Sorry about the lack of posts. I've been busy doing a corporate video for IBM, which was fun, but in its own way gruelling. 20hour days on location and in the cutting room can drive you bananas. I've needed a rest.
This week saw the re-election of the Bush regime back into the White House, giving us 4 more years of whatever it is that they have been giving us. Surprisingly (unless one is a redneck or a Conservative Weasel), the US decided to vote back in a candidate that has given them such wonderful moments as September 11, War in Afghanistan, Gulf War II: War on Iraq, and ballooning fiscal deficit. These things are not good management by any stretch of the imagination but polling showed these international matters were not what mattered. What mattered were what are allegedly referred to as 'morals issues'; that gay marriages Stem cell research and abortion be stopped.
Well, blow me down with a cyclone, but if as a collective, the US electorate is willing to vote for those issues far more than any other issue and deliver a victory to George W. Bush, then it can be said that they are as a collective, ignorant, myopic and devoid of intelligence. 72% still believe that Iraq had WMDs at the time of the War on Iraq, and 55% believe the Iraqis were behind September 11 attacks; something that is just not true.
Separation of Church and State
For reasons of expediency, in recent years, conservative parties have taken to courting the religious vote. In turn, this has manifested itself in strange ways, such as the appointment of Dr. Peter Hollingworth as Governor general of Australia. While I do not wish to go over his questionable record as a clergyman, it is worth noting that appointing a Bishop as a Governor General no matter how well respected and loved, is crossing the hard-won line between Church and State.
Similarly, the conservative parties have asked churches to arrange for their constituencies to vote as a block. This ridiculous trend has reached such a point that the Amish are now voting. Think about that for a moment. The Amish as a bloc-voted for George W Bush. The Amish, who eschewed politics and technology found themselves registering to vote.
Apparently it's more important for gays to not get married; it's more important not to have abortions, but the violent military actions carried out by the US Government around the world are 'A-okay'.“Pennsylvania and Ohio are just absolute battleground states, and to think that the Amish could weigh in to the tune of thousands of votes that are clearly going to be Republican — that could be very significant for Bush,” said Chet Beiler, a former Amish who has been dropping off voter registration forms at Amish businesses and farms in hopes of signing up as many as 3,000 new voters.
As pacifists, most Amish avoid political activity that they believe would link them even indirectly with government-sponsored violence. But hot-button social issues, coupled with gentle prompting from people like Beiler, are galvanizing some Amish to register to vote.
“We hate that abortion issue,” said Sam Stolztfus, 60, an Amish farmer and gazebo maker in Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County, where an estimated 27,000 Amish live. “We’re totally against it. And as far as gay issues, that’s completely contrary to the
Bible.”The bearded Stolztfus proudly says the Amish are “sort of swept up with Bush fever.”
Ugh. What about all the guff about non-violence? The beards and no moustaches, because moustaches were worn by military folk? What happened to all that 'Witness' stuff where you turn the other cheek?
This is sure to go down in history as one of the Great moments in Amish philosophy. Really, LOL, how stupid are these people? I guess it doesn't matter now. Which is typically in line with the stupidity of the rest of the Churches bloc-voting for Bush.
In Sydney, the church in Blacktown went and printed fake how-to-vote cards of a Lebanese Australian Labor Party candidate, saying he wanted to spread Islam in Australia. Talk about having too much money.
But really, folks, we ought to be very concerned with this trend where the conservatives are going back and mixing God and politics. Kings (for whom Conservatives show much love and affection) fought for this line. Thomas a Beckett died for this. As did Sir Thomas Moore. Countless innocents died in the conflict between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Catholic Church, just to get the Church out of politics in Germany. The line between Church and State is a fruit of all those events in history and is a line that should not be rubbed out just because it gives you another few years in office. But what can you do? The fools for Christ want to be stupid, and want to remain stupid in the face of the world's problems.
What to Do With The Churches
It would never happen because too many people are willing to be stupid, but here's the Frank Zappa Plan:
1. Tax the Churches.
2. Tax the Businesses Owned by The Churches.
If God wants a hand in our politics, he's got to pay the fare for participating.
Hurled Abuse and Insults
Lately, Mr. Conservative Weasel has taken to baiting this writer about political stuff. I cannot say how much dismay it gives me that he keeps baiting me about things I don't really care about. Frankly, it's tedious as his Left-Right politics. The advice of other readers has been, "just ignore it". However, it wouldn't be fair to such a good reader as Mr. Weasel to go unanswered. So here's my answer to all his carping and invective and generally unsound, un-empathic inter-personal behaviour:
Dear Mr. Weasel, nobody but you thinks I or db are Leftists. Nobody thinks you are anywhere near the centre as you so claim.
