.)
Except… well, call it a thoughtcrime, but I seem to observe that the thralls’ posts vary a good deal in temperment, writing style, and content. I get better-quality debate in ten minutes on a site like this, or Flynn Files, or NRO, than I get from the trolls. They begin to sound so monotonously similar over time that it’s not worth the trouble; hence, the ‘nukular option’ so in vogue hereabouts.
Just sayin’, is all.
(Andrea, put wron back down. Give him back his arm, too, poor guy.)
- “Nobody fucks with the King.” Or the Admin.
Okay okay, wron can have his arm back. I was just playing with it a little.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 03/07 at 10:41 PM • permalink
- Um, thanks Andrea. (Rubs arm, hides like a girl behind Nightfly).
And might I say that’s a right smart looking pair of pajamas you’re wearing tonight. Yes, very becoming to you. (Walks quickly away to weird thread on Tim Blair’s venture into country music).
Posted by wronwright on 03/07 at 11:47 PM • permalink
- Mr. Heidelberg—as I sang to your fellow moonbats on the Halliburton front lawn in 2004:
You say that this war is a war for oil
It’s greed at the point of a gun
But if we’d really wanted to take that oil
We’d have stayed there in 1991
And I guess that you’ll just to deal with the fact
It was returned to the people of Iraq …Your protests, my friend
sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking windAnd you need to understand something else about us “right-wing evangelicals”—we believe in this little doctrine called “the priesthood of the believer”, where we take very seriously both our authority and responsibility to determine what we believe for ourselves (with God’s guidance), and avoid blindly following ANY leader, no matter how charismatic.
As a result, any attempt at the establishment of the theocracy you allude to would be forcefully opposed by the same “right-wing evangelicals” you are talking about.
As for me, the only way I would accept the establishment of a theocracy is if God Himself personally and physically showed up to lead it … and even then, I’d check His ID first!
Sometimes, there is no hidden message in the record … what you hear when it’s played frontwards, is what you get.
Posted by Rich Casebolt on 03/10 at 01:00 AM • permalink
But, it’s not very much at all any of this “Understanding Understanding Understanding�?[Aristotle], but more like “Jerkin’ In Your Seat�? [Cool Jerks].
Activating activates activism, activating Holy Activisming by Activators who Activize to Activate. Oh, it’s all so nuanced, Ahaaaaa, I jus done culminated, A-gin! Thank’s you, Bush=Hitler.