An American Tragedy

[ramseytheii]

Recently a mentally disturbed man brought a shotgun into a Unitarian Church in Tennessee, during a performance of a children's musical (Annie) and started shooting, wounding at least 5 and killing 2.  He had apparently expected to commit suicide after murdering as many people as possible, but church members rushed him together and held him down until the police came.

The investigation quickly turned up a suicide letter he had written, saying he was going to go out in a blaze of glory by killing people with liberal views on Christianity, abortion and homosexuality, and presumably other issues.  This attack is along the lines of those who in past decades have killed doctors who perform abortions, or bombed Planned Parenthood buildings, but it is more overtly political.  As opposed to the abortion doctors, these church members were not accused by anyone of being murderers; it was merely their liberal views of society that made them worthy of death.

In my view, this is a natural outcome of the years of bitter right-wing language that has bombarded the American mind with images of "liberal" as a traitor, enemy, Nazi, communist, and other epithets.  The people who go on television and radio, and who spout this intolerant language of hatred, share responsibility for those who choose to take their words at face value.  I have never once heard of a liberal maniac, shooting to death members of a conservative church, or killing a doctor who refuses to perform abortions, or anything else.

The reason is the left wing doesn't preach a message of hatred of fellow citizens.  The right wing has won election after election by relentlessly inflaming racial hatreds, religious rivalries, and fostering a sense that half of America hates the other half.  When horrible things like this happen, it is the utterers of this rhetoric, and the practitioners of this approach to politics, who have blood on their hands.

Walter Ramsey

[michel dvorsky]

That episode illustrates insanity and evil, but also incredible desperation.

It speaks to the fact that American society is progressing and that fundamentalist views are no longer tenable by serious people.

For instance: those who want Creationism/Intelligent Design taught in schools cannot compete on a rational basis with those who demand separation of powers and insist on the teaching of science in science class, so ID advocates have to use trickery to sneak their religious curriculum past the school boards.

Though you do make some good points about the craziness of the hyper-right, I take exception to the tone of your post.  There is no political monopoly on stupidity.  The far left is just as bad.

[ahinton]

Though you do make some good points about the craziness of the hyper-right, I take exception to the tone of your post.  There is no political monopoly on stupidity.  The far left is just as bad.

Although I wouldn't go quite as far as to object to the tone of that post as such, I am nevertheless inclined to agree that what seems on the face of it to be a rational take on the subject is in fact unreasonably and unrealistically loaded in favour of one kind of political persuasion and against another. There is indeed no monopoly of any kind on stupidity. It is also reasonable to observe, as you have, that this incident reveals a degree and type of desperation just as much as it reveals anything else about its perpetrator. Whilst what we may for the sake of simplicity call "the left wing" may not "preach a message of hatred of fellow citizens" as obviously and unsubtly as some members of what we similarly call "the right wing" may appear at times to do, the histories of some of the more extreme of left-wing régimes surely reveal that these, too, are often predicated and dependent upon a hatred of fellow citizens to the extent that they set out to exert rafts of unreasonable controls over them and dispense inhumane treatment to them, sometimes on a vast scale (consider, for example, the many millions of individuals who were forced to perish under Mao and Stalin alone); the latter may not be quite so noisily advertised as the former often is, but do the end results reveal that the shouting of the far right is any better than the secretiveness of the far left?

Best,

Alistair

[michel dvorsky]

I agree.  Although not as spectacular as something like the 1917 Russian revolution, the trend toward centralization is a very real danger to personal economic and political freedom as well as the institutions of free societies.  Ceding more and more power to government is truly the road to serfdom.

Closet proponents of socialism often like to cloak their anti-corporate, anti-market, anti-consumerist agendas with more honorable sounding ideas like environmentalism and the championing of social causes.   While the latter goals are legitimate, their propents will try to convince us that the only way to achieve these goals is by means of more extensive regulation, a greater degree of centralization, and more invasive government; all at the expense of our individual freedom. 

It is easy to pinpoint the enemies of our society when they are shouting scripture at us - it's more difficult when they pretend to have our best interests at heart...

[ahinton]

Although not as spectacular as something like the 1917 Russian revolution, the trend toward centralization is a very real danger to personal economic and political freedom as well as the institutions of free societies.  Ceding more and more power to government is truly the road to serfdom.

Absolutely true; all that seems so perplexing about this (especially nowadays, given the wealth of knowledge to be gained from all too ample historical precedent) is that so few people who are becoming ever-increasingly subject to it seem willing or able to realise it and perceive its inevitable consequences.

Closet proponents of socialism often like to cloak their anti-corporate, anti-market, anti-consumerist agendas with more honorable sounding ideas like environmentalism and the championing of social causes.

This environmentalism notion can, however, embrace something of a potential sting in the tail for those particular socialist advocates; I have (as you may already know) made no secret of my deprecation of undue oil dependency and, although my reasons for this have their origins more in future economic feasibility then in environmental benefit per se, there is a clear political issue at stake in that advocation and promotion of, for example, the use of alternative fuel sources such as solar energy for domestic use offers the individual access to greater control over their fuel sourcing and use and, especially when small solar and wind powered installations are used for the purpose of making domestic electricity, the power wielded by the large government or corporate fuel supplier diminishes.

While the latter goals are legitimate, their propents will try to convince us that the only way to achieve these goals is by means of more extensive regulation, a greater degree of centralization, and more invasive government; all at the expense of our individual freedom. 

The evidence for this is so ample and widespread that it can hardly be avoided.

It is easy to pinpoint the enemies of our society when they are shouting scripture at us - it's more difficult when they pretend to have our best interests at heart...

True - but it shouldn't be! One would have thought that enough nations have already had sufficient experience of incompetent, self-serving and untrustworthy governments at one time or another to have developed a far healthier cynicism about those professing the best interests of their subjects than appears to be the case.