- Art Neuro
7 comments:
Spacefreak issues
They were saying this
"But really, folks, we ought to be very concerned with this trend where the conservatives are going back and mixing God and politics. Kings (for whom Conservatives show much love and affection) fought for this line. Thomas a Beckett died for this. As did Sir Thomas Moore. Countless innocents died in the conflict between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Catholic Church, just to get the Church out of politics in Germany. The line between Church and State is a fruit of all those events in history and is a line that should not be rubbed out just because it gives you another few years in office. But what can you do? The fools for Christ want to be stupid, and want to remain stupid in the face of the world's problems."
They finish with this
"Hurled Abuse and Insults
Lately, Mr. Conservative Weasel has taken to baiting this writer about political stuff. I cannot say how much dismay it gives me that he keeps baiting me about things I don't really care about. Frankly, it's tedious as his Left-Right politics. The advice of other readers has been, "just ignore it". However, it wouldn't be fair to such a good reader as Mr. Weasel to go unanswered. So here's my answer to all his carping and invective and generally unsound, un-empathic inter-personal behaviour:
Dear Mr. Weasel, nobody but you thinks I or db are Leftists. Nobody thinks you are anywhere near the centre as you so claim."
I could be wrong here :) But I understand that Spacefreaks have just argued that there is a divide that exists. A divide which I call the 'Great Arguement.' Then they accuse me of arguing the same? I'm really not baiting you, Spacefreaks, but I think you should drink less before you write, or smoke less or something. As for Zappa's taxation line, I agree. In Australia we need to tax the churches. That would rid us of those non believers who like tax shelters. I also firmly agree that the church and state should be separated. I am disinterested in gay mariage or abortions, but I would point out that mariage is a religious thing and civil union is a state/non religious issue. Gays can have civil unions, but if they want marriage, well, go to a church. As for abortions, I honestly don't have a clerical view on the issue. The medical procedure is occasionally essential. I think it a conscience issue.
The great joke is that Spacefreaks don't get it. Gays and abortions are not substantive issues, they are wedge issues. Essentially they are so much hot air as in practice, the doctors and lawyers will do as they please. The substantive issues I have outlined before. The war in Iraq is not what Spacefreaks characterise it as. Because they miss the point, and see only the flummery of their friends on their political divide (which they claim not to exist, but would never cross), they lose.
But politics is cyclical, and one day Space freaks will win, and still not know why.
posted by The Weasel | 10:00 PM | 0 comments
Oh, they're 'wedge issues' are they?
And what exactly is that? Issues by which we give wedgies to other people? Or is it like John Howard's 'Core' and 'non-Core' promises.?
Spare me and go play with your friends Adolf, Benito Pinochet Dubya. and Franco.
This is one area where Art I disagree. Far from saying "that cannot go unanswered"; I would dearly love to find in Mr Weasels writings something worthy of response but as this one typifies, there is nothing actually said that rises that far. As I go through it I find mainly a list of personal insults with no argument mounted nor even coherent assertions made.
However, in the spirit of attempting to give our friend due respect (by talking to him?) I will, this once, pass comment on how his general stance looks to me. Feel free to correct my mistakes if you can stay coherent and eschew ad hominem Mr Weasel.
CW sees that he disagrees with a number of things we say, agreed? He is clearly content to wear the label "Conservative" and therefore can be assumed to be comfortable being identified with the political *right* though not (thank God) the extreme right. All agreed so far?
This is where he comes off the rails. If he is *right* & doesn't agree with me he thinks I (+ Art) therefore must be *left*, agreed? This seems a little like a watered down McCarthyism where those who oppose me are all Commies? Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Refreshing as it is to be seen as a Commie rather than a fascist or some other blinkered label, What I have argued on this blog has to do with humanities survival and our future, I hope, in space. It has NOTHING to do with any political left/right divide. It does not appear on that spectrum which is one of the reasons I regard that tired political debate as bankrupt at both ends and the middle. All of them buy into the kind of business as usual that is destroying our world & not even reaching for new ones.
So for what it is worth DDB, don't taunt Arthur with the bankruptcy of the left. HE AGREES AND SO DO I. (is that 'getting *it*' enough for you?) The trouble is that you have taken a centre-right position which you do not, and I suspect cannot defend because it is just as bad as the ones you attack.
So if you must keep your eyes down here in the left/right mud then go ahead but don't expect me to read you. The most respect I can grant you as I search for new ways to save our species and our society is my continued silence as you rave.