In UK some quarter century ago, the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when asked what kind of government she sought, answered with just a single word - "less"; sadly, however, this was not achieved during her tenure and in more recent years the pendulum has swung very much in the opposite direction, with consequences that are all too plain to see.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i like some of the answers from michael dvorsky and ahinton here.  taking one extreme view and proclaiming it the view of all - inflames.  why not take a peaceful outlook and instead look for common ground where people can agree to disagree.  i think many foreigners want americans to have division.  to be divided on civil rights, women's rights, homosexuality, laws on everything from abortion to death penalty, religion - and yet america has laws which allow it to maintain many different cultures as best it can.

did you know that a huge percentage of the supreme court justices are catholic.  did you know that the pope has been seen (or will be seen) about six times by the president of the usa?  did you know that many school buses for catholic schools are funded by public funds?  did you know that in europe the whole medical system is starting to be taken over by catholic hospital/care facilities - and funded similarly.  is there a political and economic union here - i think so!  who speaks about that.  the HIGHEST amount of religo-political and economic power is right now in the hands of the catholic church.  what say you, ramseytheii?

however, i would like to also add that nobody really makes any bones about it!  they are allowed to operate in this country as in any other.  there is not the lack of toleration as there might be for baptist or other faiths - and yet nobody really complains.  that is because SO FAR - there are not huge problems of religion being a forced issue.  everyone is free to choose. t he justices attempt to mete out the judgements in fair fashion - and many justices have opposing views from each other on different items so it's allowed.  BUT, if judicial precedent were anything like presidential precedent - we would not allow so much power in the hands of someone who was choosing only people from his own church to serve the country.  on the other hand - the only us president in the past that was catholic was john f. kennedy - so we are witnessing a shift in power from protestant white - to embracing catholics and blacks.  this is good in the sense of shared democracy - but could (in the case of the supreme court) influence rulings which would affect our freedom more than the president's decisions. (not talking about blacks - but catholics).  ok.  now -

on the racial idea.  i don't think it's color based.  it's qualifications.  i like barack obama very much - but feel that his political views are going to be soft on terrorism.  i could be wrong.  if it were just the idea that he was taking over the presidency of a peaceful country - it would probably work well.  i think he is actually taking the side that he can negotiate with pakistan.  they harbor terrorists and have given money to almost every country in the area for weapons.  if we are easy on pakistan then iran will be empowered.  i'd like to also say, that as a christian - i don't particularly think any political system is WORKING right now.  if many people in pakistan are finally experiencing the jobs that they need to survive - (like in india) and surging wealth - i am happy.  i don't wish them any harm or their country evil.  i think all people that do good should be blessed - when they are making money from hard work and not sale of arms.  this, unfortunately, never happens in times of war.  when countries declare war on each other - nothing good comes.  people are hurt.  i just wish that JEsus Christ would return soon so that ALL people would live in peace.

considering that the usa's economy and power is greatly diminished - we will soon see the european union making the 'calls' on what should be done in the world scene.  nobody really fears the us decisions anymore anyways.  our military is struggling to keep up with the idea that freedom should be universal for all people and all countries - but some see it as evil.  democracy that exposes how women can be abused, and children, and that sex trades in some of the countries are allowed because of laws that are not democratic.  however, i can understand the indignation when they see our way of life.  we are not exactly a country of purity anymores in terms of morals and values - therefore - what we say doesn't matter.  however, at least still in the usa we do not allow women and children to be sold into slavery.  people may be indebted to banks, though.

[ramseytheii]

Now I am just talking from the vantage point of American politics, not a global perception of left- and right-wing, but only the American one, which since 1968 has been has been beset by a particular brand of racist, inflammatory demagoguery which we see on the right wing.

To say the left is "just as bad" may be true in general, but in American politics I am not talking about a general stupidity, but a concerted effort to inflame racial and religious hatreds in order to gain power, which you certainly do not see from so-called liberals here.  Also, you simply do not hear the kind of hate speech that comes from the so-called conservatives.

For instance, in 2004, so-called conservatives who were incensed that John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who was awarded the Purple Heart among other medals, but who came back to testify in Congress against the war, was in the running to be elected President.  A false campaign was started to convince the American people that he lied about his military service, and it never happened as he said, and that he was actually a traitor (this word was actually used, even though nobody officially accused him of the crime) and a coward. 

Today, we have another Vietnam veteran running for President, John McCain.  I guarantee you, you will never see any so-called liberal trying to prove that his military record is false, or that he received his awards based on lies he told the American people.  He will never be called a traitor by a so-called liberal, or accused of hating his country.

This is the kind of language that is used in American politics by the right-wing against the left-wing, language that goes beyond disagreement or even mere negativity, into the deliberately inflammatory and dangerous.  The pundits and media figures of the so-called conservatives have long used language of violence and war against those they labeled as liberals.  It is not surprising when someone takes them up on their implicit challenge, and those who spread the seeds of hate may not have committed the murders, but they have blood on their hands as well.

Walter Ramsey

[cmg]

I agree.  Although not as spectacular as something like the 1917 Russian revolution, the trend toward centralization is a very real danger to personal economic and political freedom as well as the institutions of free societies.  Ceding more and more power to government is truly the road to serfdom.

Closet proponents of socialism often like to cloak their anti-corporate, anti-market, anti-consumerist agendas with more honorable sounding ideas like environmentalism and the championing of social causes.   

You seem to be saying here that "centralization" is a Leftist tendency and that the Right favors less centralization and more individual freedom.

I think the the current malignant spate of Republican (Rightist) administrations in America has proven you wrong.  Under Bush the following has happened to America:

-- Constitutional guarantees have been stamped out, i.e. wholesale surveillance of American citizens without due cause and warrants; suspension of habeas corpus for the "enemy".

-- De-regulation of industries and the dismantling of environmental protection laws has simply given "freedom" to the oil, and other energy industries, to make unprecedented profits, at the expense of the average US citizen.