-db
Wow! I'm glad that we agree and you didn't get personal.
I mean your assertion that I blather isn't personal. Your assertion that I don't make sence isn't personal. Your claim to be working in the interests of humanity, ergo I am not is not personal. Your assertion that my claim of a right/left divide is unique, not holistic and therefore not applicable to you, isn't personal.
It is just as well that you are beyond description by such a weak and petty device. I once dreamt that I could defy gravity, so I can relate.
You might try to call me to reason with me. I suspect you would only do that on a party line so that you can have others support you when your list of my shortcomings begins to end and you find yourself in need of possibly examining your own statements.
I'm sorry you haven't seen my postings that give an interpretation of current events that go beyond the left's Bush is evil, Howard is stupid, Americans are stupid, Australians are stupid, Latham and Kerry are misunderstood.
The right have consistantly focused on the ''War on Terror"
The right make the claim that terrorists cannot be seen to win anywhere.
The right claim that it is wrong to kill noncombatants.
The leadership of the right is aware of the shortcomings of a war machine, and would like an effective alternative, but don't see one.
The moderate right would like to work bilaterally with left power groups to end systematised terrorism.
The left see the right as being as much a threat to 'left security' (different to personal security) as state sponsored terrorism.
The left are comfortable with a destabilised world if that is what it takes to get power again.
Art pretends to not know what wedge politics are? well Wedge politics refers to an easy demarcation line that separates party ideologies so that voters are asked to make a decision about said policy. The best ones are no brainers. The ALP once had a referendum, about '85, asking if Australians wanted free and fair elections. Australia voted a resounding 'No!'
That was an effective wedge issue because Australians rejected it, which the ALP did not care about, but saw the ALP as trying to be responsible, which it wasn't.
I am sure if you asked Bush what kept him awake at night, gay marriages or 29 murdered Iraqi policeman he would answer correctly.
The attack on Bush, which you endorse, is based on the claim that he is a radical Christian. But no evidence supports that. A false rumour spread recently was that Bush was schitzophrenic and heard voices. Many of my friends endorsed this falsity. The same has been said about Howard.
Years ago you said Howard was wrong to involve himself in Cambodia. You said the same about Timor. You said the same in Afghanistan and about Iraq. Do you really believe that Howard isn't being consistant? If Howard has been consistent, do you really think it wrong to have moved on Timor and Cambodia?
In your world, is it right that Africa be left behind, as Hawke did with Zimbabwe, Gough with Timor and Vietnam and Keating with Somalia and the Balkans? And do you not see it as petty to question my Geography?
Would the world be a better place if Reagan caved into the Soviets, or Bush sr and Helmut Kohl to the East Germans. Or if MMacArthur gave up the Korean penisula, as Truman asked.
The truth is almost everyone wants the world to be a better place. There is vehement disagreemnt as to how that will happen. Those that choose community efforts are left with this right/left divide. The others are mere terrorists. Where do you stand? Your rhetoric places you squarely in a left camp. If you wish to be effective, and your an individual, it is probably best that you don't argue a party line. If you don't know what a party line is because you are ignorant, bbaby, I can't help you.
"Wow! I'm glad that we agree and you didn't get personal."
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
"I mean your assertion that I blather isn't personal. Your assertion that I don't make sence isn't personal. Your claim to be working in the interests of humanity, ergo I am not is not personal. Your assertion that my claim of a right/left divide is unique, not holistic and therefore not applicable to you, isn't personal."
No, they are not personal. They are descriptions of how our opinions differ; not personal. Unlike asseritons that we support Mohammed Mahatir, for instance, which is of course bearing false witness on your part.
Or more to the point, a blatant lie.
But as for this stuff, personal it ain't.
Personl is if we started describing you in ways that would be genuinely below the belt.
"It is just as well that you are beyond description by such a weak and petty device. I once dreamt that I could defy gravity, so I can relate."
What ever rhetorical device this may be, it is best you don't repeat this in public too often as it helps establish the case you are mentally unsound. :)
"You might try to call me to reason with me. I suspect you would only do that on a party line so that you can have others support you when your list of my shortcomings begins to end and you find yourself in need of possibly examining your own statements."
What party line?
The Space freaks Party line? You've got to be kidding me.
"I'm sorry you haven't seen my postings that give an interpretation of current events that go beyond the left's Bush is evil, Howard is stupid, Americans are stupid, Australians are stupid, Latham and Kerry are misunderstood."
If we said, 'Your interpretations are largely delusional and fantasy based. We wish you woud re-direct tyour so-called analysis to the sewers from whence they come. Your mental processes strongly resembles somebody with degenerative brain disease, and
your prose style has all the penache of advanced AIDS...'