If you will observe in recent American history, LESS regulation and centralization is only a smoke-screen to allow the unscrupulous and greedy to exploit resources for their own end.  In short, to steal.

De-centralization of government does not always mean more freedom.  In fact, in recent years it has meant LESS freedom for Americans and those nations being exploited by this country for economic gains to the US industrial sector.  And, yes, I mean oil.

The so-called "war on terrorism" (which has caused Americans to lose "freedoms" at the hand of a Rightist government) is NOT about the Muslim jihad against us.  It's a war that has been provoked by the Bush Administrations (father and son) to give then the excuse to dominate and eventually take-over nations in the Mideast with the largest oil deposits in the world.  Iran is next on the agenda since it has the largest oil deposits in the Mideast next to Saudi Arabia.  People of the Mideast know this and hate us for our criminal invasiveness.  Hence, their attacks against us.

The Left is not our current enemy.  It is, indeed, the Right, as Walter points out. 

And, by the way, US governments, historically, have instituted regulatory laws for the precise purpose of curbing the greed of industry.  Everyone in the US, even vaguely familiar with history, knows that regulations and unions evolved in the 19th century to curb the cynical exploitation of the immigrant working classes, particulary in places like Pittsburgh where Andrew Carnegie was making his massive fortune by paying factory workers next to nothing to work in unsafe environments.

Granted, unions then gained excessive power and, in turn, became exploiters.  That seems to be the nature of humans seeking power.  They always want more.

But, it doesn't alter the observation of Balzac, who said, correctly, that behind every great fortune is a crime.  For this reason, regulators must arise. 

[ramseytheii]

Thank you, cmg.  I think that most of the people using this forum don't live in America, and I wanted the discussion to center really around American politics, and the dynamics between the ideas we see as "rightist" and "leftist," in particular the industry behind the racist and violent hate speech of those who consider themselves conservative, an industry that awards millions to such hate-mongers as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and others.

It is they who identify themselves as conservatives, so I am not trying to say the progressive part of America is better than the conservative in general, but only to say there is definitely an element of conservative politics that is not present in the liberal wing, and that is this massive, millions-dollar hate industry, which regularly uses the term "liberal" or "Democrat" to mean "traitor" or "enemy."  No wonder people get confused!

Walter Ramsey

[michel dvorsky]

Today, we have another Vietnam veteran running for President, John McCain.  I guarantee you, you will never see any so-called liberal trying to prove that his military record is false, or that he received his awards based on lies he told the American people.  He will never be called a traitor by a so-called liberal, or accused of hating his country.

In a way, you're right.  But you're trying to ascribe tactics used by Bush and the Rovians to all Republicans.  We haven't really seen any of the field use the same kind of "dirty tricks" as were used against Kerry in 2004 or even McCain in 2000.  In the good 'ol South Carolina primary of 2000, they labeled McCain a "Manchurian Candidate" and  questioned his service.  They used racist push polling and a whole other bunch of nasty tactics.

This year, the Democratic primary campaign seems to have been far more mean spirited and dirty than the Republican one.  I don't think this has anything to do with ideology, but rather the high stakes and desire to win by the competing parties. 

Wesley Clark (D) was on TV just the other day making the curious argument that McCain's war experiences do not give him any more qualifications than Barack Obama to be president.  Clark's attack was ignored.  McCain's record is far more difficult to impugn than Kerry's because it is so blatantly superior and his actions in war are corroborated by his character.

This is the kind of language that is used in American politics by the right-wing against the left-wing, language that goes beyond disagreement or even mere negativity, into the deliberately inflammatory and dangerous.  The pundits and media figures of the so-called conservatives have long used language of violence and war against those they labeled as liberals.  It is not surprising when someone takes them up on their implicit challenge, and those who spread the seeds of hate may not have committed the murders, but they have blood on their hands as well.

Walter Ramsey

OK. But tell me how Keith Olbermann, Ariana Huffington, or the New York Times is any better than Bill O'Reilly and Fox News.


@CMG: I agree that spending has been out of control during the eight years, and this is the fault of both parties. But if you compare McCain and Obama, the former wants to shrink government by vetoing wasteful spending, and the latter wants to expand government by raising taxes. 

-- De-regulation of industries and the dismantling of environmental protection laws has simply given "freedom" to the oil, and other energy industries, to make unprecedented profits, at the expense of the average US citizen.

The oil companies are an easy scapegoat.  Demand for oil is increasing faster than supply. That's why the price is going up.   The solution is to increase supply and invest in other kinds of energy.  Ironically, it is environmentalists who are outraged about offshore drilling and oil exploration within the United States. You can't really have it both ways.

The so-called "war on terrorism" (which has caused Americans to lose "freedoms" at the hand of a Rightist government) is NOT about the Muslim jihad against us.  It's a war that has been provoked by the Bush Administrations (father and son) to give then the excuse to dominate and eventually take-over nations in the Mideast with the largest oil deposits in the world.  Iran is next on the agenda since it has the largest oil deposits in the Mideast next to Saudi Arabia.  People of the Mideast know this and hate us for our criminal invasiveness.  Hence, their attacks against us.

Yeah, this is the pseudo-conspiracy theory way the story goes.  By learning about the Oct 2002 authorization of the war, you can learn why it was passed by a bi-partisan majority of congress. https://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

You really don't seem to understand Islamic extremism. Were the Danish embassies torched because the jihadists are tired of their wretched thievery and imperialism.  Grow up.  They hate the West for what it is; not what it does.  Religious extremists do not operate using Cartesian logic.

And, by the way, US governments, historically, have instituted regulatory laws for the precise purpose of curbing the greed of industry.  Everyone in the US, even vaguely familiar with history, knows that regulations and unions evolved in the 19th century to curb the cynical exploitation of the immigrant working classes, particulary in places like Pittsburgh where Andrew Carnegie was making his massive fortune by paying factory workers next to nothing to work in unsafe environments.

This is not true.  Unions evolved so that workers would be paid the true value of their marginal product of labour.  Yes it was designed to end exploitation.  But a low wage in and of itself is not exploitation.  Exploitation tends to arise in situations such as monopsony (one buyer of labour in a market, such as a coal mine) where workers have limited choices of where to work.  The fact that immigrants could work for a pittance was great for them.  You have to remember the kind of conditions they were leaving behind: starvation, oppression, etc.  Their labour was (and is) a boon to the US economy and their standard of living skyrocketed throughout the 20th century.  Ironically, it was this freedom that contributed to some of the greatest advances mankind has ever seen.  It is the effort to regulate the productive activities of individuals that stifle people's progress. 

Granted, unions then gained excessive power and, in turn, became exploiters.  That seems to be the nature of humans seeking power.  They always want more.

Unions today have come to raise wages to an artificially high level for the privilege of their members at the expense of other workers in the industry.  They have begun to become a symbol of stagnation and corruption and represent a betrayal of their original purpose. 

But, it doesn't alter the observation of Balzac, who said, correctly, that behind every great fortune is a crime.  For this reason, regulators must arise.

Crime is not necessary for fortune, though in some cases it may be sufficient. It is not always regulators that need to solve the problem of crime (or third party effects).  Sometimes taxes, laws, and executive force work just as well.

[michel dvorsky]

but only to say there is definitely an element of conservative politics that is not present in the liberal wing, and that is this massive, millions-dollar hate industry, which regularly uses the term "liberal" or "Democrat" to mean "traitor" or "enemy." 

Are you sure I couldn't produce some counter-examples? 

Ahh... the danger of generalizations.

[ramseytheii]

Are you sure I couldn't produce some counter-examples? 

Ahh... the danger of generalizations.

Please do!  For instance, show me a popular leftist equivalent to the statement, "Liberals should be beaten with baseball bats," or "The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason," or, "there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the Speaker of the House," or calling Al Gore a "Nazi" who attended the equivalent of a "Klan rally" because he promoted the global warming cause at a bloggers conference.

This is the kind of language that incites people to hatred and violence, and all of these quotes come from either best-selling books marketed as conservative books, or top-rated television shows marketed as conservative television shows.  That is only the tip of the iceberg, as you probably know.  I'm not aware of any so-called liberal equivalent to these kind of inflammatory statements.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

In a way, you're right.  But you're trying to ascribe tactics used by Bush and the Rovians to all Republicans.  We haven't really seen any of the field use the same kind of "dirty tricks" as were used against Kerry in 2004 or even McCain in 2000.  In the good 'ol South Carolina primary of 2000, they labeled McCain a "Manchurian Candidate" and  questioned his service.  They used racist push polling and a whole other bunch of nasty tactics.

This year, the Democratic primary campaign seems to have been far more mean spirited and dirty than the Republican one.  I don't think this has anything to do with ideology, but rather the high stakes and desire to win by the competing parties. 

Wesley Clark (D) was on TV just the other day making the curious argument that McCain's war experiences do not give him any more qualifications than Barack Obama to be president.  Clark's attack was ignored.  McCain's record is far more difficult to impugn than Kerry's because it is so blatantly superior and his actions in war are corroborated by his character.

OK. But tell me how Keith Olbermann, Ariana Huffington, or the New York Times is any better than Bill O'Reilly and Fox News.

All of the television personalities you mention make a point at calling their opponents in the political ring stupid, and calling them on their ideas.  If you think I am opposed to disagreement, you're wrong.  I'm opposed to the language of violence.  I like Huffington's website, and I have never seen a post on there which encourages those who identify as liberals to attack and kill those who identify as conservatives; I've never seen a post on there which accuses John McCain of being a Nazi, an Afro-Leninist, a secret Muslim, or member of the Klan.  I am talking about a specific phenomenon, the language of violence and of branding a different political philosophy as an enemy in war, rather than in ideas.

This kind of language is what leads to brazen acts of violence from those who identify as conservative.  Obviously I am not criticizing every Republican.  I am criticizing the specific phenomenon of the language of violence and incitement which goes beyond disagreement, negativity, and anything else like that.  I cannot find an equivalent to that violent language in the so-called liberal wing of America.  If you can, please share!

I am not trying to ascribe these Rove-like tactics to all Republicans, simply saying that the practice of inciting racial hatred, promoting violence against fellow citizens, and baiting religious rivalries is not found on the side of the so-called liberals.

About Clark's comments, actually he was under intense pressure for at least three days to repudiate them, as was Obama, and neither of them did.  However, he never claimed that John McCain lied about his service.  There was a millions dollar effort, a concerted effort, to convince the American people in 2004 that John Kerry lied about his service, and was a traitor.  I have never once seen McCain being accused of treason like they did to John Kerry.

I don't see how McCain's service is more impugnable then John kerry's, unless one is angry at him for testifying against the Vietnam war and thinks that reflects poorly on his character.  If so fine, but I think McCain's character as revealed in the last couple of weeks is not one that jives with heroic service!

Walter Ramsey

[michel dvorsky]

The far right's violent, vitriolic insanity is primarily religiously based.  The far left insanity also contains violent inciteful vitriol, but it generally ideologically rather than religiously based.

The far left doesn't incite hatred/violence/racism! HAH!

https://www.zombietime.com/

Check out "hall of shame".

9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-semitism, anti-capitalism, communism...these are all ideas of the loony left.  And guess what? They use scare tactics, fear mongering etc. to advance them too!

The fact that all these ideas are allowed to compete is a testament to American society.  The ideas of the left fight it out and the ideas of the right fight it out and the best ones rise to the top. I don't think many moderate Republicans think that Obama is extreme; nor do many moderate Democrats think the same of McCain.   Speaking as a moderate, liberal, I find both extreme wings equally abhorrent.

I just prefer John McCain to Barack Obama.

[ramseytheii]

The far right's violent, vitriolic insanity is primarily religiously based.  The far left insanity also contains violent inciteful vitriol, but it generally ideologically rather than religiously based.