...that would be personal.
However, that's not what we wrote.
Hoenstly, we just want you you to stop using us as your straw man.
It's not correct, respectful or even polite; and we dogive you more credit and respect than to do it back to you, so really, it sucks that you keep doing it.
"The right have consistantly focused on the ''War on Terror"
The right make the claim that terrorists cannot be seen to win anywhere.
The right claim that it is wrong to kill noncombatants.
The leadership of the right is aware of the shortcomings of a war machine, and would like an effective alternative, but don't see one.
The moderate right would like to work bilaterally with left power groups to end systematised terrorism."
You know, this IS Blather.
The 'War on Terror' is like a 'War on Hunger' or 'War on Anxiety'. What we have is a War in Afghanistan which needs proper attention and a War on Iraq which we think was ill-advised given the timing.
Clearly 'War On Terror' a crappy rhetorical device that is used to justify military expenditure to bail out Dick Cheney's old mates at Haliburtons.
As for claims that terrorists can't be seen to win, well, db agrees with you. I question the wisdom of it on a historic basis and your knee-jerk response is that I'm a leftist. Well if you can't be bothered to think about the question and just like throwing around slogans and names, you don't deserve the protection of freedom of speech.
"The left see the right as being as much a threat to 'left security' (different to personal security) as state sponsored terrorism."
That may be true in your eyes. To be honest I wouldn't know what the Left make of it other than that the War is fronted by Zealots for American Imperialsm. Do I agree with that view? Somewhat yes, but you don't get a strong commitment out of me for having said that.
All else is inference you're trying to draw from the wrong place.
"The left are comfortable with a destabilised world if that is what it takes to get power again."
No. The Left are uncomfortable with a world made more unstable by hostile posturing by the current incumbents. They werne't at the wheels when Sep 11 went down. You can't blame the Left for having let the world down in its moment of crisis. Sorry.
This is the Conservative's bed of roses; they ought to lie in it happily, which I think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney do; so I can't complain about that.
"Art pretends to not know what wedge politics are? well Wedge politics refers to an easy demarcation line that separates party ideologies so that voters are asked to make a decision about said policy. The best ones are no brainers. The ALP once had a referendum, about '85, asking if Australians wanted free and fair elections. Australia voted a resounding 'No!'
That was an effective wedge issue because Australians rejected it, which the ALP did not care about, but saw the ALP as trying to be responsible, which it wasn't."
You know, my feigned ignorance was rhetorical.
If you don't liike my rhetoric, then sue me. I don't like yours either. Yours is ugly, pernicious, fascist and evil. So why don't you take your rehtiroc and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Or do us a favour and keep posting on your blog, but stop coming here to pollute our fragile little lefty minds with this obnoxious, poisonous, misanthropic garbage that passes for political commentary for you.
"I am sure if you asked Bush what kept him awake at night, gay marriages or 29 murdered Iraqi policeman he would answer correctly."
Well good for him.
Psychokillers and serial Killers sleep well at night too. What does this prove?
"The attack on Bush, which you endorse, is based on the claim that he is a radical Christian. But no evidence supports that. A false rumour spread recently was that Bush was schitzophrenic and heard voices. Many of my friends endorsed this falsity. The same has been said about Howard."
Well, just because you disagree with Bush doesn't make it an attack on Bush. Your blatant attempts to shout down our considered dissent is fascist.
You give lip service to freedoms of speech; you use it as cloak for your character assasinations on your blog, but when we call you on it, you go, 'Oh on, that's an ATTCAK on Bush you Left Wing Bastards!'.
Last I checked, it's a friggin' democracy, much to your chagrin, obviously.
"Years ago you said Howard was wrong to involve himself in Cambodia. You said the same about Timor. You said the same in Afghanistan and about Iraq. Do you really believe that Howard isn't being consistant? If Howard has been consistent, do you really think it wrong to have moved on Timor and Cambodia?"
Who said this?
"In your world, is it right that Africa be left behind, as Hawke did with Zimbabwe, Gough with Timor and Vietnam and Keating with Somalia and the Balkans? And do you not see it as petty to question my Geography?"
Again, who said this?
Who wrote this?
"Would the world be a better place if Reagan caved into the Soviets, or Bush sr and Helmut Kohl to the East Germans. Or if MMacArthur gave up the Korean penisula, as Truman asked."
The world might be a better place if Bush had notleapt into Iraq on flimsy evidence while Afghanistan was unfinished business. The World would have been a better place if they had made a serious attempt to wipe out the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
These are pretty legit objections that aren't necessarily from 'the Left'. Walter Cronkite has voiced this. Richard A. Clarke has voiced this.