The far left doesn't incite hatred/violence/racism! HAH!

https://www.zombietime.com/

Check out "hall of shame".

9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-semitism, anti-capitalism, communism...these are all ideas of the loony left.  And guess what? They use scare tactics, fear mongering etc. to advance them too!

The fact that all these ideas are allowed to compete is a testament to American society.  The ideas of the left fight it out and the ideas of the right fight it out and the best ones rise to the top. I don't think many moderate Republicans think that Obama is extreme; nor do many moderate Democrats think the same of McCain.   Speaking as a moderate, liberal, I find both extreme wings equally abhorrent.

I just prefer John McCain to Barack Obama.

How do you define the extremes?  I've never heard of this website you sent me, but I have heard of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and all those who are on record as promoting violence against people who identify as liberals.  All those people have multi-million dollar fortunes based on selling the language of violence and hatred to millions of people.  The language is extreme I agree, but their position in culture is not extreme, in fact it seems central.

So I ask you again: where are their equivalents?  Where is the mainstream leftist voice, that promotes violence against people who identify themselves as conservative?

Walter Ramsey

[cmg]

The far right's violent, vitriolic insanity is primarily religiously based.  The far left insanity also contains violent inciteful vitriol, but it generally ideologically rather than religiously based.

I won't argue this point with you because there's no argument:  clearly, extremists on both sides spout their vitriol.

But I would argue that Islamic extremists had to have an incentive to go on their murderous rampages.  Purely religious vengeance is not the complete answer.

Look at modern history in Iran:  "Oil," the National Geographic reports this month, "was at the root of a 1953 event that is still a sore subject for many Iranians:  the CIA-backed overthrow, instigated and suported by the British government, of Iran's elected and popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh.  Mossadegh had kicked out the British after the Iranian oil industry, controlled through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP), was nationalized, and the British had retaliated with an economic blockade. With the Cold War on and the Soviet block located just to the north, the U.S. feared that Soviet-backed commnism in Iran could shift the balance of world power and jeopardize Western interests in the region.  The coup--Operation TP-Ajax--is believed to have been the CIA's first.  Afterward, the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was returned to power, commercial oil rights fell largely to British and U.S. oil companies, and Mossadegh was imprisoned and later placed under house arrrest until he died in 1967."

Iranians are aware that this event set the stage for later decades of oppression (by the shah) and gave rise to Islamic fundamentalism.

The point, being, of course, that the West -- primarily Britain and the US (and, yes, even Denmark by association) -- are viewed by Iranians for what they are:  architects of de-stabilization in the Mideast for the sake of grabbing oil. 

And you wonder why they hate us?  Are you really naive enough to think their attacks on us are motivated purely and simple-mindedly by religious fanaticism?  Please.

P. S.  And, Walter's correct in the organized facism of the American Right to slander and libel any liberal on their hit-list.  Nasty things, such as "outing" people who don't want to be outed, etc.  A  below-the-belt smarminess that Americans can hear daily trumpeted by those loudmouth, brown-shirt bullies on the Fox Network.   In fact, such bullying tactics have been institutionalized in the White House by Karl Rove, the master of slander and libel.

[michel dvorsky]

How do you define the extremes?  I've never heard of this website you sent me, but I have heard of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and all those who are on record as promoting violence against people who identify as liberals.  All those people have multi-million dollar fortunes based on selling the language of violence and hatred to millions of people.  The language is extreme I agree, but their position in culture is not extreme, in fact it seems central.

Guests on Bill Maher frequently call Bush Hitler, an idiot etc.  Joy Behar, Keith Olberman, Rosie O'Donnell constantly call the Bush administration war criminals, and want Bush impeached. 

This doesn't even begin to touch the bias in news services like AP, Reuters and the NY Times...etc. 

@CMG: When Jefferson asked the emissary of the Barbary pirates in London in 1786 why their ships were looting American ships and killing American sailors
"[and to] make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

    It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3]
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

What did this have to do with oil? Imperialism? What was it? 

You simply do not comprehend the nature of the enemy.

[ramseytheii]

Guests on Bill Maher frequently call Bush Hitler, an idiot etc.  Joy Behar, Keith Olberman, Rosie O'Donnell constantly call the Bush administration war criminals, and want Bush impeached. 

This doesn't even begin to touch the bias in news services like AP, Reuters and the NY Times...etc. 

How is a call for impeachment, of any president, equivalent to "Liberals should be beaten with a baseball bat?"  or, the idea that to be a liberal is to be a traitor to your country?

I gently suggest you are missing my point, and thinking I am impugning Republicans in favor of Democrats.  I am only saying it is the self-identified conservatives who have a monopoly on the industry of speech calling for violence against fellow citizens.  If you notice, I never said that Republicans' efforts to convict Bill Clinton were part of this trend.


Walter Ramsey

[cmg]

@CMG: When Jefferson asked the emissary of the Barbary pirates in London in 1786 why their ships were looting American ships and killing American sailors
"[and to] make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

    It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3]
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

What did this have to do with oil? Imperialism? What was it? 

You simply do not comprehend the nature of the enemy.

Well, I could say the same of you, as well, regarding "not comprehending" the nature of the "enemy."  Iranians are PERSIANS, and are Muslim to the extent that they were conquered by Arab tribesmen in the seventh century who FORCED Islam on them.  They are not Arab Muslims. Furthermore, those Arabs that conquered them were Sunni and the Persians Iranians turned to the Shiite sect to vex their conquerors.  They are an urbane and highly cultivated people who detest fundamentalism as much as I do.  

You make the mistake of judging Iran on the last 30 years of history -- since that Islamic revolution that occurred to oust the shah who was placed in power by a US-British coup, thereby subverting their previously established democracy.

And for what?  Oil.

You don't know "the enemy" as well as you think you do.

[ahinton]

If anyone can forgive me for saying so, this thread has developed into something very specifically Americanocentric whereas, to me at least, the principles enshrined therein do not appear directly to seek such approach and treatment in its anticipated responses.

In seeking to approach the issue from a far more global perspective, I would submit that, notwithstanding my earlier remarks, I do believe that there are ample potential and actual dangers within certain of the extremes of right and left anywhere that they may be encountered, in terms of their respective risks of consequential application of anti-humanity in its various unpalatable and unacceptable forms; this is surely the thing of which to be the most watchful...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Well, I could say the same of you, as well, regarding "not comprehending" the nature of the "enemy."  Iranians are PERSIANS, and are Muslim to the extent that they were conquered by Arab tribesmen in the seventh century who FORCED Islam on them.  They are not Arab Muslims. Furthermore, those Arabs that conquered them were Sunni and the Persians Iranians turned to the Shiite sect to vex their conquerors.  They are an urbane and highly cultivated people who detest fundamentalism as much as I do.  

You make the mistake of judging Iran on the last 30 years of history -- since that Islamic revolution that occurred to oust the shah who was placed in power by a US-British coup, thereby subverting their previously established democracy.

And for what?  Oil.

You don't know "the enemy" as well as you think you do.

All of which said, the fact at least appears to remain that, even in present-day Islamic Iran, the Christian community and even the Jewish community are generally tolerated and not ritually persecuted (provided, of course, that they largely keep themsleves pretty much to themselves and do not seek to rock the boat); the Zoroastrians, though nowadays relatively few in number, are not known to be vilified there either, even though there might be a perception (however misguided) that they may represent, at least in principle, some kind of "threat" to the Islamic order if for no better assumed reason than that their very faith predates both Islam and Christianity by centuries and originated in Iran itself.

Best,

Alistair

[michel dvorsky]

Well, I could say the same of you, as well, regarding "not comprehending" the nature of the "enemy."  Iranians are PERSIANS, and are Muslim to the extent that they were conquered by Arab tribesmen in the seventh century who FORCED Islam on them.  They are not Arab Muslims. Furthermore, those Arabs that conquered them were Sunni and the Persians Iranians turned to the Shiite sect to vex their conquerors.  They are an urbane and highly cultivated people who detest fundamentalism as much as I do.  

You make the mistake of judging Iran on the last 30 years of history -- since that Islamic revolution that occurred to oust the shah who was placed in power by a US-British coup, thereby subverting their previously established democracy.

And for what?  Oil.

You don't know "the enemy" as well as you think you do.

I didn't even mention Iran in this thread. What point of mine are you trying to refute, anyway?

[pies]

a

[ramseytheii]

This thread was intended to be about American politics!  It is American politics, and a certain poisonous trend within them, that gives rise to such violent acts as the recent church shooting.  Police discovered on the killer's shelf several of the so-called conservative books which I have mentioned in these posts, books which regularly suggest that so-called liberals are out to destroy the country, are traitors, and are better off dead.  These words obviously have a powerful effect on people, and those that make millions off writing them, should bear some responsibility for the effect they produce.

Walter Ramsey

[michel dvorsky]

This thread was intended to be about American politics!  It is American politics, and a certain poisonous trend within them, that gives rise to such violent acts as the recent church shooting.  Police discovered on the killer's shelf several of the so-called conservative books which I have mentioned in these posts, books which regularly suggest that so-called liberals are out to destroy the country, are traitors, and are better off dead.  These words obviously have a powerful effect on people, and those that make millions off writing them, should bear some responsibility for the effect they produce.

Walter Ramsey

Exactly; their names will become famous if indeed they are writing hateful tripe.

But people ought to be able to say and write anything they want, don't you agree?

Nobody has the right not to be offended.

[michel dvorsky]

ramseytheii's asking for "the mainstream leftist voice [not some odd protestors]
And I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your Barbary war example.  You're pointing out the crazy religious reasoning behind the Barbary war.  cmg acknowledges that religious extremism is crazy, but he's also saying that when the pro-Western Shah was installed in Iran by the West, fundamentalism amplified, and that this extremism is therefore fueled by more than just religion.

Is the West culpable for the leadership of Iran's belief in the 12th Imam? Apocalyptic world view?

[cmg]

I didn't even mention Iran in this thread. What point of mine are you trying to refute, anyway?

No, you didn't mention Iran, but you mentioned the Koran and the Barbary Pirates and seemed to make the connection that all readers and believers of the Koran will behave the same.  The Iranians are not, on the whole, fundamentalist maniacs like those idiot Pirates you allude to.

Apologies to Walter for going off topic.  I rest my case!

[michel dvorsky]

I understand the differences between Sunnis and Shiites.

Their radical elements both pose very real threats to the west.

I was actually the first to point out that most Iranians are not fundamentalist, apocalyptic Shias.

I still don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

[ahinton]

This thread was intended to be about American politics!  It is American politics, and a certain poisonous trend within them, that gives rise to such violent acts as the recent church shooting.  Police discovered on the killer's shelf several of the so-called conservative books which I have mentioned in these posts, books which regularly suggest that so-called liberals are out to destroy the country, are traitors, and are better off dead.  These words obviously have a powerful effect on people, and those that make millions off writing them, should bear some responsibility for the effect they produce.

It began by drawing attention to a tragic event that took place in America, to be sure - and you did indeed seek to draw from it references to politics in that country - but was your avowed intent to confine both your own remarks and your anticipated responses from others to matters specifically American and, if so, did you, in so doing, seek to illustrate that America accordingly harbours a phenomenon that is arguably unique to it and may therefore have little or no reflective relevance elsewhere, even in the face of the commission of similar tragic acts in other places?

Best,

Alistair

[cmg]

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your Barbary war example.  You're pointing out the crazy religious reasoning behind the Barbary war.  cmg acknowledges that religious extremism is crazy, but he's also saying that when the pro-Western Shah was installed in Iran by the West, fundamentalism amplified, and that this extremism is therefore fueled by more than just religion.

michel dvorsky, pies has summed up my rebuttal perfectly.  (thanks, pies.) 