"The truth is almost everyone wants the world to be a better place. There is vehement disagreemnt as to how that will happen. Those that choose community efforts are left with this right/left divide. The others are mere terrorists.
Well that's a false dichtomy if I ever saw one.
The Left/Right divide is NOT the thing which stands in the way of terrorists at all. That's eminently bullshit, and you do yourself no favours by being so didactic about something that simply is not true.
"Where do you stand?"
I take this to mean a rhetorical device trying to implicate us as supporters of terrorists.
This is the kind of posturing from you we object to strongly.
We don't support the Left.
We don't support Terrorists.
We don't donate money to them, we don't lend material support, we don't clap hands when they succeed. Is that good enough?
I like them about as much as I like the Red Sox maybe less; and that's coming from a Lifetime Yankee fan.
The thing is, I keep saying this but you keep painting us as Leftists supporting Al Qaeda and Iraqi terrorists.
How thick ARE you, exactly?
"Your rhetoric places you squarely in a left camp."
Only if you stand about 10 metres to the right of Joseph Goebbels, which, clearly you do, next to Adolf and Franco and Benito and Pinochet and all those happy murderous beasts.I mean when have you denounced them? I didn't see it. Clearly you must like the fascists for they certainly aren't commies.
In fact, right now, Mr. Conservaitve Weasel, we urge you to stop supporting Burma's military regime as you clearly do.
Think about Communist China; they don't like Terrorists either. They're cracking down on Tibet and Falun Gong hard. Clearly not all on the Left support terrorism.
In fact Socialist Goevrnements in France and Germany don't support terrorism either.
Now that I think aboutit neither does Blair's Labor England.
Clearly, you are just WRONG.
"If you wish to be effective, and your an individual, it is probably best that you don't argue a party line."
We don't argue a party line. In case you haven't nocited, between you and me, you're the one parroting the extreme right's party line.
We're doing our damnedest to get away from Party lines of the Left and Right and every time you just drag us back into the intellectually bankrupt world of Left/Right politics from the Cold War. Haven't we told you this before? You are predictable as a B-Movie and Shit-boring when you do this. Absolutely Grass-grow-watching-Boring.
The thing is, you get hot under the collar and start calling us names and attributing causes we don't support to us and and you expect us to take you seriously? Get a grip, man.
Read things for what they say they are first. Then, infer whatever you like, but if we haven't implied it, you can't claim the inference you drew is what we are about. It don't work like that.
Be a little more honest about how you read things.
"If you don't know what a party line is because you are ignorant, bbaby, I can't help you."
No if I were ignorant like you clearly are.
But what party line exactly do you think I toe?
- The ALP? Spare me.
- The Democrats? Enough with your insults.
- The Greens? P'uhlease.
- One Nation? You must be kidding.
- The Nationals? Uhh, no.
- The Christian Coalition/Family valuesmob? Fuck no.
- The Liberals? Not like you.
- The Commusist? I don't think so... but do you seriously think I'm a commie?
- The Socialists? I'm busy running from those morons who try to sell you their papers on street corners.
- The US Democrats? Uh, no, it's on record this blog doesn't like John Kerry.
Which Party Line are you talking about?
You OTOH can be pinned to aggressively pimping for John Howard and Conservatives and Bush and God-fearing-nut-bar Christians, as all of this is on record on our blog.
So who's toe-ing the party line?
Clearly we can't help you from yourself either.
Feel free to keep being a miserable world-hating misanthorpe. We're moving on, thank you very much.
Rabid raving as it was I'm sorry to say I endorse 98% of Arts rebutal DDB. You really do sink to ad hominem & outright lies and misrepresentation way too often & I refuse to act as your foil. Therefor do not expect futher responses from me.
You are many things, both good & bad, about which I could "get personal" (but haven't). I beg of you to stop trying to to convince me to add 'stupid' or 'disingenuous' to the list. PLEASE permit me to leave those off as I currently do. At least for the sake of friendship, if not for curtesy or honesty.
-db
Just to clarify that. It is clear that CW is definitely misconstruing what is said, seemingly sytematically, in an apparent attempt to pick a fight (oddly on ground he himself choses which does not interest anyone else in the first place). There is NO doubt about this misconstruction, only the reason for it.
If this is accidental it is, by definition, stupid - which I do not wish to believe. If this is deliberate then this must be considered disingenuous which I hope is not the case. The only remaining possibility is carelessness. Tell us this is the case please?
Post a Comment