[thalberg]

This thread was intended to be about American politics!  It is American politics, and a certain poisonous trend within them, that gives rise to such violent acts as the recent church shooting.  Police discovered on the killer's shelf several of the so-called conservative books which I have mentioned in these posts, books which regularly suggest that so-called liberals are out to destroy the country, are traitors, and are better off dead.  These words obviously have a powerful effect on people, and those that make millions off writing them, should bear some responsibility for the effect they produce.

Walter Ramsey

There are a lot of very nice Ann Coulter interviews on youtube.  Here is a British interview with Coulter: 

&feature=related

British people are so polite--they let her respond and finish her sentences, whereas American newscasters constantly interrupt her and they talk over each other.  I love British manners.

[ramseytheii]

Exactly; their names will become famous if indeed they are writing hateful tripe.

But people ought to be able to say and write anything they want, don't you agree?

Nobody has the right not to be offended.

I agree.  I also think that people have a right to live, even if others disagree with their politics!

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

There are a lot of very nice Ann Coulter interviews on youtube.  British newscasters were asking her why she uses such an inflammatory approach rather than a more reasoned approach, and she answers that it is essentially to sell books.

It would be nice to hear from her, considering that she was the originator of the quote, "Liberals should be beaten with baseball bats," what she thinks about the killings in a liberal Unitarian church.  Does it agree with what she believes?  Was she saying inciteful things, only to sell books, without fear for the consequences?  Were the deaths of two people who have philosophies different from hers, worth the millions she earned from her violent language?  I would very much like to know, what she thinks about these questions.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

It began by drawing attention to a tragic event that took place in America, to be sure - and you did indeed seek to draw from it references to politics in that country - but was your avowed intent to confine both your own remarks and your anticipated responses from others to matters specifically American and, if so, did you, in so doing, seek to illustrate that America accordingly harbours a phenomenon that is arguably unique to it and may therefore have little or no reflective relevance elsewhere, even in the face of the commission of similar tragic acts in other places?

Best,

Alistair

Any discussion of so-called "left' and "right" politics will immediately spiral out of control, unless some limitations are placed on it.  I hoped to find a sympathetic ear in those who are interested in the particular tragedy of contemporary American politics, which we see played out in real-time on our breaking news screens.  If it inspires others to inspect their own homelands politics, so be it, but as soon as the words "Stalin" and "Mao" popped up I knew it was out of the league of this discussion.  I want to address the unique things that make the American right the right, and the left the left.

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

There are a lot of very nice Ann Coulter interviews on youtube.  Here is a British interview with Coulter: 

&feature=related

British people are so polite--they let her respond and finish her sentences, whereas American newscasters constantly interrupt her and they talk over each other.  I love British manners.

You should try listening to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, its presenter John Humphrys in particular(!)...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Any discussion of so-called "left' and "right" politics will immediately spiral out of control, unless some limitations are placed on it.

It can do that but doesn't need to and, for what it may or may not be worth, I do not believe that my remarks have contributed to its doing any such thing here.

I hoped to find a sympathetic ear in those who are interested in the particular tragedy of contemporary American politics, which we see played out in real-time on our breaking news screens.

And I think that you have succeeded.

If it inspires others to inspect their own homelands politics, so be it, but as soon as the words "Stalin" and "Mao" popped up I knew it was out of the league of this discussion.  I want to address the unique things that make the American right the right, and the left the left.

Other than to the extent that those references obviously relate to matters outside of specifically American politics, I do not see why you should regard them in this way; my point was that there are incipient dangers in the extreme left and well as the extreme right in politics and that the common factor between them is the tendency to dispense inhumane treatment to the citizens of certain countries that are subject to it. I accept your point about wanting to restrict your discussion to "the unique things that make the American right the right, and the left the left", as you put it, but in so doing you should perhaps bear in mind that you are thereby restricting your discussion to right and left within just the one régime - a régime which happens to be ostensibly democratic and not run by extreme left-wing politicians - and that this very fact of itself "places limitations" on such discussion in the sense that the effects of the behaviour of extremist politicians of both right and left can only properly be addressed in a more global context rather than the specifically American one that you place upon it. In so saying, I'm not seeking to amend your topic but to put what you raised in it into a more appropriate perspective.

Best,

Alistair

[enderw20]

This thread was intended to be about American politics!  It is American politics, and a certain poisonous trend within them, that gives rise to such violent acts as the recent church shooting.  Police discovered on the killer's shelf several of the so-called conservative books which I have mentioned in these posts, books which regularly suggest that so-called liberals are out to destroy the country, are traitors, and are better off dead.  These words obviously have a powerful effect on people, and those that make millions off writing them, should bear some responsibility for the effect they produce.

Walter Ramsey

As a Sr. member who has read these types of posts before you should know that any topic with the word America in the title, if allowed to go on long enough, will eventually end up in an argument as to why/how America is responsible for every problem that is occuring in the world today vs. those who are defending it.  It would be nice if you could select an aspect of the country such as polictics and discuss it objectively, but someone always turns it into an attack.

[sharon_f]

The oil companies are an easy scapegoat.  Demand for oil is increasing faster than supply. That's why the price is going up.   The solution is to increase supply and invest in other kinds of energy.  Ironically, it is environmentalists who are outraged about offshore drilling and oil exploration within the United States. You can't really have it both ways.

Please, don't be an apologist for the oil companies. The law of supply and demand the the oil exec always talk about is not an immutable law of nature, like the law of physics. It simply defines the relationship between a buyer and a seller in a marketplace.  The simple fact of the matter is, just because sellers of an in-demand product can charge a higher price, it doesn't mean they have to. They could just trim their profits.

Four-fifths of the oil thought to lie offshore in Alaska and Gulf of Mexico are already available for development, along with two-thirds of the oil reserves on federal lands, according to the Interior Department's Mineral Management Service. Of the 90 million acres of public lands currently under lease to oil companies, about three-quarters or 68 million acres are not being used to produce energy.

[michel dvorsky]

Please, don't be an apologist for the oil companies. The law of supply and demand the the oil exec always talk about is not an immutable law of nature, like the law of physics. It simply defines the relationship between a buyer and a seller in a marketplace.  The simple fact of the matter is, just because sellers of an in-demand product can charge a higher price, it doesn't mean they have to. They could just trim their profits.

Four-fifths of the oil thought to lie offshore in Alaska and Gulf of Mexico are already available for development, along with two-thirds of the oil reserves on federal lands, according to the Interior Department's Mineral Management Service. Of the 90 million acres of public lands currently under lease to oil companies, about three-quarters or 68 million acres are not being used to produce energy.

Oil is an expensive business to be in.  Companies face huge fixed costs.  To maintain an oil company you have to spend billions on infrastructure and hope that the predicted value of the energy on the land you buy is at least as good as your best estimates.  In short, there are not a lot of suppliers and the market works a bit like an oligopoly (few suppliers).  You're damn right they can charge a bit more than the competitive level for their product (i.e., zero economic profits). However, as far as I know, the oil market is competitive and is not a cartel (outside OPEC anyway).  So this mean collusion to restrict supply and raise prices is out of the question.

About your second point:

If an oil company is leasing land, it is not a guarantee that it will be profitable to begin extracting whatever amount of oil is on it. 

That's why it is in our interests to open up the best land with the most and best oil to those who value it the most, and let 'em start pumping.

[sharon_f]

You're right, oil is an expensive business to be in and an extremely lucrative one. The oil companies are posting record profits while at the same time begging for more opportunities to make more profits. So let them drill where ever they want, in 10 years we might, emphasis on might, see a decrease in gas prices by maybe 25 cents. I guarantee you one thing you won't see,  declining profits for big oil.

I am amazed that more Americans aren't angry and outraged by the economic injustice in this country.

[michel dvorsky]

Yeah, people in China, India, and elsewhere are demanding more oil.

What an injustice.

[sharon_f]

No, people aren't demanding more oil. Markets are.

[michel dvorsky]

Uhh...And who are markets comprised of?

[general disarray]

Uhh...And who are markets comprised of?

"Markets" are those commercially-organized entities that prevent development of other energy sources through their lobbyists, which in turn buy off legislators with bribes to serve their interests.  Such as the oil companies?  Ever hear of them? 

[michel dvorsky]

"Markets" are those commercially-organized entities that prevent development of other energy sources through their lobbyists, which in turn buy off legislators with bribes to serve their interests.  Such as the oil companies?  Ever hear of them? 

Who are "their lobbyists"? Whose lobbyists?

[general disarray]

Who are "their lobbyists"? Whose lobbyists?

Are you JOKING?  Mobil, Exxon, BP, etc.  Lobbyists (paid representatives of corporations who are hired to BRIBE congressmen to make sure the will of their companies is done by Congress.)  It's the way government works. 

What?

You actually think that your legislative representatives give a crap about what YOU want?  You with NO MONEY?  They support only those who pay for their re-election to office.  And that's "big business."  That's the job of politicians:  not to represent YOU; but to get re-elected.  And you thought you lived in a "democracy?"  Wake up.

You MUST be a Republican.  No one else in America is this naive. 

[wishful thinker]

Please, children 

You know that there is a whole world out there that is not the United States.  Those "other" people both use and produce oil.  Its a global market.  It is simply not possible for a Texan oil farmer to rig the global price.  The price that you pay for oil in the USA is set by the same mechanism that we pay in the UK, or someone pays in China.

But, in the United States you pay much less in tax for your petrol than we do:  in now cost over £1.20 per litre (that's more than us$10 per gallon) to fill up the car in England (and that's got nothing to do with any bribes that may or may not be being paid to US Senators).

So stop whingeing 

[general disarray]

Please, children 

You know that there is a whole world out there that is not the United States.  Those "other" people both use and produce oil.  Its a global market.  It is simply not possible for a Texan oil farmer to rig the global price.  The price that you pay for oil in the USA is set by the same mechanism that we pay in the UK, or someone pays in China.

But, in the United States you pay much less in tax for your petrol than we do:  in now cost over £1.20 per litre (that's more than us$10 per gallon) to fill up the car in England (and that's got nothing to do with any bribes that may or may not be being paid to US Senators).

So stop whingeing 

Just teasing "michel dvorsky."  He's a good sport.  He can give back as good as he gets, wishful. 

[mephisto]

You really don't seem to understand Islamic extremism. Were the Danish embassies torched because the jihadists are tired of their wretched thievery and imperialism.  Grow up.  They hate the West for what it is; not what it does.  Religious extremists do not operate using Cartesian logic. l.

You don't seam to understand islamic extremism. First of all there is nothing that is called 'jihadists' the correct therm is mujahideen (there is of course no correct way to spell this word with Latin letters) . You are just as bad as those leftists who call every person on the right a fascist.

There are HUGE differences between different islamic movements. Al Qaida may hate the west for a lot of stupid reasons. And their actions are completely insane. A group like Hezbollah is COMPLETELY different: they have a defined goal and their human rights record is generally really high ( I know that you are laughing when you are reading this, but that is because you haven't really studied Hezbollah in a serious way ).

Hezbollah aren't imposing their culture on other people in the way many other so-called Islamic extremists are doing.( 60 % of the christians in Lebanon support them!).

Recommended reading about Hezbollah: Defending the Holy Land by the Israeli historian  Zeev Maoz (chapter about the 1982-2000 Lebanon war).

This post does of course not contain many or any proofs but I will be willing to give them to you if you are interested. But the point is that there are many different types of islamic groups, some reasonable and others clearly not.

[mephisto]

 anti-semitism,

That's NOT leftist.